Question of the week

Some of the recent sparring has given me an idea. There's just enough diversity here that it might prove interesting. I'm thinking that it might be amusing if I were to pose a question of the week challenging the precepts of a given ideology or position, then only allow those who subscribe to said position to answer it in the comments that day. The following day, I would post a response which everyone could then pile onto as they wished.

A) does this sound amusing?

B) if so, what day of the week should we do it? Not Mondays or Tuesdays, I think, since that's filled up with responses to the column. Weekends tend to be slower, which is both good and bad.

Anyhow, let me know what you all think. We can always try it out and then bag it if it gets too repetitive or acrimonious. And do please note that it is generally considered bad form to call your host a liar, a hellspawn or a Green Bay Packers fan.

Comments ()

The problem of evil

The president of VQPF, the Zinkster his own gay self, wrote: The Bible? The Bible is a beautifully written work of fiction. I always wonder where was this caring, all powerful God or Supreme Being when the Nazis were in power? When slavery was taking place? Where was he? Or she? Or it? On a coffee break.

This is a variant of the oft-asked question of why bad things happen to good people. It is a significant question, and indeed, a major stumbling block to me in the years before I became Christian. Now, before I address this question, it is important to understand a few things. I am not a theologian and I am not particularly well-versed in theology. I postulate that human understanding cannot fully comprehend or explain God, and so my conclusions are, at best, barely educated guesses. I do not know the fullness of the truth and neither does any other human being, past or present, with one notable exception. The fact that [your favorite theologian or philosopher here] once said something proves nothing definitively. In other words, argue with me all you like, but there's no point in getting upset about it - save that for something on which we can have a more substantive debate.

With that out of the way, let me state that I believe the common Christian notion that God is in complete control of the world, that He has a specific plan for our individual lives, that He guides our every step and orchestrates every incident we encounter is one of the most Satanically damaging concepts ever invented by the forces of darkness. I believe that this notion is logically and Biblically flawed, and has an evil effect on both Christians and nonbelievers alike. My reasoning is as follows:

1. Neither omnipotence nor omniscience imply omniderigence, or to put it more casually, uber control freakdom. If you inquire as to why most Christians believe that God is in control, they will state that He is all-powerful and all-knowing and has made the Heavens and the Earth. They sometimes cite the verse relating to knowledge of sparrows. But knowing when a sparrow falls does not imply striking it dead, nor does the possession of power indicate its use. Nor does making something imply active maintenance - does Toyota change your oil?

2. Jesus Christ would not have taught us to pray that God's Will be done here on Earth as it is in Heaven, unless God's Will was not being done here on Earth.

3. There are numerous instances in the Old Testament where Israel and others go against God's Will. Therefore, it is possible for humans to act in opposition to God, without him dictating their actions. Furthermore, the very notion of Lucifer's Fall indicates strongly that God is not in control of all things.

4. Jesus Christ does not argue with Satan when Satan offers him the nations of the world. Instead, he rejects the offer. The clear implication is that the nations of the world were Satan's to give. This is supported by Jesus and Paul's later references to the god of this world being distinct from the God that is the Heavenly Father.

5. Jesus Christ says that Satan has no hold on him, presumably because he has not sinned. Therefore, Satan does have a hold on everyone who has sinned, namely, the rest of us on the planet.

6. Jesus Christ's command to follow his own example of healing the sick and raising the dead indicates that neither sickness or death are God's Will for individual humans or humanity as a whole.

7. For reasons beyond our ken, God requires humans to act as conduits for acting on this planet. This is why Satan hates Christians so passionately, as they represent the beachhead of divine power which will eventually overthrow his rule of this fallen world.

Based on these and other reasons, I have concluded that it is a massive error to blame God for evils such as National Socialism, slavery and the designated hitter. These are human creations, enthusiastically cheered on by the reigning ruler of the planet, who seeks nothing less than the total destruction of mankind. About 18 months ago, I wrote an article entitled Satan, Science and the Supernatural, in which I pointed out that Satan is not only evil, but he is a deceiver. And what deception could be more useful than to lead people into believing that all the evil of the world is caused by the only power that can ameliorate their suffering?

In summary, I believe that these evils exist because the world is ruled by a sadistic supernatural serial killer who is vehemently opposed to God. Only those who turn to Jesus Christ have the ability to stand against this terrible usurper and his minions, which is why despite all of the many shortcomings of the Christian church, some of the greatest evils of the world have been brought to an end - temporarily, I suspect - by Christians, including the two examples that you cited.

This is why prayer matters, why faith is so massively important, and why Jesus Christ said his sacrifice would set us free. My understanding is without question incomplete, but I believe that it is more in accordance with both the world and the Word than the shallow, ominously-smiling Sunday School teaching that God wants little Bobby to go through chemo, little Susy to be born addicted to heroin and little Schmuly to die in a gas chamber because it's good for them. Where was God? My guess - and that's all it is - is that He was watching with tears in His eyes and waiting for someone to stand in the gap between Divine Heaven and Fallen Earth to be a conduit for His power to end the evil.

Notes - I know that the atheist Soviet Union helped defeat the National Socialists. I am also aware that slavery continues, and that it is permitted in the Bible. However, divorce was also permitted, even though Jesus said that God hates it. Which again suggests that God is not omniderigent.

Comments ()

It is still good to hate the French

French cinema chains are refusing to distribute or screen Mel Gibson's controversial film "The Passion of the Christ" because of fears it will spark a new outbreak of anti-Semitism. France is the only European country where there is still no distribution deal for the film.

Fears of a new outbreak, right. I can just imagine the discussion:

Jean-Claude: "Mon ami, vee cannot show zis film. The Jews, they are zee villains. The New York Times, it said zee movie is anti-semitic!"

Pierre: "Who is zis Mel Gibson? It is the right of zee French people to hate zee Jews in zee proper French way! No American will tell us why vee should hate zee Jews and zeir shitty little country!

It's worth remembering that while the Italians did their best to obstruct the occupying Germans and prevent them from rounding up Jews during World War II - so that more than 80 percent of Italy's Jews survived - unoccupied Vichy France rounded up 70,000 Jews starting in July, 1942 and sent them to the concentration camps on their own initiative. France was not the worst collaborator with the Endlosung, but their record is such that I strongly suspect French opposition to showing The Passion of the Christ stems more from the French people's anti-clerical and anti-Christian tendencies than any tender concerns for Jewish sensibilities.

I don't actually hate the French - it's an expression. My college roommate before moving in with WB and BC was French and my girlfriend at the time was a Parisian. I do, however, hate Rousseauism and the Revolution!

Comments ()

Attack at all costs

Richard Corliss writes in TIME: Rooney had a question of his own for Gibson: “How many million dollars does it look as if you're going to make off the crucifixion of Christ?” As Bart Simpson would say, that’s funny for so many reasons. Only a few weeks ago, movie insiders were confidently predicting that Gibson, whose “Passion” was rejected by every major studio, would lose his hairshirt over this movie—the $30 million of his own money it took to produce, plus another bundle for prints and advertising. Now that the film has registered the highest opening-day midweek gross of any non-sequel in North American box office history, Gibson’s supposed to be a panderer, pimping Christ’s suffering to audiences who didn’t realize they needed to see their personal Redeemer get scourged for the longer part of two hours.

Not only is this an interesting article defending Mel Gibson and The Passion of the Christ from an unlikely source, but it also has a great line: "a liberal is someone who will defend to the death your right to agree with him."

Comments ()

Lavender is a color of the Left

A Harris Poll released Feb. 18 paints a picture of a homosexual community that is small, largely wealthy and highly political. According to the poll of 748 homosexuals, 87 percent are registered voters and 76 percent are "absolutely certain" to vote in November. However, few were inclined to support Mr. Bush. Only 7 percent described themselves as "conservative," while 53 percent said they were "liberal" and 40 percent "moderate." Only 11 percent were registered Republicans, while 62 percent said they are Democrats. Twenty-seven percent said they are independent.

I'm not surprised, but I find it interesting that homosexuals would prove to be almost as attracted to the Left as college professors and newspaper editors. It reminds me of that White Town song, where the one line "So much for all your highbrow Marxist ways" painted such a vivid image of some intellectually pretentious but poorly read homosexuals of my acquaintance that it made me laugh the first time I heard it.

The irony is that the powerful government machinery required by Leftist philosophy usually gets turned against homosexuals when the Left actually takes complete control. Centralized societies run by faceless bureaucrats tend to be unexpectedly puritanical. Not that homosexuals are alone in their misguided hopes, as strong government cultural conservatives have fallen into the same trap of believing that if only they can get at the wheel for a moment, all their problems will be solved. But there is no problem so severe that government intervention cannot make it worse.

Note - Yes, I know that Jyoti of White Town isn't actually gay.

Comments ()

Mailvox: How to buy gold

Andy asks: I was wanting to ask you about your suggestion to buy silver and gold. How do you tell legitimate gold/silver investments from fake ones? I looked around this afternoon and found several places to buy gold from, and found that there are several gold and precious metal index funds. But what is the best or "real" way to go about buying gold?

The best way is to buy coins from official mints. Krugerrands, American Eagles, Chinese Pandas and Canadian Maple Leafs are all popular. You pay a small premium over the spot price - the daily gold price - but that's neither here nor there since you'll get it back when you sell it. You can find coin dealers listed in your local Yellow Pages. Another less handy option is to open an account in an international bank that will allow you to trade gold freely like a stock. You can do this in Swiss banks, for example, but you have to go to Switzerland to even learn about your account options since US law forbids American citizens to receive any information from them, even upon request. Canadian banks may be an easier option for most, as I believe some of them have metal-trading accounts as well.

Any gold stock that is a part of the HUI is a legitimate investment. Just go to Yahoo! Finance and lookup ^HUI. That will give you the basket of 13 or so stocks, and you can also purchase the HUI directly as it is an ETF - exchange traded fund. Since gold is fast-approaching its 200-DMA, we are getting close to what appears to be another reasonable buy point, the Elliott Wave pessimists notwithstanding. I'm a little more skeptical on silver, since it is still at a relative high after a staggering three-month run.

Another nice option, depending on the exchange rates, is purchasing foreign gold stocks. I picked up some ASX stocks a while back and the combination of the stock move and the dollar decline worked out very nicely indeed. But Jamie R can tell you more about that than I can, as he's our resident ASX guy.

Any dealer who advertises on Kitco is likely legitimate. The one thing to be aware of is that the expansion of federal banking laws to include real estate agents and coin dealers may require them to file transaction reports with the federal government now. If this is the case, and you don't wish to advertise your physical holdings, you may prefer to deal with private parties.

Comments ()

Suing Pfizer

Clinical tests of the anti-impotency drug Viagra have failed to prove it helps women achieve sexual arousal. Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer said it was "disappointed" the eight-year-long study showed Viagra is not useful in treating female sexual disorders. It said it will not be seeking approval from drug regulators in the US to make the drug available to women.

Since men and women are, as we all know, equal in all ways and all things, this would appear to be a massive class action suit in waiting. The Patriarchy obviously fears the female climax!

Comments ()

Mailvox: Keeping track

A few of you have asked about where you can find out how The Passion of the Christ is doing at the box office. The answer is mind-bogglingly well. $64 million in three days, with a per-screen average almost seven times that of this week's second most succesful movie. To put that $64 million in perspective, The Return of the King has done less than six times the business, $362 million, in 73 days.

Not bad for two movies in which Hollywood had little interest. I imagine the Narnia movies will be the next big "surprise".

Comments ()

Of course the cops don't do this

The Washington Times reports: Until last week, Mr. [Pat] Conroy was an assistant principal and the dean of students at Michigan's South Haven High School. On the same day that he permanently left his office, he was called into another one — the courtroom of the district courthouse — where he pled not guilty to a charge of marijuana possession. Mr. Conroy claimed that he had a perfectly reasonable reason for having the substance on his person. He had tried to use it to get a student expelled. Specifically, Mr. Conroy said that he had planted the marijuana in the locker of a student he strongly suspected of being a drug dealer, hoping that a police dog would sniff out the drugs during a search of the school. However, the stuffy-nosed hound failed to find the materials.

Meanwhile, police had a nose for Mr. Conroy. When officers raided his office earlier this month, they found ten plastic bags of marijuana and several assorted pills. If convicted, Mr. Conroy will be faced with a $2,000 fine and a year of detention.

The War on Drugs is not the greatest federal abomination, but barring the full flowering of the Patriot Act, it is certainly one of the federal government's favorite means of systematically depriving American citizens of their birthright. If a school officer is capable of behaving in this manner, can there be any doubt that there are police officers who do the same?

Comments ()

No fear

Ezra comments: I fear this movie will simply give a huge amount of guilt to those unbelievers who watch it, feeling this remorse for "doing that terrible thing to Christ" and cause them to therefore think they can and should take some sort of action to make reparations to God. That would miss the point entirely that Christ died (and RESURRECTED) because the hope of reparations is futile!

No guilt, no repentance. No repentance, no salvation. There is a specific action that an unbeliever needs to take. I have no idea if anyone will be led to do so after seeing the movie, but of one thing I am absolutely sure. God speaks to the heart in a myriad of ways.

I attended a Billy Graham crusade once out of curiousity after I had already become a Christian. His speaking was uninspired, his message was an uninteresting take on the one that I had heard many, many times before. I thought, well, it's too bad that he's gotten so old and has lost his fastball - in a mostly full football stadium, I would have been surprised to see more than ten or twenty people go forward. I was quite startled when at least 10,000 people responded to the altar call. Were they all genuine? I have no idea, not being gifted with the ability to read hearts or minds.

But then I remembered a preacher who once said that he is nothing more than a conduit. Tens of thousands of people pray before he preaches anywhere. Hearts and spirits are prepared, and his simple words are simply the catalyst, a match thrown into the waiting gasoline vapors.

Comments ()

And this is a surprise how?

The Washington Times reports: Eighty-one percent of sex crimes committed against children by Roman Catholic priests during the past 52 years were homosexual men preying on boys, according to a comprehensive study released yesterday on the church's sex abuse crisis.

I always enjoyed the official lavender line that homosexual priests raping boys was an indication of pedophilia, not homosexuality. As if the two were mutually exclusive. And, of course, this bizarre distinction would mean that Greek homosexuality - such as it was - wasn't homosexuality either. Not that I expect a great deal of intellectual consistency from the lavender left, but this was particularly egregious.

The number is particularly impressive considering that homosexuals make up a very small percentage of the greater population, and presumably a small minority of the priesthood as well. As much as we appreciate the Queer Party Friends - and we do - they are not a sizeable percentage of this blog's readership. There's no question that the homosexual cult of the beautiful youth causes leads many homosexuals into an inordinate interest in teens and children; it should surprise no one that they are inordinately likely to be abusers of children as well. And if one's entire self-identification is constructed on a violation of a societal more, it is entirely predictable that one will be less inclined to respect other societal mores as well. More creep not inevitable, of course, but it is common. The analogy is not precise, but I expect that most murderers don't get too worked up about breaking the speed limit either.

Matthew Gallagher, executive director for Dignity, a Catholic homosexual caucus, called the findings "discrimination in the name of God." "Bishops are scapegoating gay priests and this is just a way for bishops to deflect tension from their inability to protect children in their care," he said. "Bishops are not using modern thinking when they say a gay man is more prone to having sex than a straight man."

Apparently modern thinking is as deviant as Mr. Gallagher, in this case deviating from what was previously known as basic reading comprehension and math. The bishops are actually saying that a gay man who enters the priesthood is more likely to sexually abuse children than a straight man. Based on the statistics I've read, about 14 times more likely. But if the percentage of gay priests is equal to the percentage of gay men in the broader population, this extensive survey suggests that they are approximately 198 times more likely to abuse children then a straight man.

Comments ()

Propping up the Mark

WND reports: A lawmaker has introduced a bill that would require the government to use controversial satellite-tracking technology to monitor livestock from birth to slaughter. U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., wants the U.S. Department of Agriculture to immediately establish a nationwide livestock identification system. The company she has in mind for the project is Digital Angel Corporation, originally formed to produce implantable tracking systems for humans. "The safety of our food supply is critical to our families," said McCollum, who introduced the legislation Wednesday. "This technology will allow the Department of Agriculture to track an incidence of 'mad cow' or other diseases in livestock like chronic wasting disease discovered in the United States within 48 hours. We are fortunate to have a pioneer in this important technology right in my home town of South Saint Paul, Minnesota."

And, of course, how can the UN force everyone to get digitially implanted if the company that produces the technology goes under? Kind of ironic that it's headquartered right in my hometown - I knew about Digitial Angel and had even read their prospectus, but somehow its location had escaped me.

This is one of the few times that I sincerely hope it's just the usual attempt at a local pork deal.

Comments ()

Clearly I was imagining things

From WND: When Saudi Arabia announced a new policy to allow tourists, it brought attention to the official Supreme Commission for Tourism's website, which explicitly stated Jews were barred from applying for visas. But since WorldNetDaily published a story early this morning about the site's contents, the reference to Jews has been eliminated, and the Saudi Embassy in Washington insists the Islamic kingdom does not bar anyone on the basis of religion or ethnicity.

Nail al-Jubier, chief information officer for the embassy, told WorldNetDaily he was "stunned" when he saw the Saudi tourism Web page listing "Jewish People" among those not permitted to enter the country.

Strange how Mr. al-Jubier seems to have experienced the same hallucination I did. Since the Internet is a static medium, something that is not there at one moment in time could not possibly have been there previously.

Now, it's true that Saudi Arabia is technically at war with Israel, as is most of the Arab world. So, Saudi Arabia is quite justified in forbidding Israelis from entering or trading with the kingdom. Of course, by the same token, they don't have much grounds for complaint should Israel decide to glaze the desert sands either. I don't hate the Saudis, but I will confess to be mystified by a government that simultaneously lacks both nuclear weapons as well as the wisdom to find a way to make peace with an enemy that has them.

Comments ()

Is she the one that looks like Oprah?

John McCaslin reports: All white men look alike, Rep. Corrine Brown, Florida Democrat, said Wednesday at a meeting where she called President Bush's policy toward Haiti "racist." Mrs. Brown's outburst came during a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill between administration officials and members of Congress, the Associated Press reports.

She became angry and began yelling at Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega, the State Department's top official for Latin America. The black congresswoman slammed as "racist" Mr. Bush's approach to the crisis in Haiti — where rebels are on the verge of ousting socialist President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who was installed in 1993 by the Clinton administration. She then denounced the Bush administration for sending "a bunch of white men" as representatives to the meeting — to the shock of Mr. Noriega, a man of Mexican ancestry. "As a Mexican-American, I deeply resent being called a racist and branded a white man," Mr. Noriega responded, sources told AP.

To which Mrs. Brown replied: "You all look alike to me."

I'm not sure which amuses me more, the fact that she actually said it, or the fact that the media and the general public has such a low opinion of Mrs. Brown and her ilk that she'll get away with saying it. Then again, it's entirely possible that she's right - I have no idea what the president's Haiti policy is, much less whether it is racist or not. In fact, I don't even know what a reasonable Haiti policy would be.

Comments ()

Oh, go read a history book

Si blathers: The point is, people who readily believe calumnious stories with no evidence, simply because the stories fit their racial biases, are as racist as the anti-Semites they decry.

First, there was evidence of the media coverage, on WND and elsewhere. That's not definitive proof, but a reasonable point with which to make commentary. If I were to fact-check everything on which I opine, I'd write one column a week, not make numerous daily blog posts. Second, it didn't fit my racial bias - Saudi is not a race - but it certainly did fit what I know of the kingdom based on past information from a friend who has had extensive dealings with it.

Si then reveals his etymological ignorance: Perhaps his own brand of anti-semitism (since Arabs are, after all, Semites). Anti-semitism has nothing to do with the Semitic racial group per se. It is a word concocted by German Jew haters who were looking for a kinder, gentler expression more acceptable to the general German public than the traditional judenhassen.

You don't have to hate Arabs to loathe the despicable governments that have ruled over them since the colonial era. Plenty of Arabs hate them too, especially since most of the modern Arab countries are colonial legacies that have little to no relationship with the tribal boundaries delineated over many centuries.

Comments ()

And it could be seen as a little self-serving

Clay Whittaker writes: Making good christian and conservative movies will do more than constantly railing against the many things we disagree with. Although I don't completely agree with this: I agree we are not doing enough to support our own and possibly a wee bit too much tearing down of that which we disagree, but I believe their is a time and a place for both. In any case, sign me up as a mostly-hearted supporter of the Vox Day Theory.

I guess I'd like to think that whatever theory eventually gets named after me is a little more, shall we say, intellectually sophisticated. And it hardly orginated with me. But I appreciate the kind thought.

Comments ()

Desert Tourism

Here's a non-WorldNetDaily link discussing the No Jews Allowed policy of my previous post. The Saudi explanation of a mistake is not credible, considering what I've heard of their policies requiring companies dealing with them to guarantee that none of their products contain any Israeli parts.

Comments ()

No Jews allowed

Saudi Arabia plans to set up a national council for tourism to promote the country in world markets. But on the Supreme Commission for Tourism's website is a list of those who will not be allowed in the county.

* An Israeli passport holder or a passport that has an Israeli arrival/departure stamp.
* Those who don't abide by the Saudi traditions concerning appearance and behaviors.
* Those under the influence of alcohol ... .
* Jews

Here's a thought. If Mel Gibson was truly a Jew hater - which is the original term for which the German Judenhassener substituted the less obvious term anti-semite - wouldn't he, like the true anti-semites, ban Jews from his film? Also, he sure seems to have chosen a strange profession in which to avoid Jews.

Comments ()

Blue flag rising

Frank Gaffney writes on NRO: John Kerry wants a world in which the United Nations calls the shots and U.S. freedom of action, in the absence of the U.N.'s permission, is sharply circumscribed. Most Americans recognize that this would be a formula for disaster — a world in which the lowest-common-multilateral-denominator would routinely trump, and often jeopardize, our security interests.

President George W. Bush's supporters believe that he rejects this Kerry-Clinton worldview. They look forward to a national election in which voters get to choose between his Reaganesque philosophy of peace through American strength and Kerry's U.N. uber alles. So why would the Bush administration be pushing for the ratification of a treaty that will make a giant leap towards John Kerry's world?

Occam's Razor would suggest that this is because George Delano doesn't actually reject this Kerry-Clinton worldview. You see, George Delano is a politician, and politicians have this habit of saying things that they do not, in fact, mean.

LOST creates the International Seabed Authority (ISA) — a supranational organization with unprecedented powers. These include the power to: regulate seven-tenths of the world's surface area, levy international taxes, impose production quotas (for deep-sea mining, oil production, etc.), govern ocean research and exploration, and create a multinational court to render and enforce its judgments. Some even aspire to giving the U.N. some of our warships so it can have "blue hulls" — to go along with its "blue helmets" — to ensure that the ISA's edicts are obeyed.

If he supports this treaty, the president will make it very clear that he has more interest in UN sovereignty than he does in defending the national interests of the United States. Once the UN tax arrives, global government will soon follow.

Comments ()

Good onya, Mr. Gibson

'Passion' Nails $26,556,573 on First Day. Audiences are rushing to see The Passion of the Christ at a record pace. The media frenzy and the religious fervor have contributed to the third biggest Wednesday bow ever

I rather doubt that independently producing a massively successful film without any help from the industry is going to harm Mel Gibson's career in the least, regardless of what the New York Times might wish.

And it's interesting to note the comments of various Hollywood gentlemen, presumably of Jewish extraction: Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen, the principals of DreamWorks, have privately expressed anger over the film, said an executive close to the two men. The chairmen of two other major studios said they would avoid working with Mr. Gibson because of "The Passion of the Christ" and the star's remarks surrounding its release. Neither of the chairmen would speak for attribution, but as one explained: "It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of. Personally that's all I can do."

I hope we learn who this particular chairman is. Once we find out, I think it will be interesting to see his reaction once Christians demonstrate that they'd prefer to demonstrate solidarity with Mr. Gibson than with this self-righteous, small-minded and officious prig. Sometimes it's not hard to figure out why Jews often appear have so many enemies and so few friends. I have a feeling this man will be eating his words soon enough.

But as Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News points out, its rather strange that while it's not okay to blacklist people working under the direct orders of Josef Stalin for the destruction of the United States, it's perfectly okay to blacklist a Christian who takes his faith so seriously that he spends $25 million to give everyone the chance to witness an interpretation ofJesus Christ's sacrifice.

Comments ()

And it's off

Just fired next week's column off to the editors. I suspect it will provoke a bit of a discussion, although possibly one a little less vehement than last week's. Once again, I'm taking a position that is a priori somewhat contrary to what one might expect based on a cursory reflection, but this time I think I've made a case that is more methodical and logically airtight than last week's admittedly more rhetorical argument.

It's definitely a bit more work, though. Jonah Goldberg of NRO is so correct when he complains that the Internet is vastly overrated as a research tool. You can always learn something about the subject in which you're interested, but the moment that you decide you need a particular piece of data, it begins to assume the prospect of a needle in a haystack, moreover, a needle which quite possibly may not be there. We have a long, long way to go before the Internet fully realizes its promise of becoming an easily accessible instant brain-data multiplier.

In any case, I like having a bit of variety, not only in subject matter, but also in how it's presented. I hope most of you feel the same way too.

Comments ()

They're not all in the middle

Peggy Noonan writes: It has been a big political week for the president, with his burly and more pointedly partisan than usual speech to the Republican governors on Monday, then his marriage announcement Tuesday. When he twitted John Kerry to the governors he signaled whom the White House not only assumes will be the Democratic nominee but prefers as an opponent. Those around the president think Mr. Kerry comes across as cold, aloof and a typical pol--"Al Gore without the charm," as one of them put it this week.

But they are convinced it is going to be a close race. That's not just spin to rev the troops; it's their conviction. They don't see us as a 50-50 country but as a 48-48 country, with the fight over the remaining 4% of the population. It took me aback when I heard this--not that it was surprising, but it reminded me of something Lee Atwater told me 20 years ago. Forty percent of the country will vote Democrat no matter what, he said, and 40% will vote Republican. Every presidential contest is a wrestling match for the 20% in the middle. That was true then, or at least the polls bore it out. Now that 20 has shrunk to four. I'm not sure what that means. No one else is either. But somehow it strikes me as both inevitable and not good.

The mistake that Peggy Noonan and both sets of political operatives are making is the assumption that the middle is where the votes are to be found. Consider that less than 52 percent of the electorate voted. Almost every day, I hear from people who have voted Republican all their lives who are turning to the Libertarian and Constitution parties, or considering simply staying home. Chasing the middle is counterproductive if you lose more from your right flank (or left, in the case of the Democrats) than you gain in the center.

I'm pretty much a lost cause where Republicans are concerned. But there are many who are just beginning to think about leaving the party for the first time. I think this is a positive development for future freedom; I'm merely surprised that it doesn't appear to bother Republican strategists at all.

Comments ()

They have eyes but they do not see

Many of the secular reviewers of The Passion of the Christ seem to be appalled, even stunned, by Mel Gibson's seeming fascination with blood. There is nary a review that does not mention it, not merely in the sense of the extreme violence involved in the whipping, beating and crucifixion, but in the sheer quantities of blood involved.

Do they understand nothing? Of course there must be blood. There must be blood everywhere, oceans of it, enough to cover all the Earth. For this is the Blood of the Lamb, the very blood that washes Man clean!

Comments ()

Mailvox: leave the shadow to its darkness

JR writes: we live in an era of small men and small minds. I see no point in engaging the culture. If any of you could offer me words of encouragment they would be greatly appreciated. My 7 and 4 year old boys are playing under my feet as I write this, the depression I feel about the world I am preparing them for is almost overwhelming at times.

Go see The Passion of the Christ. You are thinking too much on that which required his sacrifice. Remember that you serve him, not the world, and he is mightier than the one that is in the world. Look to the light, never to the shadow. As Nietzsche wisely said, stare too long into the Abyss, and soon, the Abyss stares back.

You are preparing your boys to claim their great birthright as the sons of God, to be men who will stand fearlessly in the gap in the service of the One King. The fallen world will look on them in hate and fear, and tremble when it sees in them the One they serve.

Comments ()

****

Roger Ebert on The Passion of the Christ: Is the film "good" or "great?" I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ. I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what. To discuss individual performances, such as James Caviezel's heroic depiction of the ordeal, is almost beside the point. This isn't a movie about performances, although it has powerful ones, or about technique, although it is awesome, or about cinematography (although Caleb Deschanel paints with an artist's eye), or music (although John Debney supports the content without distracting...).

It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with urgency… Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it.

4 of 4 stars

Comments ()

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem

From Chronicles Magazine: Of necessity, much cultural commentary by conservatives and traditionalists has focused on what is wrong, as the popular culture over the last few decades has continued to expand the frontiers of degeneracy. In order to win the Culture War, however, we have to do more than point out the manifest defects in current movies, music, and fiction. We also must support artists committed to producing art that builds on our Western heritage rather than trashing it. Gibson is attempting to do just that.

That was a much nicer way of stating what I was saying a few days ago. If you're concerned about the culture, stop whining about Dan Brown, Janet Jackson and American Pie 3. Go and buy a Christian fantasy novel, a Christian music CD and see The Passion of the Christ instead. It will have a much bigger impact. Christians have tremendous market power, but it is useless if they continue to wield it in support of Britney, Justin and MTV's stella del giorno.

This post brought to you by Polemics and Evangelical Outpost.

Comments ()

That's a lot of accidents

In a dark corner of Andrews Air Force base on the outskirts of Washington DC, America's war-wounded come home. The human cost of humbling tyrants. No ceremony, no big welcome. More than 11,000 medical evacuees have come through Andrews in the past nine months, the Air Force says. Most, we suspect, from Iraq. But that's 8,000 more than the Pentagon says have been wounded there. Most of those wounded in action come through the vast Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington. The American public is, for the most part, unaware that the true casualty count of the war in Iraq may actually be higher than official figures suggest.

How is it possible for a republican people to make important decisions about the direction of the country when the truth is hidden from them? This is yet another reprehensible decision for which George Delano's administration must answer. This isn't some sneaking form of pro-Democratic attack, it is a simple matter of a demand for the truth. I no longer believe the Republican Party has any more dedication to the truth than the pathologically dishonest Democratic Party, which is why I don't support it regardless of what its supposedly conservative leaders say. This sort of action on the part of the administration does nothing to convince me that I am incorrect in my skeptical assumptions.

Comments ()

Bane and Rat Spleen miss the point(s)

Bane goes off: What unadulterated twaddle. This is a classic example of talking to hear your brains rattle. Maybe Vox was working under a deadline. Folks, there is no peace...peace is merely the intervals between wars. Until Jesus comes, we will be a planet in turmoil, just waiting for the next fire to flare up. This makes Vox's statement all the more painful, he being a self-professed Christian.

And those countries he mentions that we should 'bring our troops home' from? How many of our troops gave their lives so we could take that real estate in the first place? What future peril will fill the vacuum left by our departure, that a new generation of Americans will have to go and fight and die for again?

Bane, take a deep breath, re-read the column and get a grip. It's called rhetoric. The very point of saying that our soldiers cannot win the peace is because there is no peace to be won. Come on, I shouldn't have to spell that out for you. And how many of those troops gave their lives so we could occupy the 144 countries we currently occupy? When did we invade Spain and Iceland? We have never even fought in one-third of those countries in which our troops are stationed, and not one or two, but now three of our rationale for occupying Germany have now expired. Finally, bringing the troops back to the United States does not imply demobilizing them; it would cost us less to have them here on duty in the United States than serving overseas.

Rat Spleen, on the other hand, mistakes historically cognizant strategic consideration coupled with first-hand information with ideologically based fear:Bamf! There goes another Libertarian down the ignorant coward's path regarding Iraq. Not even a week ago I made mention of this and referred to them then as: "Heartless, and brainless in the same breath" I'll thank Vox for his poignant example and leave him to his own devices as he hitches his skirt between his knees and flees faster than a 12 year old in a hookah bar.

I wonder what he makes of the many active duty and retired soldiers who agree with what I'm saying, some of whom are in Iraq right now. Even Col. Hackworth is starting to come around on the realities of the situation. I suspect Rat Spleen [correction, though not Bane, who is an Army vet with Marine sons] has a Hollywood notion of war and a romantic concept of what is possible through military action. He likely has very little idea of what our troops have been actually doing over since the war ended.

Paul, who is stationed in Iraq, says: I have to add that Vox's point #4 seems accurate to me based on what I've seen briefed. . An Alliance officer separately told me that his non-humanitarian missions have revolved solely around watching the foreign jihadists and keeping an eye on them - "we know who they are and where they are" - but they have not been allowed to proactively pursue them once, not even after a big bombing with many fatalities in their immediate area.

Combat troops are designed to break and destroy enemy units. Forcing them to serve as peacemakers and nation builders destroys their combat ability. This is neither new nor controversial. Indeed, it's the reason the Nazis had two different SS - because they did not wish to ruin their best soldiers by turning them into guards and butchers - and why even the most elite guard units from the Roman Praetorians to the Iraqi Republicans have consistently proven that they can't fight worth a damn. If our combat divisions are not going to be heading into Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia soon, they must be brought home to preserve their fighting ability, even if the ill-conceived occupation is to continue.

Comments ()

The invaluable von Mises

From Omnipotent Government: The Rise of Total State and Total War: Until the middle of the nineteenth century no one ventured to dispute the fact that the logical structure of mind is unchangeable and common to all human beings. All human interrelations are based on this assumption of a uniform logical structure. We can speak to each other only because we can appeal to something com­mon to all of us, namely, the logical structure of reason. Some men can think deeper and more refined thoughts than others. There are men who unfortunately cannot grasp a process of inference in long chains of deductive reasoning. But as far as a man is able to think and to follow a process of discursive thought, he always clings to the same ultimate principles of reasoning that are applied by all other men. There are people who cannot count further than three; but their counting, as far as it goes, does not differ from that of Gauss or Laplace. No historian or traveler has ever brought us any knowl­edge of people for whom a and non-a were identical, or who could not grasp the difference between affirmation and negation. Daily, it is true, people violate logical principles in reasoning. But who­ever examines their inferences competently can uncover their errors

.Because everyone takes these facts to be unquestionable, men enter into discussions; they speak to each other; they write letters and books; they try to prove or to disprove. Social and intellectual coöperation between men would be impossible if this were not so. Our minds cannot even consistently imagine a world peopled by men of different logical structures or a logical structure different from our own.

Yet, in the course of the nineteenth century this undeniable fact has been contested. Marx and the Marxians, foremost among them the "proletarian philosopher" Dietzgen, taught that thought is determined by the thinker's class position. What thinking produces is not truth but "ideologies." This word means, in the context of Marxian philosophy, a disguise of the selfish interest of the social class to which the thinking individual is attached. It is therefore useless to discuss anything with people of another social class. Ideologies do not need to be refuted by discursive reasoning; they must be unmasked by denouncing the class position, the social background, of their authors. Thus Marxians do not discuss the merits of physical theories; they merely uncover the "bourgeois" origin of the physicists.

The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not refute by logical methods the theories developed by "bour­geois" economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating the impracticability of socialism. As they could not rationally demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the un­soundness of their adversaries' ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical methods. The success of this Marxian stratagem was unprecedented. It has rendered proof against any reasonable criticism all the absurdities of Marxian would-be economics and would-be sociology. Only by the logical tricks of polylogism could etatism gain a hold on the modern mind. Polylogism is so inherently nonsensical that it cannot be carried consistently to its ultimate log

The entire text is online in HTML and PDF formats. Download, read and grok the brilliant fullness.

Comments ()

Mailvox: It's always Microsoft's fault

Double-M writes: I really enjoy your stuff. I use to identify myself as a Christian Republican, but your articles opened my eyes. After a cataloging of my beliefs, I have changed to identify myself as a Christian Libertarian. I try to read the blog everyday, but whenever I miss a couple of days I can't read your past posts. The blogspot will not show any information in the body that is below the links on the left side of the page. Is it a cause of Internet Explorer?

It sure is. If you insist on sticking with the second-greatest servitor of the digital Devil, switch your text size to smallest and everything will work fine. Alternatively, download Opera or Mozilla - you get pop-up blockers too, which is nice - and experience the problems nevermore. Or, just make a habit of stopping by every day. That's okay too.

Oh, and according to Salon, that would make you a "self-styled Christian Libertarian", by the way. Welcome to the club.

Comments ()

Will wonders never cease

First Pravda, now Salon. The Right Hook prints a fair bit of yesterday's column verbatim: Other conservatives are more troubled by Bush's war policies. Vox Day, a self-described "Christian libertarian" and syndicated columnist, declares on right-wing Web tabloid World Net Daily: "Our matchless soldiers have won the war" in Iraq, but "cannot win the peace." Day makes clear he's a fervent supporter of the military, but argues that the Bush administration's exercise of U.S. military power in Iraq and elsewhere is irresponsible and dangerous:

"The policy of Pax Americana enforced by our troops stationed around the world is not only a failure, it is leading to the corruption of the American military ... "A military machine is a delicate creature, designed to do one thing very well -- destroy the opposition. It is a well-known fact of military history that fighting troops and garrison troops are two very different things, and attempting to turn the former into the latter significantly impedes their ability to perform their primary mission.

"Consider that the U.S. military accomplished its mission in Iraq -- taking Baghdad and destroying the Hussein regime -- with the loss of 106 soldiers in battle and accidents. Since then, the occupation has cost another 437 American lives lost to combat, accidents and suicide. Consider also that the wars for Kuwait and Afghanistan cost 247 and 76 combat deaths, respectively."

But in the Middle East, says Day, the U.S. has in fact failed to complete the mission:

"The beheading of the Hussein regime sent a powerful message to America's enemies. The subsequent elimination of the Saudi and Iranian regimes would have cost fewer American lives and been an even more powerful demonstration of American might, perhaps strong enough to bring a generation of peace. But instead, America has chosen to play Israel's futile game of one step forward, one step back, allowing its enemies to regroup in safe havens, then come back and attack troops who are pinned down like sitting ducks. This is an old game, dating back to the Korean police action, and it has never played out well, demonstrated most clearly by the continuing threat posed by North Korea ...

"Stationing troops in 144 of the 191 U.N. member states around the world has not brought peace. History proves that no utopian vision, however sweeping, will ever bring a permanent peace. Let us then abandon visions of a global Pax Americana, bring our soldiers home, and only send them forth when war is necessary and declared. And when the war is won and the enemy is destroyed, bring the troops home again immediately. They deserve no less."

They got the right-wing part correct, although I'm hardly a conservative. I'm not surprised that the Left would attempt to use me against Bush - their philosophy has always been "by any means necessary". But then, intellectual consistency has never been a part of their game, either. Consider how they're actually turning to states rights as a means of trying to support government redefinition of marriage. I find it interesting that their hunger for power exceeds their desire to support proactive Wilsonian foreign involvement.

Thanks to Evangelical Outpost for bringing this to my attention.

Comments ()

Against the marriage amendment

Pity the poor cultural conservative. George Delano, to his credit despite his obvious discomfort, is being forced to unveil one desperate last attempt to turn back the forces of social dissolution. It won't work, of course, because granting the state the power to approve is granting the state the power to destroy and redefine. It is only a matter of time. Consider that traditional marriage, as a church-granted sacrament, survived without much trouble for almost two thousand years of the Church. And in less than one tenth that time, perhaps one-twentieth - I have not yet determined precisely when the state began to supplant the church by granting state licenses - the institution is in complete disarray and is on the edge of being defined out of existence altogether. Once again, government proves to be sheer poison, destroying everything it touches.

Conservativism through strong government, indeed, through any government, is doomed to failure. This is why de Tocqueville made his comment about America having to be good in order to be great. The quality must come from within the people, not be imposed from without. One cannot make a people moral via government fiat, regardless of how one defines morality. The Soviets have learned this, the Arab countries living under Sharia know this on some level, and America is on the verge of discovering this. Many of the negative moral developments have been brought about with the help of government intervention, not all, to be sure, but turning to one of the instruments of social dissolution in order to prevent it is markedly unlikely to prove successful.

I do not oppose the goals of the Federal Marriage Amendment, I simply regard it as a last-ditch stop gap effort that will probably fail. Exactly how it will fail I do not know, but the chances of its success are low. If social conservatives truly wish to preserve the institution of marriage, they would do far better to remove marriage and all its aspects from the purview of government control.

Comments ()

Go read Mogambo

There's a link on the left. Click on it. Read and learn: Theodore Butler, the silver analyst for Investment Rarities, reports that he may have detected the abandonment of the outrageous volume of short positions in the manipulation of the silver market, which he thinks may mean that the game is drawing to a close. He is livid that the total short position in silver is three times bigger than the known bullion inventories. It does seem really, really weird: it seems that the insane amount of shorts, three times world inventories, would be an irresistible target for short a squeeze play!

He notes that the COMEX "struggled to deliver a stinking 5 million ounces of real silver that the Central Fund of Canada bought some 7 weeks ago." Hew hints that maybe this abandonment of adding more short positions, and liquidating some short positions, may have something to do with the Gold Anti-Trust Action group vowing to pursue the rigged silver market as a way of exposing the rigged gold market, and a lot of pressure being brought on Eliot Spitzer to look into this rigged silver market. The upshot is that, if it plays out as Mr. Butler envisions, silver is set to explode to the upside.

Gee, and here I thought that rocketing up 43 percent in less than two months counted as exploding to the upside already. Yes, Virginia, there is inflation, no matter what the jokers doing their voodoo on the CPI tell you. My health insurance went up. Gasoline prices are up. Gold and silver are up. The CPI is more fictional than anything Tolkien ever wrote.

Comments ()

That's true

Burt Prelusky points out: The fact that we're not a theocracy does not make their case [that America is not a Christian nation], no matter how loudly they may insist on it. When we say that Turkey, for instance, is an Islamic nation and that India is Hindu and that Italy is Catholic, although none of them is a theocratic state, how can we deny that America, whose population is overwhelmingly Christian – and is only 2 percent Jewish – is Christian?!

I think there's room to argue this, in that many people who consider themselves Christian on the basis of the fact that their parents attended a Lutheran church or whatever are actually not Christians by the Biblical definition of a Christian as one who has been baptized and believes with his heart and confesses with his tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord. But Prelusky is correct; many countries that are blithely considered to have a religious affiliation are every bit as secular as the United States. It's a good point, and I'm rather surprised that I never considered this sooner.

Comments ()

So much for state sovereignty

How does this square with the Constitutional fact that all rights and powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved to the states? I don't recall seeing federal approval of state-published web sites being listed among the enumerated federal powers. This isn't a freedom of speech issue, it's much more important and central than that.

Maybe if Minnesota doesn't take down its web site about prescription drugs as per the FDA's demands, the federal government can invade, take it down forcibly, and tell the historians to record that they did it to end drug abuse.

Comments ()

Et tu, Felicus?

The arid feline writes: I've decided it is time to change parties. Yes, that's right! And Vox Day can proudly claim credit for my epiphany. Vox has been advocating principles over practical reality for some time now. He has even taken to referring to the president as George Delano (as in Franklin Delano Roosevelt) over his moderate and statist postions on some issues.

Tha Kat is down with tha Voxsta again! Sounds good so far... whoops, spoke a little too soon.

Never mind the fact that I don't live in a country with proportional representation. Never mind that in this democratic republic, third, fourth or fifth parties stand zip, zero, nada chance of holding any office above that of "dog catcher" (I LIKE that office, by the way). I don't care, because principles are all that matters. In fact I intend to tailor my platform so narrowly that I am the only one that it will appeal to. Yessiree! I intend to stand on PRINCIPLE above all else. I shall proudly bear the title of "Principled Loser".

Well, if you believe that winning is the only thing, that the end justifies the means and that holding power is the ultimate goal, it's hard to argue with that logic. I'm just curious how this distinguishes one from Lombardi, Lenin, Mao, Bismarck and countless others who have preached the same message.

How great is that?! Since there is zero chance of my party ever holding office, I can mount my lofty perch and pontificate on the moral shortcomings of all those who duke it out in the trenches in the real world of politics. I can look down my nose and "TSK!" disapprovingly as cold calculations are made for the benefit of political advantage. Never will I be held accountable for the failures of my party's administration, because my party will never find itself in that position. I'm immune in my lofty Ivory Tower from all accountability.

Looking past the occasional shortcoming and honest difference of opinion are one thing. But to attempt to justify support for a man whose Republicanism is almost entirely devoid of republicanism, who egregiously forswears his oath of office in almost every speech he gives and who governs in a manner nearly indistinguishable from Lyndon Baines Johnson, is a curious form of pragmatism indeed.

Almost every significant social change unrelated to economics and technologyy has begun with the actions of a single principled loser. I'd rather be called a loser than sacrifice my principles - I've seen far more men regret the latter than I've ever seen regret their failure to do so. However, please also note that I have no objection being used as a scratching post upon which the Cat sharpens his claws. If one's beliefs cannot withstand the testing of one's friends, they are not worth holding.

As for the notion that nothing can change in a two-party system, well, tell it to the Whigs.

Comments ()

Mailvox: another fallacy

EB writes: Vox I think you are making the Isolationist mistake. As much as Woodrow Wilson's notions of Global Order were misguided so is the polar opposite idea of total foreign isolation. WWII and the rise of Hitler are perfect examples of how ignoring the problems of the world generally comes back to haunt us. If we leave Iraq and Afghanistan now the worst the islamofacist world has to offer will seize power. Instead of millions of allies we will have created millions of fanatical enemies. On top of that we will be making the same mistake Clinton did in Somolia.

If we were seriously concerned about ending future problems, we'd be invading France, Holland and Denmark. Islamic domination there will cause far more problems than where it has been established for 1300 years. Secondly, to conflate Iraq with Somalia is such an exaggeration as to border on complete intellectual dishonesty. Cutting and running after doing nothing but feeding a few people is hardly the same thing as pulling out after completely decapitating an entire regime after militarily conquering the whole country. Col. Qaddafi did not start quaking in his boots after Somalia, he did after Iraq. The message, such as it is, has been sent. It is the continuing occupation and not what should have been a victorious withdrawal that risks diluting it.

Furthermore, to suggest that Hitler wouldn't have risen to power if the US had been more involved in Germany reveals an almost complete ignorance of the post-WWI situation. The problem in Germany was not a dearth of international involvement; Hitler's rise fed off an understandable hatred of the crushing French-led international economic abuse of Germany that followed the war.

Comments ()

The false analogy

The equation of postwar Iraq with post-WWII Germany is just a terrible analogy.

1. Troops were initially stationed in Germany to provide basic police and border missions and after 1948, to prevent the Soviets from overrunning Western Europe. The force was formed in 1946 and known as the US Constabulary.
2. The foreign jihadists waging war against the Iraqi occupation don't equate very well to the Nazi Kameraden of the Werewolf die-hards. Many of them weren't in Iraq before or during the war and never had any loyalty to the now-deposed Baathist regime.
3. Iraq is only part of the Arab-Islamic world that opposes the US. It's as if we conquered Bavaria and tried to declare game over in WWII by occupying it, except that this would be an exaggeration. Iraq, unlike Bavaria, was not the richest, most powerful or most influential part of the Arab-Islamic world, nor the territory from which violent Islamic expansion began.
4. Our troops are not, for the most part, actively involved in hunting down and eliminating the opposition in Iraq. Try talking to the actual soldiers instead of basing your opinons on what you think the troops there are doing. They spend far more time watching, tracking and defending and providing Constabulary-type services.

Comments ()

Mailvox: where and how did you get that?

RK writes: Now you're indulging in the utopian fantasy of peace . . . never in the known history of civilization has there been global "peace," and it isn't going to start now. The problem with bringing all the troops home now, or at any other time, is that there is no other country or coalition of countries independent of the US both able and willing to step up and enforce a "mitigation of violence." To imagine that we can "win the peace" in some kind of more or less stable and permanent way is utopian indeed, and I see no evidence that anyone in the Bush administration thinks so. Indeed, the President has warned repeatedly that the war against Islamic fundamentalism will be a long one, that may last decades or generations.

All I said was that soldiers couldn't win the postwar peace, mostly because a) the "war", such as it is, isn't even close to being over and b) there is no such thing as peace, only brief respites between wars. This email reveals a strange lack of reading comprehension and presumes an assumption that is in direct opposition to my actual postulates. I actually wrote: "Stationing troops in 144 of the 191 U.N. member states around the world has not brought peace. History proves that no utopian vision, however sweeping, will ever bring a permanent peace." Bringing them home won't bring permanent peace either, but it will prevent the corruption of our military into a global police force less effective than the LAPD in South Central.

But if the US withdraws from it, it is a virtual certainty that the Jihadi movement will dominate much of the world, parts of it quickly, parts of it more slowly . . . is that a risk we want to take? There is no cheap, simple, easy, definitive solution to this war with the Jihadis, just as there is no cheap, simple, easy, definitive solution to the never-ending battle between civility and barbarity. War, not peace, is the natural and definitive condition of mankind. Episodes of relative peace are, in the long view of things, the aberrations. In the present conflict, there are two options: (a) the US coalition ultimately restrains, defeats, or diminishes the Jihaid movement to the point that it is no longer a threat to global or regional stability, or (b) the US abandons the fight, and the Jihadis win.

How can one seriously consider the conquest of a secular state with loose and minor ties to the Jihadi movement a serious restraint on it when the primary advocates, philosophers and funders of the movement are being ignored, even hailed as allies. I submit that the US is still, even now, not engaged in this particular conflict and the nature of the postwar Iraqi occupation demonstrates that those who thought that Iraq and Afghanistan were the first step in it were incorrect to believe so.

Comments ()

Mailvox: 4 not 5

The star was a typo, sorry about that. I haven't had direct access to the administration site since WND was hacked and I didn't even see the article until this morning, so I didn't know there was a problem and even if I had there wasn't anything I could do about it anyhow. I am no relation to Omar Bradley.

Comments ()

Mailvox: Totally missing the point

DC writes: Brilliant Vox…Official voices of Iran, al-Qaeda, the Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah and Saudi Arabia never had any issues with the United States of America before the EVIL Bush Administration came along, right??? Nice try, get real!!! If we bring our boys home…the war will be in your f’n front yard.

Did you miss the little bit about the war being declared on the United States since the 1970s? And perhaps it escapes you that the Bush administration is quite noticeably not fighting Iran, the PA, Hezbollah or Saudi Arabia? In fact, until very recently, the federal government was sending tens of millions of dollars to the PA.

The Bush administration is engaged the equivalent of invading and occupying Bavaria while leaving the rest of Nazi Germany alone. This leaves two choices. Either declare and fight the entire war properly or get out. There is no sign whatsoever that the administration or the nation are prepared to discuss, much less seriously consider the former, therefore the latter is the only logical solution.

Comments ()

Mailvox: he wants to jump

MDM writes: I just returned from Army Airborne School, where I had the pleasure of making some new friends in the Army and Marine Corps. One of the most talked about topics on discussion was, "people who support the troops and still say bring them home." This is a contradictory statement if we have ever heard one. It's like saying to journalists, "we support journalism just don't finish your articles." If you think that reads like nonsense, try asking some troops for yourself. After all, it's my fellow troops asses that are on the line, shouldn't the decision be left to us, if it is left up to anyone? By the way, I love your column so don't think I am an ass. No 40K players are all that bad, now are they?

You can certainly disagree with me on a single issue without fear of being called an ass, MDM. But if you think there's a contradiction there, what do you make of those troops who agree with me? And as much as I admire the US military and the fundamental good judgment of the American soldier, I don't think military dictatorship is the answer to our political problems. That is essentially what you're talking about here, although not in so many words. I would say that a better analogy would be: "we support journalism, please write about national sovereignty instead of the best way to rebuild the Iraqi economy."

And I play Fantasy Battles, by the way.

Comments ()

Mailvox: accusations of an intellectual coward

JL writes: You're sounding an awful lot like John F'n Kerry these days. There is nowhere to hide anymore. If we do not bring the fight to the enemy they will surely bring the fight to us. HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN (9-11)? And they will not just want to take out three-thousand Americans next time. They will try for tens of thousands! We are still at WAR!

Are we at WAR? Then why have we not bothered to declare it? Is the Constitution of the United States of America nothing more than a dead letter? I haven't forgotten that Saudi Arabian-financed Saudi Arabians attacked us on 9-11. Apparently JL and the Bush administration have. And how do troops stationed in Iceland, Spain and Belgium protect us from further Saudi-funded attacks?

Please. Don't even think about trying to conflate my intellectual positions with those of the Democratic Party. The very notion is absurd on its face.

Comments ()

Mailvox: Where are our enemies

An MP stationed in Germany writes: Great article! Unfortunately, my belief is that the military, in the words of theJBS, has been hijacked by the politicians at its very own. so long as the head is evil, the body will sin...no matter how many good folks there are in the body. No more brass willing to say "no...that's unconstitutional. we cannot deploy for that reason." it all boils down tothis, "my people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge". ...and it's only getting worse. lastly, you did name the real enemies of america. it's a shame that our worse enemies always come from within.

As with Rome, America's only serious enemies will always come from within. Only Carthage was ever capable of seriously challenging Roman hegemony; Mithradates, for all of his pretensions, never offered a serious threat. In the same way, only international Communism led by the Soviet Union and now, in its mutated neo-capitalist form, led by the People's Republic of China, can even think of posing an external challenge to the United States.

But societal collapse through decadence and the expansion of central power is not only probable, elements of it are quite visible today. The sad and ironic thing is that some of it will come through those hoping and honestly trying to stave off collapse.

A retired major adds: Thanks for a great piece! This piece is the best critique of our futile effort at forming an "empire."

Comments ()

The courage to not know

A common theme throughout history has been the embarrassment of those in authority who claim a static grasp of the truth. The medieval Catholic church is perhaps the most famous victim of this phenomenon, but modern scientists - particularly archeologists - are regularly putting their collective feet in their mouth and have done so for over a century. And who can forget Bill Gates' notion that 640k of Random Access Memory is all that anyone could possibly need!

The beauty of Christianity, in my opinion, is that it is almost perfectly open to the concept of a constantly fluctuating knowledge base. As layers of the onion are unwrapped, what is known to be true is learned not to be true, and the subsequent assumptions are often doomed to be overturned as well. The constants of Christianity, in truth, are very few; the fact that they are impossible to human understanding should not trouble the imaginative mind at all. Both Paul and Jesus told us we would not - could not - understand. The human mind is too small.

It is the possibilities of Christianity that I find most exciting. If this is a test, designed to separate the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the goats, then there is surely a purpose behind it. And if the simulation, the shadow, are this wonderfully vivid, one cannot even begin to imagine what may only be the next step in the most fascinating adventure of all.

lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt

Comments ()

The writer's friend

I've been meaning to talk up my little toy for a while, but I just hadn't gotten around to it. This is as good a time as any, I suppose, since I found it very useful on a recent six-hour trip. Imagine being able to carry a 200-volume library around with you at all times, instantly accessible and with a backlight so you can read in the dark. War and Peace, the Brothers Karamazov and the complete Aristotle ouvre balanced by the entire 20-book Aubrey-Maturin series, the eight Flinx novels and everything Douglas Adams ever wrote.

Now, add to that a nice keyboard with full-size keys, enough data storage to satisfy Stephen King's annual output - and did I mention instant-on capacity? Not to mention the ability to easily sync Microsoft Word documents. And a battery life that doesn't quite live up to its 30-hour billing, but far exceeds a laptop plus a pair of spare batteries. Yeah, I thought I just saw you lick your lips.

Oh, she's not perfect. The screen scratches a bit too easily - in a year I've put one chip and one minute scratch in it - and there's no way to shield it properly. The backlight drains her fast, and she hums annoyingly in the process. The Microsoft Word sync won't sync with the permanent SmartDrive storage, adding what should be an unnecessary pair of steps to the backup process.

But it is indeed a handy little thing. I managed to not only read a quality Dan Simmons short story but an entire mind-candy sci-fi novel in addition to knocking out a thousand words on my next novel, bringing me to within shouting distance of the end. A good thing, too, since I'm supposed to turn it in at the end of March. Every writer really should take a good, hard look at the Alphasmart Dana.

Comments ()

Now, isn't that interesting....

Maimonides writes: "Jesus of Nazareth... impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him."

Clearly he's anti-semitic! Someone call Abie Foxman and the ADL! Harvey Weinstein, get on the phone and start threatening publishers! Wait, he's a 12th century Jewish sage? And then there's this little passage from the Talmud, which apparently isn't so concerned with precision that it can't be judiciously edited when something becomes socially problematic. Now, there's an idea! Wouldn't life be a lot simpler now if we just got rid of those bits about God calling homosexuality an abomination in the Bible?

"On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth," said the passage, which was censored in the 16th century to evade the wrath of Christians. "The herald went out before him for 40 days saying, 'Jesus goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced magic, enticed and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him.' And they found nothing in his favor."

I've heard that Jews are supposed to be somewhat more prone to being self-hating than the norm, but this is ridiculous. Either Mel Gibson and his movie are not anti-semitic, or the great Jewish philosophers and the Talmud itself are. I suppose we should blame those doggone anti-semitic Southern Baptists for pointing out these interesting little dichotomies.

Comments ()

Nader's in

This makes George Delano's win a little more secure. Nader will make up for all the third party Libertarian and Constitution votes that Bush will lose in the coming election. Freedom lovers, feel free to vote your principles!

Unless, of course, you're seriously content with behaving in a less principled manner than the most left-wing Green lunatic.

Comments ()

Vox Live

Doug Kenline suggests Channel Storm, which does look like an interesting solution. Of course, I'm not a Mac guy, so unless someone feels like contributing a G4-powered Macintosh out of what Space Bunny would probably be the first to tell you - no, actually White Buffalo would - would have to be a seriously inordinate interest in whatever I have to say, I can't see it happening terribly soon now.

The MP3 radio concept is possibly more workable. Using a texting system to substitute for call-ins might be workable and have the additional advantage of preventing the likelihood of things devolving into shouting matches - just a thought - although I don't know why anyone would want to have listened to my voice the last twelve days anyhow. In a textual world, no one has to know exactly how badly your mucus membranes are draining.

Anyhow, I'll start looking into it. If anyone has any thoughts - and remember, I prefer Linux solutions - shoot them this way. The problem is that I'm not particularly interested in playing producer, and without much effort in that area, whatever is done is likely to basically suck. I mean, why do you think I'm using Blogger and Haloscan in the first place? Because they require zero effort on my part, allowing me to concentrate on the part I enjoy.

Comments ()

When an Army of One isn't enough

I can't vouch for the veracity of this, but I will say that a society that consists of citizens who won't bother to freely defend it is not worth defending. And a war that citizens will not freely fight is not a war worth waging. I have also heard that some states have begun adding an agreement to submit to the draft in order to get your drivers license, but I have not had the chance to verify that yet either.

I don't think a draft is necessary in order to continue the occupations, as we could simply pull enough troops out of Europe rotation to cover Iraq and Afghanistan. I suspect that it would indicate that some additional fireworks may be in store in the relatively near future.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early asJune 15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see the SSS website to view the SSS Annual Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004. The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on terrorism] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

UPDATE - the driver's license thing is genuine, as it is a stated strategy of the SSS. However, I'm not sure if all that much has actually changed, as perusing the document shows that a high percentage of registrants have been collected for the past few years. Of course, that doesn't mean that a draft isn't imminent, though it could signify nothing more than that the Federal government is continuing to keep closer and closer tabs on everyone. Big Brother, coming to a high school near you!

Comments ()

Dilettantes need not apply

Gypsy writes: Didn't like your column prior 9/11 (wasn't into comps then) but found you extraordinary since. Your true vocation is commentary, not computers! Anyway, just wondering when you'll get your own radio show. You're more intelligent than Savage, Scot (Mark Scot, you may have never heard of him) or Rush. I truly believe you are an untapped talent, regardless of you being sanguine or not.

I very much appreciate the compliments which many of you have paid me in this regard, and I certainly am glad that the collective you also consider my writings to be worthy of reading, but I think it's important to remember that talent in one medium does not necessarily translate into talent in another. While I have no doubt that I could easily dissect Bill O'Reilly, or, with more difficulty, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, in a debate on most subjects, I don't believe that I have the necessary ambition required to become a broadcast media star. One thing that radio and television personalities on both sides of the spectrum demonstrate rather vividly is a combination of towering ego and an almost desperate need for the approval of others. While I am rather prone to arrogance, I simply don't believe that anyone's views, much less mine, are required for the world to continue turning and I have very little need for external approval. Also, what little taste I have had of the limelight has been arguably more distasteful than enjoyable to me.

If writing did not come easily to me, and if I was not aware that there are few people adequately expounding some of the views that I regularly put forth, I don't know if I would still be writing this column much less maintaining the blog. Fortunately, both require very little effort on my part. Except for in the case of a few damaged psyches, ego boost is also subject to diminishing returns. Most importantly, success in a field as lucrative and psychotically competitive as broadcast radio and television requires a level of interest several orders of magnitude higher than I presently possess.

Gypsy alludes to my technological interests - it is actually rather stronger than you might imagine. I have been at ground zero for three technological shifts, each of which created significant markets in the past ten years, and only my youth, inexperience and lack of follow-through prevented me from exploiting the opportunities presented more thoroughly than I did. Six years ago I identified a fourth shift which I am now developing, and to be honest, the process is far more challenging and of far more interest to me than doing the Tastes Great - Less Filling thing on the airwaves. In the long run, I suspect it will pay better too.

Things are still in the feasibility stage at this point, otherwise I'd be quite happy to talk your ears off about it. Once everything has proved itself to my satisfaction - perhaps more importantly, to Big Chilly's - and there's something worth talking about, I'll be happy to satisfy the curiosity of anyone who happens to be interested. As I said, I conceived the notion a while ago, but computers weren't fast enough and I hadn't figured out one vital link in the natural evolution of the market. What I can say is that if this works as I envision it, you'll know about it because you will almost surely be using it within ten years.

Getting back to the media, the one new medium that intrigues me a little right now is Internet broadcasting. The notion of broadcast without a corporate filter or a need to pander to the lowest common denominator in order to survive is an interesting one. An executive of a large company interested in video blogging has talked to me about my willingness to participate in some new ground being broken there; if anything happens to come of it I'll be sure to keep you posted.

Comments ()

The courage of Gavin Gay

Gavin Newsom, the lavenderphilic San Francisco mayor, is putting his conservative and Christian counterparts across the country to shame. If he's willing to stand up for what he believes is right, how can men like George Bush not do the same in being willing to exert the powers of their office to the utmost in order to end evils like abortion and the income tax charade?

No wonder our country is in such decline, when it is only those who believe in evil who show the courage of their convictions. Sure, there's probably a cynical element - after only a few months in office, Gavin Gay now has national stature and the assurance of love from the national media, a brilliant political move - but that doesn't take away from the fact that the man is making a concrete gesture that is having a genuine impact on the national debate.

Comments ()

Success and Passion

From the New York Post: Industry insiders said they were stunned by the rapidly increasing advance sales for the film, which opens next week on Ash Wednesday. "It is the number two selling film in our company's history [in terms of advance sales], right behind 'Lord of the Rings' [The Return of the King] and momentum is actually growing," said Art Levitt, CEO of Fandango Inc., which sells tickets over the phone and on the Internet. "It's a phenomenon. None of us expected it."

I used to wonder why the success of things like Left Behind and Passion were so startling to industry insiders. Then, after I became a Christian and was writing a novel for a major New York publisher, I found out. They had to go outside the company just to find a religious Jew to edit the book - to their credit, they wanted someone who believed in something to oversee the project - and, of course, they didn't actually know any Christians inside or outside the company. Apparently, anecdotal experience trumps demographics. I have no doubt the same thing is true for Hollywood.

Comments ()

Jonah's not cool but I am

Jonah Goldberg defends himself: But I point out Katz's comments for another reason. He glibly asserts that my motives on this [gay marriage] and, presumably, other issues is to appear "cool" in the eyes of others, particularly Andrew Sullivan. I hear this every now and then, particularly from self-proclaimed conservative purists and I think this is nonsense and I generally take offense to it.... I'm not above attacking peoples' motives -- if there is evidence about what their motives are, otherwise, it smacks of Stalinist politics. But this criticism of me is generally asserted without fact or foundation. It assumes I argue in bad faith and with a really silly motive to boot. I mean if I were trying to seem "cool" by altering my views I'd certainly come out against the drug war, which is certainly the "cool" position on campuses and elsewhere. And if I really wanted to ingratiate myself with Andrew I would not only be in favor of gay marriage but -- even better -- I'd stop being chatty with the Derb and start denouncing him as a walking, talking crime against humanity.

I tend to buy Jonah's argument. Seriously, he makes no attempt to ingratiate himself with me, and I am far, far cooler than Andrew Sullivan could ever hope to be. Seriously, you could keep a side of beef in me for at least a month, I am cool like that. Sure, Andrew Sullivan has that whole, I'm not gay, I'm English thing - on second thought, strike that - but I don't think there's too much doubt that I am the BMF of the op/ed community. I could TAKE Eric Alterman and I am looking forward to the day that I will MAKE Al Franken my B I T oh say can you see H.

It's rather like being the toughest kid in the chess club, sure, but there you go.

UPDATE: Space Bunny would like to point out that I am only cool by association with her. I'd like to argue that, but she makes a pretty compelling case.

Comments ()

Mailvox: what's it worth to you?

AOC writes: I used to work the night shift in a large (80 bed)Neonatal ICU in California. Many of the women I worked with struggled hard to become pregnant (most were on fertility drugs). When they did become pregnant and have their babies, they would return to work 6 or 8 weeks later, crying because they had to leave their infants.The saddest thing was that most of these women didn't really have to work at all. They were simply working to keep up a standard of living (BMWs and Mercedes,sub-Zero refrigerators, boats etc).

Yeah, I've never understood the notion of going overboard and abandoning your family in order to have two BMWs in the garage instead of two Subarus or whatever. As with everything, there is a law of diminishing returns to material things as well. I'd enjoy being wealthier, to be sure, and there's a pretty good chance that one day I will be, especially if I can properly execute on my technological vision this time. Money is a necessity, unfortunately, but there is very little that is more precious than time.

Comments ()

Mailvox: Praise for the wishy-washy

MR writes: Just occurred to me that while so many neo-cons and war-supporters( cough-cough, Bill O'Reilly, cough-cough) are eating crow pie and suddenly sound like most libertarians have sounded for so long, you've managed to keep humming the same tune without missing a beat. Bravo/mad props/whatever for doing what many twice your age and experience in the public domain have failed to do: spin your line on the war without coming out looking like either a quixotic hawk or dove. Keep up the good work, and get a damn radio or television show, already.

Actually, I wasn't crazy about my line on the war from the very beginning, but I couldn't see any real alternatives to it either. We had to respond to the attacks that have been happening since Lebanon, but George Delano's refusal to operate by the Constitution precluded my ability to fully support the war, even before it was clear that he was engaging in a Texas version of the Israeli two-step on a grand scale. At the same time, I am pro-military and I did not wish that message to be lost amidst my opposition to extraconstitutional military actions.

It's true that Germany wasn't tamed in a day, but of course, postwar Germany wasn't surrounded by Nazi states either. I don't think the occupation is looking very positive at this point. What is the end game, anyhow? Outlast a culture that hasn't changed all that much since the 7th century? Monday's column addresses some of my feelings on the issue. Radio? Maybe someday. TV, probably not, at least not until the Internet allows for producing one outside the media centers. As I've said before, I'm not sanguine about the medium.

Comments ()

Self-destructive Jews, at it again

Rabbi Daniel Lapin writes: From audiences around America, I am encountering bitterness at Jewish organizations insisting that belief in the New Testament is de facto evidence of anti-Semitism. Christians heard Jewish leaders denouncing Gibson for making a movie that follows Gospel accounts of the Crucifixion long before any of them had even seen the movie. Furthermore, Christians are hurt that Jewish groups are presuming to teach them what Christian Scripture "really means." Listen to a rabbi whom I debated on the Fox television show hosted by Bill O'Reilly last September. This is what he said, "We have a responsibility as Jews, as thinking Jews, as people of theology, to respond to our Christian brothers and to engage them, be it Protestants, be it Catholics, and say, look, this is not your history, this is not your theology, this does not represent what you believe in."

The amazing ability of the Jewish people to survive the hatred of a fallen world can only be approached by their self-selected spokesmen's continuing affinity for self-destructive idiocy. Just as the Polish Jewish leadership's notion of cooperating peacefully with the National Socialists didn't work out particularly well, the idea that lecturing Christians on their theology is going to reduce anti-semitism (or as it is more properly called, Jew-hating), is doomed to failure. If believing in the truth of the Gospel makes me an anti-semite, despite my vocal support for Israel and the Jewish people, then I'll wear the label proudly. As I've written before, do the Jews have so few enemies in the world that they need to go out of their way to create new ones?

Rabbi Lapin continues: Many individual Jews have shared with me their embarrassment that groups, ostensibly representing them, attack Passion but are silent about depraved entertainment that encourages killing cops and brutalizing women. Citing artistic freedom, Jewish groups helped protect sacrilegious exhibits such as the anti-Christian feces extravaganza presented by the Brooklyn Museum four years ago. One can hardly blame Christians for assuming that Jews feel artistic freedom is important only when exercised by those hostile toward Christianity.

Yeah, this hardly escaped me either. I don't recall Martin Scorsese being quizzed on his father's beliefs, or Spike Lee, or any of the producers of teen slasher flicks. And Hollywood's refusal to distribute what promises to be an extraordinarily successful movie does raise some nasty questions about the Jewish domination of the industry as well. Still, I don't believe that Foxman and the ADL truly speak for American Jewry anymore than Al Sharpton speaks for American blacks, nor do I think this unseemly and self-defeating campaign against Mel Gibson and his movie will have any serious effect on how evangelical Christians feel about Jews and Israel. If God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who curse it, then that's all that matters and who cares what a few short-sighted individuals are blathering on about anyway.

In any event, here's hoping that America's Jews will be wise enough to heed Rabbi Lapin, not Foxman and his ilk.

NOTE - I am quite aware of the historical sufferings of Jews at the hands of medieval Christians. But to hold Christians today responsible for the evil actions of their misguided ancestors is to subscribe to a notion of collective responsibility which justifies not only those past persecutions of Jews, but new ones today.

Comments ()

The more they hold us down....

My stage is shared by many millions
Who lift their hands up high because they feel this.
We are one, we are strong,
The more they hold us down, the more we press on.
- What If, Creed

If the pagan might of Imperial Rome at its most psychotic couldn't kill the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I wonder what makes modern secularists think they'll be any more successful? Even the developing ban in the name of tolerance will only strengthen the message.

Comments ()

Giving liberals their due

For all my disdain for what passes for liberal thought - even the name is a misnomer - I will freely grant liberals that conservatives, too, have their logical inconsistencies. Which, in part, is why I parted intellectual company with them and the Republican Party some time ago, despite all my instinctive sympathies for both.

Fred Reed puts my base objection to both American ideologies very well: Peer behind the shabby curtain of pretended principle, and you see that the government is not an impartial entity serving the public, but a means of imposing on the majority the will of any who can get their hands on the miraculous levers of the courts.

Indeed, he anticipates the arguments that Bush defenders have made here on this blog, those who justify their support for a President who has betrayed their principles because of the possibility of his future Supreme Court nominations. But I have little sympathy for any ideology that attempts to use government in furtherance of its causes, no matter how noble such causes might be. Jesus disdained such methods, and we would do well to imitate him in this, as in all things.

Even in the rare instances that a true philosopher-king takes the throne, a Marcus Aurelius is always followed by Commodus. The power to build is the power to destroy, and the only long-term solution is to prevent such power from being amassed in the first place.

Comments ()

Pragmatic suicide

The Washington Times reports: Religious conservatives helped Ronald Reagan win the presidency in the 1980s and helped Republicans retake the House and Senate in 1994, but complain that they have little to show for their loyalty to the GOP. "I'm not blaming the president, but religious conservatives have been doing politics for 25 years and, on every front, are worse off on things they care about," said Gary Bauer, president of American Values. "The gay rights movement is more powerful, the culture is more decadent, the life of not one baby has been saved, porn is in the living room, and you can't watch the Super Bowl without your hand on the off switch."

With more than eight months remaining until Election Day, American Family Association founder Don Wildmon said the president "has already upset the economic conservatives, and I know the problem he is having with evangelicals. ... There is a major problem there."

So, let's see. Economic conservatives are thinking about staying home. Religious conservatives are thinking about staying home. Freedom lovers and those who respect the Constitution are thinking about voting third-party for the first time. Houston, you may want to rethink this pragmatic Big Tent strategy.

Comments ()

Don't cry for me, Consuela

The Evangelical Outpost points to an interesting article in The Atlantic, entitled How Serfdom Saved the Women's Movement. It was interesting to me primarily as a voyeuristic experience in wading through the morass of what passes for feminist thinking, which, like the entire history of American liberalism, could be entitled Getting Bit in the Butt by the Law of Unintended Consquences.

Pity the poor upper-middle class working mommy, who is outraged that she can't Have It All. She can't figure this out, apparently, until she hits 30 and has already spawned, while even the most benighted boy is capable of figuring out that he is not going to be an NFL quarterback and an NBA point guard by the time he is 12, and those few who might actually have the talent to do both - New York Knicks fans, please note I said might - are generally quite willing to choose between the two without railing against the cosmic unfairness of it all.

The irony is that these overeducated self-indulged women actually want three things, because it's quite possible for a high-powered career woman to marry, have children, and then park them at home with Daddy all day. There's plenty of men who'd be delighted to sign off on such a deal. Stay home, play with the kids, do a little laundry while watching ESPN - it's all good! The problem is that this idyllic arrangement totally precludes her marrying the even higher-powered Alpha male that sets her greedy little heart atwitter.

Freud once asked the famous question, what does woman want. The correct answer in this case clearly is: woman has no clue. Read the article, it's astounding. If she stays home, she wants a career. If she has a career, she wants to stay home. In either case, and with every permutation in between, she's unhappy. This is grass-is-greener syndrome on steroids.

The notion of playing the hand that's been dealt has obviously never entered these pathetic little minds; even the notion of having to play the cards that they've personally selected is, somehow, offensive and "oppressive". I'd say that I was unsympathetic to their plight, except that the word is inadequate. What a contemptible lot! The only people I feel sorry for are their children and nannies. I'd feel sorry for their husbands too, except based on this article, those men are clearly smart enough to spend every waking hour at the office or anywhere else that will afford them escape from these obnoxious creatures.

The irony is that it is these very careers which have forced their less fortunate sisters - whose plight some of the authors have attempted to coopt in a vain search for sympathy by proxy - to enter the workforce as well. As I have previously demonstrated, the influx of women into the workforce had two consequences. 1) allowed men over the age of 65 to retire en masse. 2) lowered the average real wage rate. Combined with increased taxation, a working class man can no longer support a family on one salary, thereby depriving working class women of any ability to choose between work and home. No wonder working class women hate the Sisterhood. They may not understand the fullness of who has put them in this difficult situation, but they have an intuitive grasp of the truth.

I once wrote that "being romantically involved with an intelligent, educated, upper-middle-class American woman steeped in 20 years of feminist indoctrination is about as desirable as being flayed alive and rolled in salt." I doubt I have the words to express the torment that must result from marrying one of these creatures, and I am ever so delighted to know that I will never need them.

Comments ()

Pat Buchanan lays waste to the neocons

Patrick J. Buchanan writes: On the dust jacket of his book, Richard Perle appends a Washington Post depiction of himself as the “intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy.” The guru’s reputation, however, does not survive a reading. Indeed, on putting down Perle’s new book the thought recurs: the neoconservative moment may be over. For they are not only losing their hold on power, they are losing their grip on reality.

An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror opens on a note of hysteria. In the War on Terror, writes Perle, “There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust.” “What is new since 9/11 is the chilling realization that the terrorist threat we thought we had contained” now menaces “our survival as a nation.” But how is our survival as a nation menaced when not one American has died in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11? Are we really in imminent peril of a holocaust like that visited upon the Jews of Poland?

“[A] radical strain within Islam,” says Perle, “ ... seeks to overthrow our civilization and remake the nations of the West into Islamic societies, imposing on the whole world its religion and laws.” Well, yes. Militant Islam has preached that since the 7th century. But what are the odds the Boys of Tora Bora are going to “overthrow our civilization” and coerce us all to start praying to Mecca five times a day?

I never bought the notion that neocons were more loyal to Israel than the USA. But in light of some of the hysterical and nonsensical accusations of anti-semitism made against those who criticize them, I start to wonder if perhaps they are not protesting too much. What the hell is that "two democracy" argument anyhow, especially considering that WE'RE NOT A FREAKING DEMOCRACY! I'm all for Israel, but I don't think that it should be a major factor in our foreign policy nor can I imagine why it would be.

There can be little question that neoconservativism is, as Buchanan approvingly quotes, "liberalism with very sharp teeth". The article is long, but it is one that you must read. It actually inspired me to write to Mr. Buchanan and tell him that as he had done everything but sow the neoconservative earth with salt, I imagined Mr. Perle and Mr. Frum now had a very good idea of what Carthage must have felt like once Rome was finished with it.

Comments ()

It's all fiction anyhow

The Washington Post reports: The White House on Thursday struggled anew to contain the fallout over an overly optimistic forecast that 2.6 million jobs will be created this year and some Republicans expressed concern about the damage being done to President Bush. The chairman of Bush's re-election campaign, Marc Racicot, continued a general Bush administration retreat by saying the forecast of 2.6 million jobs was only a "stated goal." "It was a theoretical discussion by an economist," he told NBC's "Today" show. White House spokesman Scott McClellan called it "a snapshot in time by economic forecasters."

Since 112,000 jobs were created in January, to meet the goal would require adding an average of about 335,000 new jobs each month over the course of the year -- well above the 166,000 jobs a month predicted by a recent survey of forecasters by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators newsletter. In fact, the White House had implied that 3.8 million jobs would be created this year by projecting about 3 percent growth in the number of jobs in 2004.

How quickly they retreat. This macro economics merde is why I didn't even bother buying the textbook when I was forced to take the class for my econ major. After one test, the professor asked me if I hadn't read a certain chapter, as my incorrect answer on an otherwise decent test indicated to him that I hadn't read it. He was astounded when I told him I didn't even own the textbook, and furthermore, I had no intention of wasting any precious time or brain space on something that was obviously wrong in the theoretical sense and manifestly inaccurate in application.

Mogambo quotes John Crudele's demonstration of how most of those 112,000 jobs were fictional anyhow: "By now my readers should have a PHD (pretty high disdain) for Capitol Hill math. This one, though, is a cake taker. I'll translate: Included in the 112,000 new jobs in January were 76,000 jobs that supposedly exist because people who weren't hired in December couldn't be fired in January. Got that? They didn't get hired in December, or fired in January, so they showed up as new employees in January as a statistical fluke. So, really there were only an abysmally small 36,000 new jobs in January. "

I guess that means the economy only has to produce 345,455 new jobs per month in order to meet the White House's prediction. Well, if they can find 76,000 jobs that don't exist, I'm sure they can find another few million. The exposure of Saddam Hussein's secret printing operations should blow the entire notion of official government economics statistics away once and for all. It won't, but it should.

Comments ()

Now this makes me shudder

K-Lo of NRO's Corner quotes John Podhoretz and writes: “America has done some extraordinary and wonderful things these past three years” under the leadership of George W. Bush. There are miles to go and there are things that have not gone quite right--or which some of us may disagree with for some very real reasons--but the accomplishments are substantial and critically important.

Now, if that doesn't make you pull the lever for a third party, nothing will. Increasing central government power faster than anyone since FDR, and there's still miles to go? Apparently George Delano isn't the quasi-socialist I believe him to be, it seems he'll settle for nothing less than outright communism.

The thing that bothers me most about George Delano isn't the War on Terror, even though I have massive reservations about it and how he's handled it. I freely admit that there may well be aspects to it that we do not know and may never know - no, I assume there are. But if he's so focused on it, then why does he just hand everything else off to the Democrats? Why not say, look, we're declaring war, we're in a war, and you're either with us or against us. Then abolish half of the Cabinet departments and slash domestic spending in half. Or three-quarters, whatever.

But this war that isn't a war and handing the Democrats their platform on a silver platter... I don't buy it for a second. Perhaps it's George Delano, for all his clumsy diction and seeming average Joe-ness, and not the sophmoric Bill Clinton, who is the unusually good liar.

Comments ()

I kind of like Mel's Dad

A week before Mel Gibson's movie about Jesus Christ hits theaters, his father has gone on an explosive rant against Jews - claiming they fabricated the Holocaust and are conspiring to take over the world. "They're after one world religion and one world government," Hutton Gibson, 85, said in a radio interview that will air Monday night. "That's why they've attacked the Catholic Church so strongly, to ultimately take control over it by their doctrine."

In the bizarre interview, Gibson also said Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan should be lynched and called for the government to be overthrown.

I don't agree with him on the Jews, although I'm just as opposed as he is to everyone who is after global government, be they Jew or Gentile. But Mr. Gibson is certainly sound on Greenspan. Mogambo has already predicted on numerous occasions that future generations will dig up Greenspan's body and hang it due to the massive hardship his abominable stewardship of the Fed will put them through.

I do find it intriguing that a New York paper should get so upset over Mel Gibson's dad denying the Holocaust, considering that the New York Times still won't return the Pulitzer its correspondent won for denying the Soviet forced famines that killed more people than Hitler ever did. The elder Gibson is obviously no military historian, though. The German economy was never on a serious war footing, which was one reason why they had plenty of resources to devote to the Endlosung. Also, from what I've read, the bodies were usually disposed of by burial in mass graves with layers of quicklime spread between them; they usually weren't burned.

Comments ()

Eschatonic implications

Hal Lindsay does not have the world's greatest track record when it comes to predicting future events. However, in his column today on WND, he did point out something important. If our generation sees the building of a new Jewish temple on the Temple Mount, currently the site of an important Islamic mosque, one will have to be either a fool or willfully blind to miss the eschatonic implications.

Indeed, this is the only reason that the continued move towards global governance does not concern me overmuch. It is evil, to be sure, but it is an expected evil, and one which many previous generations of Christians might well have rejoiced to see. I daresay even a cynical non-believer could see profit from knowledge of the apocalyptic prophecies.

When all the world is become one
Then will the time of Man be done.

Comments ()

Adieu, Howard Dean

And so another one bites the dust. I'm a little disappointed to see Howard go, as he would have been the most entertaining Democratic nominee by far, barring the unlikely enshrining of the cartoon that is the Reverend Al Sharpton. He's ending with a whimper, not a howl, another disappointment as I was hoping for at least one last fiery speech punctuated by his now-trademark HYEEEAH! Maybe he'll do us right at the Democratic convention in Boston, although I'm guessing he'll be overshadowed by newlywed drag queens appearing courtesy of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

It makes absolutely no difference to me if John Francois or George Delano wins the Presidency, nor will it make any difference to the ultimate fate of the United States. Clearly we will have to go further along the road to global citizenship before the American people wake up, if they ever do.

Comments ()

Liberal talk radio

The Star Tribune gets optimistic: Another conservative caller asks accusingly, "Do you believe socialism is superior to capitalism?" "No," Schultz says, but he's irritated. "You get so stuck in a rut, hung up in this philosophy," he tells the caller, his throat tightening and making him sound a little like Rush again. "When does dealing with the real problem overrun your fixation with ideology?"

What an intellectual zero. This guy is the ultimate media ho, the only good thing is that his dedication to conservativism was probably no more genuine than his newfound love of leftism. If he had any knowledge whatsoever, he'd know that there is no separation between ideology and real problems. A foolish question like the one above is an evasion, although it's probable that he couldn't define the difference between capitalism and socialism if his radio show depended on it.

Comments ()

Food for thought

US combat losses subsequent to:

Fall of Baghdad - 106
Kuwaiti restoration - 247
Invasion of Afghanistan - 76

US losses in combat, accident and suicide in the Iraqi occupation:
437

So, wouldn't have probably cost fewer American lives to take out the Saudi and Iranian regimes than to leave our troops sitting in Iraq and accepting their attacks by proxy?

Comments ()

Whores at every level

From the Washington Times: Monday's vote by the Virginia House of Delegates to increase taxes by $500 million suggests that state politicians are moving toward some kind of consensus in favor of higher taxes. The legislation, passed by a 59-36 vote, was opposed by just six of the 61 Republicans in the 100-member House. The bill increases taxes by taking away sales-tax exemptions from a variety of industries, including airlines, railroads, telecommunications, utility companies and dry cleaners.... Although we would have preferred to have seen Republicans stand firm against tax increases, the reality is that there is no significant number of tax-increase opponents left in Richmond today. Thus, the main order of business for Republicans should be to try to mitigate the damage from tax increases by negotiating with the governor for some off-setting cuts in spending.

So, if they're for bigger, sorry, STRONGER government and tax increases, what is it that separates Republicans from Democrats again? Note that Republicans have a 61-39 majority in the Virginia House, and that's still not enough to cut government spending. Can you seriously argue that if only they had a 71-29 majority, or an 81-19 majority, Virginia Republicans would then be motivated to embrace the reality of small government for which they supposedly stand?

I think perhaps we need a 12-step program for Republicans. Step one: I admit that politicians do not always mean what they say....

Comments ()

On the arts martial

Tonya writes: now dern it, vox, you're not keeping up with the comments. yesterday in one of the comment threads several people (myself included) were clamoring for your expertise on which types of martial arts to look into. and what do we get? total freakin' silence!

Sorry, I've just been under the weather for about ten days now with a viral bug and the very thought of exercise - which the doctor is forbidding - is tremendously frustrating to me. First, don't worry about the spiritual aspects, since there are almost none in the vast majority of American schools. I recommend very different sorts of schools for those under 13 and those who are older, however

Younger kids will do fine in the traditional belt factory, as all they're learning is the techniques and any decent Tae Kwon Do school will do. Just visit it and be sure that the top instructors actually do the teaching, that the students are respectful and the purple and red belts appear to know their stuff. Children can learn the basics, but even a kid with a black belt is still just a kid with a black belt, not a fighter.

Adults and teenagers need to go to a fighting-oriented school. How do you know you're at one? 1) Everyone, from white to black, is sparring. 2) They are actually making contact to the head. 3) At least one spectator will be there in his robes, watching with a pair of crutches or other visible signs of damage. If the answer to "what night do you spar" is anything but a specific day of the week, it isn't a fight school. We were particularly harsh, as we sparred Wednesdays and often Saturdays as well. Also, don't buy into the rubbish about how they teach control and if you can tap someone you can just as easily hit them hard blah blah blah. It isn't true and I've beaten the smack out of enough touch-fighters to prove it. The knowledge that you won't get hit creates a false situation from the start, and you can't develop the necessary toughness without getting punched in the face a few times.

Also, ask around. Even the belt factories will know which schools are the serious fight schools. I once had a black belt correctly identify my instructor without my telling him after I hit the guy with a single uppercut. As for style, I'd lean more towards aikido or jujitsu and away from the tae kwon do and tang soo do. The latter tend to be very strong on feet and very weak on hands and grappling. The best, if you can find it, is a school that has masters in a variety of styles, which will provide decent knowledge of locks and throws as well as plenty of time throwing hard style punches and kicks.

I wish I knew more locks and throws, as that's the area in which my training was weakest. But the main thing is to find a school that fights. There's no substitute for rounds sparred, and sparred hard. My own training was a blend of Shorin Ryu karate with Wing Chun kung fu, mixed in with Philippino kali. I figure that I probably fought a mimimum of 3,000 two-minute rounds during the time I was actively training.

UPDATE - Shaolin Master Bob points out that belt factories where the belt tests are scheduled are definitely to be avoided. I concur completely. The time it takes to master a skill or a technique is wholly subjective; scheduled tests indicate a total lack of concern for individual development.

Comments ()

Space Bunny lights into modern man

She said, and I think reasonably, that she's sick of men whining about women pushing them around. I totally agree. If a woman tries to shut you down, don't just take it, shut her down instead. If she wants to play a game, don't back down, play it to win. As is the case with most negative social developments, there is far more fear out there than is reasonably justified.

As Wendy Shalitt has pointed out, women can never win in a direct verbal confrontation with a man. The only way that they win is when men wave the white flag and run off the field crying that the girls aren't playing fair. Women don't like men who act like little girls. And no one, of either sex, respects someone who abandons their position at the first sign of opposition.

PS - I also have to mention that the concept of for whom women are dressing was developed by Space Bunny, not me. She'd be the one NOT wearing the cheerleader outfit.

Comments ()

Insulting NFL logos

Okay, these are pretty funny. You'd be able to tell it's a Packer site even if it wasn't in the URL, since so many of the insults are directed at the Mighty Vikings. I'm not sure which I liked better, CHOKE KINGS or DOMEQUEENS. The former is more appropriate, but the latter mocks the one thing I hate about the Vikes, namely, the Hump.

I think the two best logos are the Chicago Bear handicapped helmet and the Pontiac Pussies, although I also liked the old Buccaneer with the mouse ears. The best name has to be the Carolina Prancers.

Seeing all of them spread out across the page reminds me of my favorite old NFL bedsheets. I think I still have the pillowcase around somewhere.

Comments ()

Hey Mikey, he likes it!

Ian McLeod writes about Headcrash: Just finished the book yesterday. My initial reaction (after a long blackout from side-splitting laughter): "Good God, the Original Cyberpunk is a genius!" I immediately ordered copies for my closest friends... After the end of the week, I'll get the review written and posted.

I told you it was good stuff. From the mouths of immortals.... And the Original Cyberpunk has been experimenting with ebook formats:

Later last night I had a great deal of fun playing around with the Palm Reader footnote and sidebar functionality. The infonuggets in Headcrash *very* readily convert to footnotes and pop up just the way I'd always imagined they would. I now believe that, ten years ago and utterly without knowing, I *created* that book to be a Palm file.

If anyone else said that, you'd take it with a grain of salt. But coming from a Dick-winner like the Original Cyberpunk, it's entirely credible.

Comments ()

I don't think she's pretty at all!

Women judge the attractiveness other women more harshly when at their most fertile, suggests a new study. The phenomenon could be a strategy to devalue potential rivals, says the psychologist behind the work - being bitchy about others could help a woman win the attention of a desirable man.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I absolutely hate it when women say nasty things about their imaginary rivals. I don't feel threatened by the fact that George Clooney or Brad Pitt are handsome - I fully expect that if we were pursuing the same girl, I would lose out. So be it. To paraphrase what someone here once commented, there is no one so hated as a pretty girl with a great body wearing a tight dress in a room full of plain Janes. She's just as likely to be nice and intelligent as the most mutant-looking wallflower there, but she'll almost always be dismissed as a walking bag of character flaws before she's even opened her mouth.

And yet, it's we men who are then condemned for being superficial. The reality is that everyone is more or less superficial, and superficiality is really the only place to start. The Internet is the only place where a meeting of the minds can possibly precede the superficialities, and yet I don't see Internet dating being held up as a great advancement for mankind. Usually, it's dismissed as the last resort of losers, from what little I've read about it.

The truth is that women are the dominant sex. Our opinions not only don't drive day-to-day life, they barely factor in. Women don't dress to please men, with the notable (and much-appreciated) exception of the Pam Andersons of the world, they dress to avoid the criticism of each other. Let's face it, if it were up to me, every woman's wardrobe would consist of nothing but slinky black dresses, slinky red dresses, hot pants, bustiers and Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader outfits.

Hey, if we ever do get that one-world government, I think I just discovered my campaign platform for World President.

Comments ()

Classic government at work

This is just insane. The notion that you can't kick someone out of the house you own violates hundreds of years of common law, not to mention the very notion of private property. I disagree with the article's conclusion, though. If someone can't get it together enough to find a place to live, they're hardly going to support an expensive lawsuit because you put all their stuff in the yard and changed the locks. This law would never stand up in court, if anyone bothered to challenge it.

Ridiculous.

Comments ()

Why women shouldn't cover sports

ESPN has a column by some loser chick explaining that Tom Brady is not hot because even though he is really handsome and lots of girls are gaga over him, he is a Republican and doesn't dance well. Umm... okay, LIKE I GIVE A FLYING RAT'S ASS! Save it for Tiger Beat, Fluffy.

What is ironic, of course, is how quickly attractive, liberal, socially conscious but upwardly mobile women become Republicans as soon as they achieve their ultimate goal and marry a man with money. After one taste of a driveway full of Mercedes and cocktail party glitz, they're throwing fundraisers for George Delano.

Comments ()

Somebody needs a spanking

From Sports Illustrated: Allen Iverson didn't take his removal from Philadelphia's starting lineup lightly, and he let everyone know how he felt about 76ers interim coach Chris Ford. "I was angry all day from the shootaround on," Iverson said. "Going in there and having a meeting and being with some guy that I don't really know, telling me that I wasn't going to start and what I have to do for us to be successful ... Iverson, who missed Monday's practice and was held out of the starting lineup by Ford, led the 76ers with 27 points and a season-high 14 assists. He entered the game with 4:39 left in the first quarter and played 36 minutes overall.

"The relationship between us goes out the window," said Iverson, the NBA's leading scorer. "I told him why I couldn't make it, and it wasn't enough." Iverson said his plane was delayed after he played in the All-Star Game in Los Angeles. "I don't have to be his friend, I don't have to speak to him. I can play for him, though. I can play hard for him and I can do exactly what he wants me to do, night in and night out. I definitely will do that. But as far as having a relationship with him outside of basketball, that's done from Day One."

Allen Iverson is proof of where never being disciplined gets you. He's a highly paid grown man, and he's still a petulant little boy. If he had any maturity at all, he'd know that the coach was sending a message to the rest of the players by sitting his star, who had, however inadvertantly, violated the rules. But instead of taking responsibility, Iverson prefers to whine, pout and stomp his feet publicly. He sounds like a two year old shouting "I'm mad at you!" This is one reason why I hate the NBA. In the NFL, this sort of attitude gets beaten out of the players by their second year - unless they're Terrell Owens, of course.

Comments ()

Stepping in

Some friends of ours have children who have never really been disciplined. They always marvel that the one child, who has been notoriously out of control even by modern standards, seems to particularly revere and obey me. I've never told them the reason is that one day, I told him to go upstairs because his mother was calling him. His reaction was to kick me in the groin.

He was very surprised when I picked him up by the throat, pulled him nose to nose and told him that if he ever kicked me again, I was going to kick him right back. I then informed him that he would treat me and all other adults with respect in the future, or we'd have another talk with his feet dangling two feet off the ground and his face turning purple. Then I put him down and told him to go upstairs because his mother was calling him. He ran right upstairs without a word of complaint.

That was many years ago. We've gotten along just fine ever since, and on the very few occasions that I've told him to do anything, he all but salutes. He's not afraid of me, but he doesn't seem terribly keen on testing boundaries around me either. They learn quick, those puppies.

Martial arts is a fantastic way to help even older teenagers understand authority. My younger brother was a hellion and had progressed to committing minor Federal felonies, so I basically ordered him to study martial arts with us for six months. By the end of that time, he'd completely lost his angst-laden teen bravado - I knew he'd be okay when one day he was assigned to spar with me and I noticed he was shaking. When I asked him if he was cold, he said, no, he was scared.

"Why are you scared?"
"Cause you're gonna hit me."
"Yeah, so?"
"And it's gonna hurt!"
"Yeah, so?"

Once I saw that he realized true strength does not involve posing and showing off in front of your friends, but the determination to get up after you get knocked down, I told him he could quit. I don't remember him ever showing up there again, but then, he didn't need it anymore. I also don't think that it hurt him to see that the baddest black Dragon of them all, our sensei, was a cheerful, happy-go-lucky guy who was always smiling, even when he was beating the absolute merde out of you.

I'm a firm believer in the notion that every male needs to get beaten down at some point in his life, generally somewhere around the age of 13-16. Maybe even sooner if you've got a penchant for bullying others. Some of us definitely need it more than others. Actually, I'm starting to think that it would do more than a few females good as well. There's nothing like a good right hook putting you on your back to remind you that you are not, in fact, the center of the universe or the greatest thing since sliced bread. I don't advocate uncontrolled violence, but I've never seen a faster teacher than Mr. Pain.

Like our sensei used to say: "So, you can't remember to keep your hands up? Don't worry, I'll remind you."

Comments ()

The pseudo-mystery of brats

The St. Paul Pioneer Press wonders: You've seen them: Terrorist toddlers screaming at the supermarket. Kamikaze kindergartners with anger issues on the playground. Surly adolescents with no respect for anyone older than 18. And you've wondered: Have kids always been this way and I'm just getting crankier? Or are today's parents spineless saps producing an inordinate number of brats?

This is no mystery. The notion, pushed by one "expert" in the article, that children are over-disciplined today defies belief. There's no question that there's a direct link between the distaste for discipline on the part of parents and the lunatic behavior of their children. And when the state leaps in to ensure that parents are afraid to discipline, the problem gets even worse. There is no problem so dire that the state cannot make it worse.

One idiot couple in Minnesota called child protection services to ask if it was child abuse if their neighbor spanked his own children. Note - they weren't accusing him of child abuse, they just wanted to know. Needless to say, they were both surprised and horrified when, based on this question, the Child Nazis leaped at the opportunity to wreak havoc on a family and had the guy arrested and thrown in jail for two days.

Sure, there are parents who mistreat their children. But when you consider that governments around the world have murdered hundreds of millions of innocent citizens for no reason at all, why would you turn to the state as a solution. In Child Protection, just like everything else in which it intervenes, the state does nothing except make matters worse.

Of course, it won't be long before refusing to have your child vaccinated will be dubbed child abuse. If you can get thrown in jail for being accused of having spanked your child, I'm sure they'll be able to justify jailing someone for failing to have their six-month old inoculated against Hepatitis B.

Comments ()

Vaccines and the WSJ

The Wall Street Journal blathers: Everyone in our business learns to take a punch, but even we've been surprised by the furious response to an editorial we ran a few weeks ago about vaccines. The subject deserves further attention, not least because the goal of our antagonists appears to be to shut down public debate on the matter. For the past few years, a small coterie of parents has taken to loudly claiming that thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines for 60 years, is the cause of autism in their children. Their allegations have scared many parents about immunizations, sent trial lawyers scurrying to sue the few remaining vaccine makers, and inspired an ugly political dispute. Lost in the controversy has been a little thing called science.

What a total crock. Every time I look into the "studies" that have been performed, it's some kind of meta study or soft scientific equivalent. There has never been a single, proper double-blind study with a statistically significant number of test objects receiving live and dummy vaccines of which I am aware. The vaccine proponents claims such a study would be immoral because it would leave half the children unvaccinated - that doesn't sound scientifically objective to me, it sounds like a predetermined bias towards an unknown result. To claim that science is being ignored only by the vaccine opponents is so dishonest it has to be willful.

Furthermore, logic dictates that the government protection offered to vaccine makers, protection unavailable to almost any manufacturer or retailer in America, indicates that the probability of harm is well known. You will never convince a parent of a healthy child who dies or slips into autism only hours after getting a shot that vaccines are wholly safe. Finally, there's one vital piece of evidence that vaccines are bad for you: the government is for them. Enough said.

One respondent to the article replied: The WSJ is correct in saying there is no established proof that thimerosal causes autism. There's also no established proof it doesn't, and the National Institute of Health has called such a link plausible. Hearings last week showed the scientific community divided on the question, and parents' fears have not been calmed by a CDC study that said one thing in draft and another in final release--after the data had been blatantly altered. Sen. Frist's attempt to "modernize" VICP [the government immunity for vaccine makers] by sneaking through liability immunization for his favorite contributors in anonymous "Homeland Security" riders didn't help either.

Comments ()

They got the colors backward

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent American Presidential election:

Population of counties won by: Gore 127 million Bush 143 million
Square miles of land won by: Gore 580,000 Bush 2,427,000
States won by: Gore 19 Bush 29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore 13.2 Bush 2.1

Professor Olson adds, "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's was territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare..."Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and the "complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

I'm not so sure about these statistics, or even the existence of said professor. It sure doesn't sound like a typical Minnesota academic, for one thing. And for another, we appear to have lost two states. But in any event, the more significant question is: were those non-dependent taxpayers suckered? George Delano's performance seems to indicate that he prefers a dependent populace. It doesn't matter how slow you drive if you're heading the wrong way, if you refuse to turn around.

UPDATE - Good to know my instincts were sound. How hard is it to remember 50 states? I didn't even bother posting the first part as the language sounded too modern to be the quote from Tyler. Also, academics don't say "this great country", politicians do. See Snopes for details on the fraud. The larger point may well be true, but it doesn't excuse simply creating fiction to make a point. Not if you're going to pass it off as non-fiction, anyhow.

Comments ()

Cavuto on Atkins

I'm not a big Neal Cavuto fan. He always strikes me as an intellectual lightweight with dual penchants for the obvious and the trite. But bravo to him for hammering the anti-Atkins folk who are still attempting to attack the man and his diet. While it bothers me that Dr. Atkins, for all his success, never bothered to fund even a small study demonstrating what is abundantly clear to anyone whose ever known anyone to go on the diet, it's quite clear that he upset a lot of vested interests and called BS on the government's food pyramid.

Of course, it should have been obvious all along that the food pyramid would be bad for you. The government approved it, after all.

Comments ()

Mailvox: On sovereignty

Webster 1913: \Sov"er*eign*ty\, n.;
The quality or state of being sovereign, or of being a sovereign; the exercise of, or right to exercise, supreme power; dominion; sway; supremacy; independence; also, that which is sovereign; a sovereign state; as, Italy was formerly divided into many sovereignties.

Easton Bible Dictionary: of God, his absolute right to do all things according to his own good pleasure (Dan. 4:25, 35; Rom. 9:15-23; 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 4:11).

Where does a right to do all things according to his own good pleasure imply that all things are actually being done so? Where does the concept that God CAN require that God IS? And how is it mocking the (in my opinion fallacious) equation of sovereignty with micro-management to say that if there is a supreme controlling all beings and interactions according to a supreme master plan, that the score of every athletic event is predetermined? They'd have to be so controlled! There's no escaping it!

Here's the big question: why would we be instructed to pray that things be done on Earth according to God's Will as it is in Heaven, unless things are not being done on Earth according to His Will?

I don't actually believe in the synonymous concept, as I think that this intellectual tradition stems from a time when the concept of God existing outside of the material construct of time was wholly inconceivable. But as I've replied to several thoughtful emailers today, I see the primary flaw running through these "Calvinist" (for lack of a better term) arguments being the constant equation of sovereignty with micro-management, or as I prefer to put it, uber control freakdom. The very notion that God controls all actions and interactions of his creatures stands firmly against everything I understand of God, both from the Bible and from my personal experience.

However, I freely admit, I could be wrong. I make no claim of grokking the fullness. I don't question God's ultimate sovereignty. I question whether he is putting it directly into use at this time on this planet.

Comments ()

Onward Christian lunatics

First it was rock music - eek! Then Dungeons & Dragons - eek! Then Harry Potter - eek! Now Dan Brown - eek! I am so very sick and tired of listening to whiny fearful Christians getting their collective panties in a bunch about what non-Christians read and watch for entertainment. "It could, maybe, possibly lead someone, someday, into something that is BAD!"

Please.

Listen to me very closely. There is only one thing that has caused the publishing industry to pay any attention whatsoever to Christian concerns about reading material. That is the massive success of the Left Behind novels. The success of Mel Gibson's Passion will have far more of an impact on Hollywood than every protest and complaint about the Harry Potter films combined and multiplied by one hundred.

Sure, I'm extremely irritated that my publisher sent out 50 copies of an overtly Christian novel to 50 different Christian media outlets - almost all of whom have pontificated at length about the evils of Harry Potter - and only one bothered to review it. Meanwhile, Publisher's Weekly and a number of major secular science fiction outlets did see fit to do so. Now, you can certainly dismiss my attitude as sour grapes if you like. What you shouldn't dismiss so easily is my large New York publisher - who also publishes some of Dan Brown's novels - concluding that Christians are all talk, and they would rather whine than put their money and their media where their mouth is.

Do you really believe he'll think twice about ignoring the complaints of a group of people who, from his perspective, barely exist? Are you going to threaten not to buy his books? You're already quite clearly not doing so! So, why would he possibly care about whatever it is you have to say?

The sad thing is that an author could probably get more press from the Christian media by writing a lousy novel about a transexual serial killer priest who rapes and murders his way to the papacy than he could by writing a good novel written from a Christian worldview that glorifies Jesus Christ. If Christians will not support Christian alternatives, then they had better not be surprised when the alternatives to the worldly things that offend them disappear altogether.

Comments ()

Mailvox: control and chaos

DB writes: You're my boy and all, but I have to take issue with you on sort of deriding Calvinism in your Christian perspective. I understand you aren't a theologian and none of us will understand that the push-pull between free will/election, but even Spurgeon (a Calvinist) said that he would not break the handshake of two friends. I just think you are looking at the story from a completely Arminian/Wesleyian standpoint, even though there were some tremendous minds that are thoroughly convinced in a Calvinist theology, i.e., Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, Charles Spurgeon, C.S. Lewis, and John Piper. Obviously we can't know for sure b/c "our ways are not his ways and our understanding is not His understanding", but completely writing off the notion of God's sovereignty in all things seems a bit silly to me, or at least not giving your readers the full extent of the nature of God, by always talking about Free Will. That is like saying that everyone who is alive has the choice to become a Christian or not, but this is in complete contradiction to Romans 9, in which Paul tells us that God has prepared vessels for wrath. I'm not saying I understand the tug of war between Free Will and Election, but the two stand and you sort of ignore one and give credence to the other on numerous occassions.

I hope that Christians can be on good terms with each other while disgreeing on something that we cannot possibly know the answer to anyhow. There's no ill-will on my part - my little brother is a quasi-Calvinist and he attends Greg Boyd's church without any massive cognitive dysfunction - but I do find the God as Control Freak to be a ludicrous notion. The fact of the matter is that if God is in control of all things, he not only chooses a winner of every football games, but also determines how many interceptions the starting quarterback will throw. I don't buy that for a second, nor do I buy the notion that God has a specific plan for each one of us, regardless of whether our path runs us through love or tragedy.

I find that most anti-free will concepts show a profound lack of imagination. Sovereignty does not require or even imply day-to-day management. Among other things, they tend to completely ignore the book of Job as well as the many suggestions that, far from being under the control of God, this fallen world is under the dominion of the one that Jesus called the prince of this world. Jesus said that being had no hold on him, nor on us through him, but the implication is quite strong that everything else is under that being's control, not God's. CS Lewis obviously felt this way to some extent, otherwise his concept of the Divine Invasion makes no sense.

My father once was encouraged to leave a church over the outrage that occurred when, after being asked to pray for a friend dying of cancer, he did not pray that everyone would have a nice peaceful happy feeling about the man's painful death, but instead prayed that the man would be healed. What kind of faith is demonstrated by those Christians who will not even ASK for what Jesus tells us to DO? I haven't seen much positive fruit coming out of that particular intellectual camp.

I have no doubt that many good, solid Christians do not believe in free will. That is certainly their right and has no bearing on the genuine nature of their faith - I don't question that. I simply find the concept of God as total control freak to be both illogical and generally unBiblical. If God is already in complete and active control, then why on Earth does Jesus Christ even need to come back? For that matter, why did he have to come in the first place?

Comments ()

Maybe she did do it

WND writes: Meanwhile, Misha Schubert, a former classmate of Polier from the Columbia School of Journalism, says it's hard to believe the allegations of an affair between Polier and Kerry. "For one thing," writes Schubert in today's Australian, "at the time my former journalism-school classmate was supposed to be sharing intimate moments with the senator, she was working up to 80 hours a week on student assignments and dating one of our classmates. If she had time to manage an affair as well, that would have made her one hell of an overachiever."

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard. First, people can always find the time to get jiggy if they're so inclined. They'll run themselves down and do without sleep if they have to. Second, no student at any school puts in 80 hours a week doing anything with the possible exception of med-school students. I knew business school students who still had the time to road-trip to Mexico; considering how little most journalists know, I rather doubt she spent 80 hours a semester working on anything.

Comments ()

Confusticated World takes on Headcrash

Ian McLeod of the Clan McLeod is having a go at The Original Cyberpunk's Headcrash. Ian, tell me when the review is done and I'll post a link to it here.

Meanwhile, I'm slogging my way towards the end of my latest. 150,000 words, about 83k of which are keepers. I'm shooting for 120k to wrap it, so one more month should do it. It's at times like this that one simply hates Charles Stross, he of the brilliant and prolific pen. I'll tell you, though, this one is stee-range.

Comments ()

At least she'll have time to polish her medal

I didn't agree with Joseph Farah when he wanted to give this woman a medal. First, because his column pandered to the mistaken notion that male philandering is a primary cause of divorce in this country. Second, because it's just a really, really bad idea to encourage people to kill for money, which is exactly what was going on here. The primary reason people kill instead of getting a divorce is because they can't bear the idea of lowering their living standard, which is frequently the case for men and usually the case for women after a divorce.

Giving a murderess a medal won't solve anything. If you want to stop divorce, make it difficult or impossible to obtain. Better yet, get the state out of the whole marriage business altogether.

HOUSTON, Feb. 14 (UPI) -- A Houston jury Friday sentenced Clara Harris to 20 years in prison for murdering her husband with her car after catching him with another woman. The 45-year-old dentist and mother of two appeared to collapse in the grasp of her attorneys when the verdict was announced after six hours of deliberation. The same jury of nine women and three men Thursday convicted Harris of murder.... Harris will have to serve half of the 20-year sentence because the jury ruled Thursday that the Mercedes-Benz she used to run down her husband, David, last July outside a hotel was a "deadly weapon." She was also fined $10,000. Harris was charged with murder after police said she drove her Mercedes-Benz over her husband three times outside the Nassau Bay Hilton Inn in suburban Friendswood. Minutes before, she had just confronted her husband and his mistress in the hotel's lobby.

Ironically, the sentencing came on the 11th anniversary of the Harrises' marriage. Earlier Friday, defense attorney George Parnham appealed to the jury to have mercy on his client and give her probation because of her twin sons. He said she was "a good mother, a good wife," and she didn't deserve prison time.

I don't think that you can claim to be a good wife or a good mother after running over a man THREE FREAKING TIMES with your step-daughter in the car.

Comments ()

Mailvox: On beauty

Sarah comments: All I meant to say though is that standards for 'beauty' are relative.... You see, there is a continuum: Ugly (sorry for not being PC), Unattractive, Plain, Pretty, Beautiful

I disagree. While there are fads in beauty, to say that standards are relative is to destroy the concept entirely. I'd no more accept the notion here than I would with regards to morality. Nor is there any need to qualify things such as inner and outer beauty, that's just the weasel's way of trying to avoid what can be a prickly subject as we have a perfectly good words to use in the case of the former concept that don't require corrupting the language. As Hayek points out with regards to social justice, any concept which requires an adjective to modify the noun is by definition something fundamentally different than the noun in its properly understood form.

While the Romans may have written odes to the character and fortitude of Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, there's a reason that oceans of ink have been spilled in praise of the exterior qualities of women throughout the ages. This isn't to say that beauty is the only thing worth pursuing in a woman - far from it - but I despise the notion that one cannot or should not speak honestly about something that is obvious to everyone. Standards in beauty do change, but slowly, over generations. At any given point in time, I think we can speak about beauty in the same manner that we speak of anything else that is widely and well understood. This is just my opinion, but I tend to see feminine pulchritude breaking down in the following manner:

Flawless: Helen of Troy 1000-ship launching. Cheryl Tiegs, Veronika Verikova
Gorgeous: Almost perfect. Stunning. Michelle Pfeiffer, Bai Ling
Beautiful: Far above the norm. Eye-catching. Sandra Bullock, Gwyneth Paltrow
Pretty: Mostly good, often one great feature. Anna Kournikova, Uma Thurmon
Cute: More good than bad. Jeanine Garofalo, Laura Bush
Plain: Nondescript. No particularly good or bad features. Kerry's purported amorressa
Unattractive: Okay, with one bad feature. Hilllary Clinton and her Tree Trunks of Doom
Ugly: Not much good, multiple bad features. Donna Shalala. Any woman whose description contains the adjective "bulldog".
Scary: Nothing good, mostly bad features. Janet Reno
Oh Sweet Moses, You Poor Thing: a false lead on the genetics tree. Helen Thomas of UPI

Space Bunny denies, denies, denies that she looks anything like a blonde Sandra Bullock, but that argument sank like the USS Arizona when my father, who sees about one movie per decade and knows absolutely nothing about Hollywood celebrities, came over one day and told us, "you know, your mother took me to a movie and there was this girl in it who looked exactly like you." Sure enough, Mom had dragged him off to see Miss Congeniality.

Not that it's her only virtue, but I think she's beautiful, anyhow.

NOTE - hey, it's the weekend and there's no football. Do you seriously want another raging debate on abortion, gay marriage or strict literal constructionalism?

Comments ()

Mailvox: Southern hospitality

Witrack asks: In all honesty...is Southern hospitality a reality? I hear stories about Southerners sometimes in this day meeting strangers and inviting them to their homes for meals, etc. That kinda stuff. Southern hospitality? Myth? Or fact?

Oh, it's real, all right. They're very polite too. Even the surly teenage grocery baggers will look you in the eye and say "thank you, sir". One night after having dinner at our new pastor's house in Florida, Space Bunny and I were both taken aback when after dessert had been finished and it was, by Northern standards, time to have coffee and then leave, when the pastor asked: "so, do you like playing games?"

We just looked at each other, both thinking, right, this is some kind of cult and now his wife is going to pop out wearing an S&M harness while he breaks out the whipped cream and mayonnaise. It turned out he meant it literally, and we ended up having a great time playing cribbage and whatnot until midnight. Southern friendliness and the hospitality is genuine, it's just a little hard to believe at first for those of us raised in quasi-Scandinavian culture. The southerners didn't believe it when I told them that in Minnesota, if a man is talking with another man he's known all his life, you stand parallel to each other and look straight ahead when you talk, especially if the subject is serious. Do not touch, do not lock eyes, do not even face each other.

In my opinion, it's Minnesota Nice that is largely a myth. It's nice only by coastal standards, not Southern.

So, you can imagine it was a little bit of a shock when I lived in Italy, where your friends greet you with an enthusiastic "ciao bello!" and a kiss on both cheeks. This was not only unexpected, but rather alarming when it first happened.

VD: "Did he just call me beautiful?"
SB: "Oh, just be happy he didn't grab your butt."

I never quite reached the point that I could actually address another man that way. But Space Bunny tells me that at least I did stop visibly cringing when subjected to the treatment. Va bene. Quando a Roma, fa cosi come i Romani.

Comments ()

Republican principle or lack thereof

This is a must-read for every conservative Republican. It seals the deal on the notion that national Republicans are about anything but power, power, power. I don't see how anyone can possibly believe that keeping these unprincipled whores in office is a good idea, much less argue with a straight face that it is vital to the continued health and liberty of the country.

When Congress adjourns this year, Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill., will retire after just one term. He’s retiring because his own party has turned on him and promised to run a primary candidate against him. That’s because this particular senator decided that while he was in office he’d be his own man and vote his own conscience. He wouldn’t be a lackey for his party, he wouldn’t vote pork home to his state, and he wouldn’t do what the special interests who run his party told him to do. And that got him into trouble. When Fitzgerald announced his retirement last April, he’d already been the scorn of his home state’s newspaper columnists and editorial boards. The Republican Party — both state and national — was elated to see him go. The Washington Times ran an editorial gloating over his departure....

Six years ago, Fitzgerald ran against troubled incumbent Democrat Carol Moseley Braun. He financed his own campaign, indicating early on that he’d be beholden to no one. The media immediately tapped him as a fringe candidate from the Christian right — an ill-informed and unfair characterization. A better label would be “principled.” Fitzgerald showed more of that rare Washington commodity in one term than most politicians show in a lifetime.

Fitzgerald’s crowning achievement in his brief career was his opposition to the federalization of a planned expansion of Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. Congress’ seal of approval would have ensured that the $13 billion expansion forge ahead, without any input from Illinois residents, including those who owned the hundreds of homes and dozens of businesses that would have been bulldozed to make way for the new runways. The expansion was pushed by a shady consortium of business developers, who launched a PR campaign just as its major players were making political contributions to prominent and powerful Illinois politicians. Fitzgerald’s opposition to federalizing what should have been a local issue postponed the expansion, which later fizzled when the airlines endured post-Sept. 11 financial problems.

Fitzgerald showed some admirable backbone there, too. He was the only senator in the U.S. Congress to vote against the $15 billion airline bailout, despite the fact that United Airlines is based in Illinois and American Airlines has a major hub at O’Hare. Fitzgerald next earned the wrath of fellow Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, a fellow Republican and probably the most powerful politician in Illinois, if not the country. Fitzgerald and Hastert first tangled over Fitzgerald’s refusal to support Hastert’s efforts to secure a glut of federal funding for the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library, located in Illinois. Hastert pulled rank to secure the money, and Fitzgerald criticized him publicly for it.

Fitzgerald then refused sign a letter written by the Illinois’ congressional delegation to President Bush, which requested the White House’s help in securing federal dollars (read: pork) for the state. Fitzgerald infuriated his colleagues when he wrote in a reply, “the mere fact that a project is located somewhere in Illinois does not mean that it is inherently meritorious and necessarily worthy of support.”

Comments ()

The face that launched a dinghy

What is it with politicians and plain women? Monica, okay, we know that Bill was bedazzled by her enormous breasts. But considering that these are some of the most powerful men in the world, I find it hard to believe that they're constantly getting in trouble over women that no self-respecting lead singer for an eighth-tier barely-out-of-the-garage band without a record deal would be dating.

Of course, the women of the Ivy League will never be confused with the women of the SEC. So, maybe they just don't know any better. Before Bill Clinton, I would have looked at this picture and said there's no way. Now, who knows?

I don't tend to buy it, though. Wesley Clark probably made the whole thing up because he was bitter about America's failure to reward him for living in a trailer with the highest office in the land.

Comments ()

Don't solve equations and drive

So I pull into the gas station and a brand new Saab pulls ahead after completing its pit stop, so I slide in and park the car at the pump. I've got Linkin Park cranked and no sooner do I turn off the ignition than I see white lights - the Saab is backing up quickly towards me. I hit the horn hard, but to no avail, it doesn't even hit the brakes - CRUNCH.

The guy was most apologetic and gave me his contact information - I don't expect any problems on that front and all that needs to be replaced on my car is the front quarter panel. No big deal and he'll pay for it. Considering that he not only has to foot the bill for my repairs, but his own more extensive ones, I didn't have the heart to ask what on Earth he was doing backing up in the first place. I'm still puzzled by that as he had a clear path in front of him. But what made me laugh was when I looked at his card. Yep, that explains it, or at least as much of it as can be explained.

He's an engineer. No idea whatsoever that I was there.

Comments ()

I'll pass on the cookies

Hans Zeiger writes on the Girl Scouts: A 1997 book entitled On My Honor: Lesbians Reflect on their Scouting Experience estimated that approximately one in three adult Girl Scout professionals are lesbian and that the Girl Scouts are a positive place for lesbian relationships to develop.... One might wonder why the Girl Scouts have been spared the painful attacks that have been launched upon the Boy Scouts by the Left in recent years. The reasons are simple: the Girl Scouts allow homosexuals and atheists to join their ranks, and they have become a pro-abortion, feminist training corps.

I don't trust girls who go camping and hiking in the wilderness anyhow. Girls who wear little black dresses and ride in sports cars are rather more to my liking.

Comments ()

Ron Paul and swamp sluts

Representative Ron Paul addresses his inconsistent colleagues. He is the only national politician in the two major parties for whom I have any respect.

And who gives a rat's ass about what Emerson once said anyhow, especially in the ironic light of another, less famous of his sayings: "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." Random quotes from transcendentalists is no more a rational basis for a system of government than watery tarts lying in ponds distributing scimitars.

Comments ()

Didactics and rape in Rand

Witrack writes: Problems with the novel Atlas Shrugged - John Galt needed some more characterization. The long radio speech part of the book needed to be edited down about 75%, too preachy for a fiction piece. The parts that refer to American Indians as "savages" seemed rather dated. Rand's views of sex are a little creepy as well. I think the woman had a rape fantasy complex. Same for the sex scene between Rourke and his gal in The Fountainhead, a vastly superior book.

It's hard to simultaneously educate and entertain. Ayn Rand, like George Orwell, did a very serviceable job, but when push came to shove, her bias was towards the former. Political prose in particular is prone to being rather clunky. As Umberto Eco wrote of Orwell's 1984, Atlas Shrugged was a masterpiece of vision, not of literature. The Original Cyberpunk and I battled this inherent tendency towards didacticism in Rebel Moon with some success, but we fell into another trap. Actually, two other traps, come to think of it. Live and learn.

I disagree that the notion of the American Indians being savage is dated, however. If anyone today was to experience life without toilets, electricity or the vast panoply of white European male inventions that make life so much more easy and long, I daresay they'd agree that it was a most uncivilized existence. The only reason that view is currently unpopular is because the average American has about the same sense of history as a fruit fly.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rand had a rape fantasy complex. According to some philosophers of sex, this sort of thing was common among pre-Sexual Revolution era women, as it was a way of allowing themselves to sexually fantasize without having to take responsibility for the inherent immorality of the desire. This could be total hogwash, of course, but at least it sounds reasonable and jibes with the mentality of young women today, who prefer to blame their mindless promiscuity on social pressure or the date rape myth. Not being able to read the minds of dead women, I have no way of knowing if there's any truth in the notion or not.

Comments ()

Luxury

A bag of leaves? Luxury! When I was a child, we were forced to get up four hours before we went to bed and our father used to make us lick leaves off the road with our tongues....

Comments ()

Won't you help him?

Billy Evans writes: My name is Billy Evans. I am a very sick little boy. My mother is typing this for me, because I can't. She is crying. The reason she is so sad is because I'm so sick. I was born without a body. It doesn't hurt, except when I try to breathe. The doctors gave me an artificial body. It is a burlap Bag filled with leaves. The doctors said that was the Best they could do ON account of us having No money OR Insurance. I would like to have a body transplant, but we need more money. Mommy doesn't work because she said nobody Hires crying people. I said, " Don't cry, Mommy and " and She hugged my burlap bag. Mommy always gives me hugs, Even though she's allergic to burlap and it makes her sneeze and chafes her real bad.

I hope you will help me. You can help me if you Forward this email to everyone you know. Forward it to People you don't know, the too. Dr. Johansen said that for every person you forward this email to, Bill Gates Will team up with AOL and send a nickel to NASA. With that funding, NASA will collect prayers from school Children all over America and have the astronauts take them up into space so that the angels can hear them Better.... What kind of cruel person are you that you can't take Five freakin' minutes to forward this to all your Friends so that they can feel guilt and shame about Ignoring A poor, bodiless nine-year-old boy? Please help me.

This desperate plea for help brought to you by reader and Good Samaritan JN.

Comments ()

Denial

From NRO's Corner: More and more I am reading such letters that begin with something like "I am a life-long Republican" or "I voted for Bush in the last election" that then go on to list the litany of sins perpetrated by the current administration. Letters such as these may well influence the non-blogosphere since their carry the cachet of the daily snoozepaper. I've noticed that these letters don't have the same amount of vitriol that a liberal/leftist writer would use, but they have got me thinking. I don't agree with everything going on the Bush administration, but I sure wouldn't write a letter complaining about it to the local news.

This is an interesting development. Let's break it down.

1) Conservatives voted for Bush, believing he was a conservative.
2) Bush has governed in a profoundly and overtly non-conservative manner.
3) Conservatives are not happy, as reported by numerous conservative commentators.
4) Public complaints have been printed in numerous newspapers by self-styled conservative former Bush supporters.

Therefore, such letters to the editor are obviously fakes produced by liberal Bush-haters. Yeah, I don't so much follow that logic.

Now, the argument is based on Moby suggesting "it's possible to seed doubt among Bush's far-right supporters on the Web. "You target his natural constituencies," says the Grammy-nominated techno-wizard. "For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you're an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion. "Then you go to an anti-immigration Web site chat room and ask, 'What's all this about George Bush proposing amnesty for illegal aliens?'"

The problem, of course, is that you don't have to make anything up to come up with a laundry list of thing that Bush has done that infuriates, even enrages, conservatives. It should be easy enough to tell the fakes. If they're outraged that Bush cut taxes for the rich, it's a fake. If they're angry that he instituted a vast new Federal entitlement, it's genuine. It seems rather stupid to complain about an enemy hitting you with the baseball bat you just handed them.

Comments ()

NESARA

Yes, people, it's email mythology. I don't understand why anyone would have believed this optimistic nonsense for five seconds, but then, I don't understand people who send on little Timmy's heart-rending request for 100,000 emails before he dies of Tibetan jungle rot to everyone they know either.

And chain letters. What on Earth is the point of chain letters? Ponzi schemes, Amway and Girl Scout Cookies, I understand. I don't like them, but I understand. But who gets anything out of a chain letter?

Comments ()

Mailvox: Organized religion

DB writes: Organized religion has always mystified me. I don't have a problem with it, but I don't understand it. For example, I think the Bible is a fascinating book, and has plenty of good advice and stories. But taking things like Jesus rising from the dead and Moses parting the Red Sea literally as actual events stretches the bounds of my credulity. My problem is not with Christian philosophy, but with accepting their version of events as the true versions of what occurred. A related problem comes into play for me when considering all the various sects of Christianity, let alone other major religions. How did you come to settle on the Baptist sect? What do you think happens to those who worship other religions? How can you be sure that God prefers that we worship him as Baptists, and not as say, Catholic? Even more drastically, how can you be positive that God even exists, considering that you most likely heard about Him through other people?

I don't put much credence in my particular sect versus the Christian church as a whole. I am not a Southern Baptist because I analyzed the minutiae of the denomination in comparison with others, but because I happened to find a particular Southern Baptist church as a great place to worship Jesus Christ. If the leaders of the SBC began promulgating anti-Biblical non-Christian teachings as other denominations have done, I would leave it in a heartbeat without remorse. My only loyalty is to Jesus Christ, everything else is unimportant in comparison. So, I am not sure that God prefers, or even cares, that His Son is worshipped with electric guitars or Gregorian chant. The idea that the rocks will cry out if we do not seems to suggest that he is not worried overmuch with such details.

As for your questions, I believeJesus Christ when He said that He was the only way. I also accept that He told Peter that the decisions of others and the subsequent consequences were no direct concern of Peter's or mine. I am not indifferent to the eternal fate of others, but neither am I answerable for them. As for my faith, it is intellectually strong because I have too often seen that the wisdom of the Bible is far greater than the wisdom of Man, even when Man has the advantage of 2,000 or more years of experience upon which to draw. And my personal experience of God's actions in my life and the lives of those around me tends to correlate very closely with this Biblical wisdom as well.

I don't view this as an argument to convince anyone, mind you. I am not trying to do so. But having lived life sampling a good part of the best that the world has to offer and then experiencing some of what Jesus Christ taught was a mere prelude, I am both intellectually and emotionally satisfied with the path that I have chosen.

Regarding the truth of the Bible, I have no more doubt about Jesus Christ than I do about Alexander the Great. By virtue of secular historical standards, the evidence for the former far surpasses that of the latter. I have seen modern science and archeology fail far too often before the ancient record of the Bible to be much concerned about apparent contradictions that remain therein. In a world where cloning has now been accomplished - despite being an avid sci-fi reader, I never would have imagined it happening in my lifetime - I am very hesitant to even consider using the word impossible with regards to anything except the abstract laws of logic.

Comments ()

Those responsible TV newsfolk

I find it amusing that the various TV and cable news networks are avoiding all discussion of the Kerry rumors, presumably out of some noble notion of journalistic purity, while they emit nothing but equine ejecta everytime they address economic, military and religious matters. No wonder more and more people are abandoning television for the Internet.

Television is like having a crotchety old nanny deciding what is too much for your innocent little ears to hear.

The only reason I know this, of course, is that it's been discussed on NRO's Corner. I'm sure not watching. I don't bother.

Comments ()

A bigger problem

The fact that the Heinz trust has moved its ownership offshore is potentially a bigger liability to Kerry than this possible affair. It's hard to run as the All-American champion of the little guy when your wife is avoiding corporate income taxes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Heinz and everyone else doing exactly the same thing. I just think it is a very weak spot considering Kerry's ideology. "We must raise your taxes so that my rich wife can pay less!" Then again, cognitive dissonance is practically a requirement for membership in the Left these days.

Comments ()

If women ruled the world

Sarah comments: I think women would ruin the world (in other ways) if they were the only ones to rule it. For example, the world would probably already be globalist/one world, thievery would flourish (esp. governmental kind), as well as psych problems would cause a quick halt to any further development. There would hardly be a philosophical movement and the sciences would progress slower...

I'd add my own thoughts, except that the invaluable expatriate and aspiring dead white male, Fred Reed, has already addressed the matter in a comprehensively conclusive manner:

For one thing, I think we are a splendid lot. For another, I notice that most of the yapping comes from life’s camp-followers—from those who didn’t and can’t and aren’t likely to. Yet they seem perfectly willing to live in a world that white European males built. It is not a dignified performance....Now, I suspect that these uprooters of white maledom don’t appreciate their blessings because they don’t understand them. Familiarity breeds a sense of understanding, but not understanding itself. If miraculous things are always there, it’s easy to regard them as just part of the world, like bananas in the tropics. Consider. If you showed a television set to a bushman in New Guinea, and asked him how it worked, he would say, “Hoo! Bad juju, boss. Heap spirits dey in it, talk talk.” He would have the judgement to be astonished by what is, after all, astonishing.

Now imagine asking the same question of Al Sharpton, or Gloria Steinem or, let us say, the head of Harvard’s Department of Micronesian Lesbian Studies, Carnita Tlacuache-Lombriz.... You would find that she knew as much as the bushman. She knows the same amount about her watch, refrigerator, automobile, microwave oven, and stereo. They are, to her, low-hanging fruit, or what money is to Democrats: something that is just there.

Comments ()

Getting jiggy with John Francois

News of a possible extramarital affair certainly puts a new spin on John F------ Kerry. Or perhaps it should be John Fitzpatrick? He always did want to be a Kennedy, after all. The ironic thing will be seeing Kerry get derailed by this supposed affair with an intern, when Bill and Hillary were able to skate on a free pass from the media for their affairs. As usual, it appears that those on the inside had a pretty good idea of what was going on:

In an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, General Wesley Clark plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue."

When will politicians learn? The fact that Bill got away with it doesn't mean that you will.
Matt Drudge is all over it, as you'd expect. Adieu, John Francois. We hardly knew you. So, Clark is out, Dean is toast, Edwards can't even win in the South and now JFK is imploding. Hmmm... who does that leave....

Stop! Hillary Time! (bassline)

PS - does anyone else suddenly have horrific images of a naked Skeletor flashing through their head?

Comments ()

Dating is alive and well on Planet Earth

Note that these rules suggest that you are interested in dating women between the ages of 16-35, who are reasonably near your league with regards to power, fame, wealth and looks, and also happen to inhabit the planet Earth.

1. Be unpredictable. Tell her you'll call, just don't say when. If she asks, give a vague answer.
2. Be decisive. Always present her with a fait accompli on a first date. Never ask "what do you want to do?"
3. Be aggressive. If you don't kiss her goodnight after the first three dates, then enjoy being filed away as a friend. Just be a man and get it over with on the first date. Unless you have take moral issue with this, which is fine and in which case you can safely ignore pretty much everything I have to say on the subject.
4. Be firm. If she won't commit to a time and date, do not let her keep her options open. She's testing you while seeing if something better might come along. Fail this test and you'll face a seriously uphill battle to earn back her respect. If she says you can call her later in the week and see if she's free, tell her "no thanks, I'll just make other plans." Then make other plans.
5. Be flexible. Once actually on the date, then go with the flow. The plan isn't cast in stone; she just wants to know that you can make decisions. If you close down the restaurant chatting, it's all good. Who cares about the movie. You can see it next time.
6. Be yourself. Don't agree with things she says just to be agreeable. She has girlfriends to do that. Are you auditioning for a spot as her girlfriend? Everyone hates a posterior-smoocher, even those who expect it. And don't exaggerate. There's no point unless you're going for a short-term fling, in which case you might as well swing for the fences. Tell her you're Bill Gates' favorite nephew and that you need a date for a little soiree in Paris that the Swiss ambassador is throwing in a few weeks. And in the meantime, how about dinner at that new Italian place?
7. Be an audience. Most men talk about themselves far too much. Ask questions and listen to her answers. Always ask at least one follow-on. What does she know about you? Do you know even half that much about her? If not, you're talking too much.
8. Be relaxed. Don't ask for a second date on the first one. If she's interested, she'll let you know.
9. Be aware. Sudden silence, wide-open eyes and a close-lipped smile is a woman's way of saying "shut up and kiss me already, you idiot."

Comments ()

The internationalist

Senator John Kerry says: "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

Sounds like outright treason to me. How is this any different than saying that he'd like to see US troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of Dr. Evil or the Dear Leader of the Democratic Republic of North Korea? Of course, George Delano genuflects before the globalists too, so there's still no reason to vote for him either.

Comments ()

Deal with the facts

Increases in discretionary domestic spending per the Office of Management and Budget:

8.2 percent - (R) George W. Bush (Republican Congress)
8.0 percent - (R) Gerald Ford (Democratic Congress)
6.8 percent - (R) Richard Nixon (Democratic Congress)
4.3 percent - (D) Lyndon Johnson (Democratic Congress)
4.0 percent - (R) George Bush (Democratic Congress)
2.5 percent - (D) Bill Clinton (Republican Congress 6/8 years)
2.0 percent - (D) Jimmy Carter (Democratic Congress)
1.3 percent - (R) Ronald Reagan (Democratic Congress, 6 years R Senate)

Throw the pretty little theories out. With the sole exception of a uniquely principled conservative Republican, Republican presidents grow government faster and increase government power more than Democrats do. This strongly suggests that it is highly unlikely that John Kerry will, in fact, be worse than George Delano in this regard. In other words, there is absolutely no reason not to vote your principles and support either the Libertarian Party or Constitution Party candidate.

Since war is the health of the state and Democrats are almost as enamored with central state power as Republicans have proved to be, I don't find the continued prosecution of the "war on terror" to be a valid reason for supporting George Delano either. The Democrats will be content to continue this undeclared quasi-war ad infinitum too. Hasn't anyone ever read 1984? War without end is necessary for the boot in the face forever.

Comments ()

Where to start

GM writes: Don't you mean "Why I don't respect women"? Generalizing your proposition does little to distract from the impression that you really don't like women at all. Have you considered you might actually be gay?

This was interesting, as I usually get this sort of thing from angered feminists whenever I write on anything gender-related, but GM is a man. Anyhow, as I've previously written on numerous occasions, I not only like women but get along with them much better than most men because I am highly verbal and so can communicate on their level. This ability to relate and engage successfully in their form of social competition does not, however, mean that I share their emotional and behavioral tendencies, it only enhances my understanding of what is going on in their pretty little heads.

And yet I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand them, primarily because I don't know very many women who understand themselves well. Women are complex creatures in comparison with men; indeed, one of the biggest communication problems between men and women is the constant female search for subtexts in texts that simply don't have any additional levels or hidden messages.

As for my liking for women on a more primal level, I believe Space Bunny, Big Chilly or the White Buffalo are all capable of providing adequate support for both its existence and the genuine nature of it.

Comments ()

Saloth Sar or Monica

Jonah Goldberg was right to be impressed by Guess the Dictator: Well, I win this round. You are player number 3 to pick Pol Pot from Dictator of Cambodia, and what a clever choice it was! You almost had me for a while, but you let your guard down. Don't worry, it happens to all of us sooner or later. Please play again, and next time I'll be ready for you, Pol Pot from Dictator of Cambodia.

I was shocked when it came up with the final question of "are you responsible for the Killing Fields" as the one immediately previous had been "do you talk to your neighbors through a fence", leading me to conclude that it was off on completely the wrong track altogether.

I daresay it won't come up with Sargon or Muhammad bin Tughlak, though.

Comments ()

Dean.bomb

The Original Cyberpunk waxes, as is his wont, sardonic: It seems as if Dean really *did* run the first Internet political campaign. After months of intense media buzz, much hoopla and excitement, and uncounted gigabytes of self-congratulatory press releases, it turns out that there was only one rather unappealing product and no significant consumer base that wanted to buy it. In the end, all we're left with is the smoky residue that comes from burning several million dollars of investor capital and a limp and soggy sockpuppet. Dean.com is now Dean.gone.

I don't sell my own books here and I don't discuss them. I will, however, INSIST that you buy a copy of Headcrash and read it this year. If you like Dilbert, Douglas Adams or Grant Naylor, you will laugh out loud at least four times while reading it.

The OC sent me a review copy back when my game column was running in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. I didn't know him and didn't want to bother reading it, but since he was local I knew he'd keep calling me until I did. I finally dove into it during a 4th of July weekend at the lake cabin, read it straight through and was kicked out of the living room by Big Chilly and the Perfect Aryan Male in the process. "Take your damn mirthful snorting elsewhere!"

Strangely, Time Warner elected not to go with the quote I provided for the cover afterwards. "Too f------- funny. Too f------- brilliant."

Comments ()

Nice guys finish last

Everyday Stranger shares her thoughts on the matter: Why do women go for bad boys? Best Friend is a good boy (er...man). He is nice, sympathetic, worries about the woman's needs, etc. Yet somehow he never seems to get the girl. Which leads me to think about the 4 men in my life that consitute my closest friends and (in a tribute to the comments discussion yesterday), I will say this: they are all men, and not one of them am I sexually interested in. And they are not sexually interested in me, either. All 4 of them I met at work and quickly became friends with, all 4 of them have had turbulent or non-existent love relationships...and all 4 of them are good guys.

First, assuming that Everyday Stranger is in approximately the same league as the four men in her life, she's almost surely wrong about their lack of interest in her. The ability of women to overlook the most obvious when it comes to recognizing the lovelorn anguish of their little posse of hangers-on is astounding. Nearly every woman I ever dated had a "just friend" who would look absolute daggers at me every time the object of their affection wasn't paying attention; I'm not sure what purpose this denial serves, but it certainly exists. I've seen it in every attractive single woman that I know. Women, if you don't believe me, have someone else, preferably another guy, interrogate your "friend".

As for the appeal, there's two facets. One, when a woman simply wants to get off without too many emotional consequences, she can hook up with an obvious bad boy and then walk away knowing perfectly well that there isn't going to be any of that tedious lingering breakup stuff. Better yet, she can blame him for her doing something that she wouldn't normally do, and there's not a man or woman on the planet who will argue with her, especially not the user she's using. I didn't realize that I was being used this way until years after the fact, when I suddenly realized that the reason those relationships ended so easily was that the women never had any intention or expectation of a lasting one in the first place. The biggest fear of women in their twenties is that they'll be trapped. Most don't start thinking seriously about marriage, much less the possibility of spinsterhood, until they're approaching thirty, and in some cases, thirty-five.

The other aspect is the one that Everyday Stranger hits on. Excitement and the maternal urge to fix. I don't agree that bad boys are all broken, however, some are that way by choice, in cases like mine it was learned behavior, and some are just naturally self-centered monsters. I personally suspect that it's the love of potential drama that turns women on; why else would a girl get all hot and bothered simply because you're speeding through downtown at 100 MPH? Everyone likes to feel that they're living in a movie now and then.

It's a sick, messed-up culture. Nice guys find it hard to get dates unless they act indifferently, even cruelly towards women, and if they begin acting nice once within the relationship, they'll often get dumped for being boring. If you suspect your girlfriend is getting bored with you and you really want to keep her interested, I suggest breaking up with her out of the blue. Don't give any reason, just say that you think perhaps you need a little space, but you hope the two of you will stay very close friends. After about a week, on the 50th time she calls you trying to figure out what on Earth happened, you can allow yourself to be convinced by her that you get back together. She won't be bored, you'll still be together, everybody's happy. And if it doesn't work, well, you just moved up the timetable on the inevitable breakup by a few weeks anyhow. Bored men entertain themselves with their interests and hobbies. Bored women go in search of someone else to entertain them.

The strange thing is that every arrogant jerk I know who wanted to be married has been married for years, meanwhile, the nicest guy of my acquaintance is not only still single but essentially dateless despite being tall, rich, good-looking and Christian. It's no great mystery why - every time he's interested in someone, he tries to befriend them first and takes months before getting around to asking them out, by which time they're in a relationship with someone. Which leaves one to wonder what the point of dating is, if it's not getting to know someone.

I guess I have to conclude that the fact that nice guys finish last with women can't be fairly blamed on the female taste for bad boys; they can't say yes if you never ask. And if you don't ask quickly, it's guaranteed that someone else will.

Comments ()

Undoing history

Thomas Sowell writes on the dangers: One such dangerous notion is the idea of being able to undo the wrongs of history. History is so full of wrongs that there are almost unlimited ways to go wrong trying to correct them.

Comments ()

The mind boggles

Another major security hole in Windows. Good thing they don't use that shoddy Open Source method of designing software. The amazing thing is that it's these jokers who are sowing Fear Uncertainty and Doubt about Linux, and people are buying it. Meanwhile, their cryptography is actually based on the flawed code. If you wrote this into a novel, no one would believe you for the irony.

Linux is perhaps the ultimate demonstration that people are really, honestly and truly stupid, viewed in the collective. To paraphrase Neal Stephenson: why would you want to pay a lot of money to drive a leaky station wagon that breaks down all the time when you can drive this here tank for free? Because you don't know how to fix a tank? You don't know how to fix the station wagon either!

I'm not saying Linux is perfect. I'm not saying OpenOffice is perfect. Both have a long ways to go before they become the obvious choice for the quasi computer illiterate. But considering the huge number of problems with Windows and the enormous price-differential between it and Linux, I find it simply staggering that many people won't even consider making the migration.

Comments ()

PayPal

Something about PayPal always bothered me... I started to sign up for it once but I let my account lapse without ever using it. I was planning to take out a blogad for one of my books and decided to do a little due diligence before signing up for a PayPal account. This detailed account from an ex-employee has convinced me to pass on it. I won't sign up for anything that gives the contract writer this abusive power in the fine print.

Comments ()

Adios psycho

From My Way News: Wesley Clark, the novice politician with four-star military credentials, abandoned his presidential bid Tuesday after two third-place finishes in the South. The retired Army general will return to Little Rock, Ark., on Wednesday to announce his departure from the race, said campaign spokesman Matt Bennett. Clark will pledge to work closely with the Democratic Party to support the presidential nominee and other candidates across the country. "He made this decision after discussing it with his family and his staff," Bennett said. "It was a very difficult decision to make obviously. He did it after the final results were in for Tennessee and the decision is final." He is the fifth Democrat to drop out of the race.

General Clark was the only candidate who seriously made me nervous. Everyone else would have governed the nation in basically the same Republicrat manner that we've known since Reagan 's second term - you're kidding yourself if you think there will be a great deal of difference between how John Francois or George Delano will govern - but I had no difficulty imagining Clark declaring martial law at the first opportunity and turning the country over to the United Nations.

The amazing campaign has gone down in flames. Thank goodness.

Comments ()

Interview with Gary Nolan

I had a interesting conversation with Gary Nolan, a candidate for the Libertarian Party nomination for President, on the telephone today. He's articulate, surprisingly forceful, and demonstrated a greater intellectual depth with regards to the issues than his web site indicated. I asked him about five issues that were not addressed on the web site, then asked him to tell me about one thing that he particularly felt demanded addressing.

1) On the United Nations and other supranational organizations

I would have nothing to do with them. I would withdraw from them. If they want to rent a building, that's fine. But I do not support these behemoths that they've become, nor would I support them with tax dollars. I would support withdrawing from the United Nations in its current form. If there were a place for all of these countries to send a representative to meet and discuss their problems, fine. But no International Criminal Court or other infringements on US national sovereignty.

2) On the Federal Reserve

I would like us to get rid of the Federal Reserve. Extricating ourself from this mess will be complicated, very, very difficult. I have an econ prof at Case Western who is working on a plan that will enable us to pull ourselves out of this.

3) Public Schools

As a candidate for Federal office, I would get federal government out of education. I prefer private schools and homeschooling to public schools in general. I don't think federal or state governments have the right to take money away from you to educate someone else. In any case, 50% of public school graduates are functionally illiterate. The public schools are not working.


4) Abortion

This is a matter that should be adjudicated (settled) at the state level. My personal position is pro-life, but that should not factor in here as I am a candidate for Federal office and it is not a federal issue.


5) On Gay Marriage

If we get the federal government out, it doesn't really matter. Marriage is a religious institution, only the matter of government benefits such as social security even make this an issue. Get the goverment out of it. If you can get a church or synagoguge to confirm your relationship, that's your business. I favor getting government out of the marriage business altogether.

6) The Wasted Vote (Mr. Nolan's issue of choice)

Right now this argument is coming from the right, that if you vote Libertarian, then the Democrats will get in office. But look at what happened with a Republican Congress and a Democratic president. Gridlock slowed the rate of Federal growth to 2.5%. Now it's 7 to 10% not including defense. If you vote for George Bush, you're saying give me more government. If you vote for Nolan, you're saying give me smaller government, and at the very worst, you're throwing it into gridlock. If you want smaller government, you should vote Libertarian.

Also, check out what's going on at Amazon.com. We've been variously at #1 or #2 since it started.

Gary Nolan appears to be serious about what he's doing. I liked him, and felt that his statements about what is a federal issue and what is not a federal issue was based on intellectual consistency and not a desire to weasel out of taking a position. His answer on the Federal Reserve impressed me most, as he's quite right, you don't extricate yourself from a mess 90 years in the making overnight. He'd certainly crush George Delano in a debate. While I won't make an endorsement until I've talked to each of the three candidates, I view him much more favorably after having the chance to question him directly. Interestingly enough, he's received $13,278 in contributions through Amazon, as compared with only 12,574 for Howard Dean and $7,147 for George Bush. John Kerry leads with $26,464.

Comments ()

Libertarians and abortion

While I'm both extremely anti-abortion and comfortable with the Libertarian position of returning the legal issue to the states, I understand that some conservatives who might otherwise support the Libertarian Party are not. But I'm a little suspicious of those who say that they're sticking with George Delano and the Republicans based on this issue alone. After all, there is a party of principle that supports freedom and is rock solid on this issue. From their platform:

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born. To that end, the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established for "ourselves and our posterity." Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion. We also oppose the distribution and use of all abortifacients. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

The Constitution Party.

Comments ()

Mailvox: Don't trust the tears

JW writes: I read your commentary with great interest. I have long been disgusted by feminine manipulative techniques. I am particularly contemptuous of the technique of crying when asked for accountability. I am also contemptuous of men who let women get away with it. I am an attorney with my own firm. Before that, I was the only woman partner in an insurance defense firm. During my tenure there, I saw men turn into absolute doofuses because a secretary would cry instead of taking responsibility for bad behavior. These women would try that technique once with me [JW is a lady attorney]--and then never again. That's because they knew it wouldn't work. So, perhaps men should take responsibility for their behavior in these instances too.

I dated a pretty blonde who drove a white Camaro in high school. She regularly drove 85 and got pulled over with some degree of regularity - 14 times in one summer alone. Every time, she'd simply turn on the waterworks and get out of a ticket. Over the seven years before I lost contact with her, she never once got a speeding ticket. I had 10 in that period and I didn't drive anywhere nearly as fast as she did.

There's no question that men act as enablers in teaching women to be irresponsible. I'm guilty of it myself. But that does not mean that women are unaccountable for their failure to take responsibility for themselves, anymore than the predatory young men who take sexual advantage of young women are not responsible because they were taught that women have the same sexual impulses and appetites that they do.

Comments ()

Mailvox: Kerry don't scare me

Jeanne writes: Bush will lose to a Kerry/Edwards ticket. I am going to say that the conservatives and libertarians are screwed. They are not enough of them to make an difference on there own. Because of Bush's big government tendencies and the resulting loss of his conservative base, we unfortunately are going to be stuck with John Kerry. As I have argued before, lose any notion that somehow a Kerry administration with a Republican Congress will somehow be better. That is extremely illogical. We may not spend as much as the federal level, but in every other area regarding societla issues, we will have liberalism at its best (and therefore scariest) unleashed.

Sometimes the logic is more complicated than you might think. As it turns out, history shows that a Clinton hamstrung by a Republican Congress worked out rather better than George Delano. For that matter, Clinton with a Democratic House worked out better than the three-headed Republican monster. Here's the basic point: libertarians don't care if it's George Delano or John Francois screwing the country. In fact, seeing it done in the name of conservative Republicanism only makes it more unpalatable. If the car goes over the cliff at 200 MPH or 30 MPH, it's still going over the cliff.

I'm not sacrificing my principles for a slower car crash.

Comments ()

He gets it

Randy Barnett posts in NRO's Corner: It seems to ordinary folks like my Dad that Bush has completely abandoned all conservative/libertarian principles on the domestic front. If the White House does not wake up and realize the damage it has already done by triangulating, it will indeed undercut Bush's chance to survive to fight the war in a second term. Any single transgression can be explained away but the sum total cannot. For example, the problem with the campaign-finance bill is not that it was a bad bill. It is that it was unconstitutional and Bush ran against the bill--then flipped. The problem with the education bill is not just that it was written by Ted Kennedy, but that it abandoned the principles of reform that the President campaigned on--then flipped. Ditto the prescription-drug bill--another flip. "Compromised" away were the principles that made candidate Bush better than Al Gore for many who voted for him.

I am not sure what the White House can do about this at this late date. Complaining about conservative/libertarian complaints will not get it done. Ask Bush I. Conservative/libertarian pundits are merely the messenger.

There is, of course, the official Republican Party response. Put your hands over your ears and chant "Na na na, Kerry is worse." I don't find that the least bit convincing. If worry about the undeclared and unconstitutional war is your only hang-up, remember that plenty of Democratic presidents have won wars too. Kerry even voted for it. I still believe Bush will win, however, thanks to the Massachusetts court and the "marriage" issue.

Comments ()

A new product line

Mogambo snarls: according to a report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics released last week, the average salary a U.S. worker can expect to make has dropped from $44,570 to $35,410 since 2001. Fabulous. People are making less money. I can't WAIT to hear how the government weenies put a positive spin on THAT!

Wages dropping while inflation spirals. Yeah, I don't think this plan of run the economy at Warp 9 until November is working so well. But then, you couldn't really expect much, considering that one of the members of his Council of Economic Advisors has a dog named Keynes.

Now, if the guy had named his toilet paper after John Maynard, I'd have some hope.

Comments ()

Libertarian Party candidates

I did a little research on Gary Nolan, Michael Badnarik, and Aaron Russo, three of the Libertarian candidates competing for the nomination. I hope to speak with each of them before making an endorsement. I have no qualms, however, about saying that each of these three men are VASTLY superior to either George Delano or John Kerry. I'd summarize my impression of their positions on the issues as based on their web sites as follows:

Gary Nolan: organized and articulate, sincere but appears to be somewhat of a comparative lightweight where the deeper issues are concerned. Has a blog of sorts, so he's got Doug's vote sewn up.

Aaron Russo: multi-talented dilettante. If elected, could be the only President to get bored halfway through his second term and resign. You've got to like that. Definitely a citizen-legislator sort. Rock solid on the issues.

Michael Badnarik: thoughtful, probably the most seriously intellectual. I liked his willingness to address abortion as well as his honesty in how he came to reach his position. Focused strongly on the highest priority issues.

At this point, I'd say that I'm leaning towards Mr. Badnarik, who appears to be cut from the same economically aware, highly principled cloth as Ron Paul. I encourage you to check out all three of their sites. However, I warn Republicans, it can be a little depressing to read these candidates on the issues and then realize that you've got George Delano leading the charge for the GOP, such as it is.

Since interest in the Libertarian Party appears to be growing, here's where and how to join the party.

*Yes, I'll be providing similar information on the Constitution Party this week too.

Comments ()

Isn't that just too bad

From the Washington Times: Episcopal Church officials yesterday announced a $3 million shortfall in the church's 2004 budget, caused chiefly by parishes and dioceses withholding funds to protest the ordination of a homosexual bishop. The shortfall equals 6 percent of the $48 million in revenue the church had expected this year. Church officials, according to documents obtained by The Washington Times, have revised the budget to $45.1 million.

I'm only surprised that it isn't more than that. Of course, they only went off the rails in November. Over the course of the next year, that 6 percent would compute to a 36 percent drop. Since I know some very unhappy Episcopalians who plan to leave but haven't found their new church yet, I suspect it may be even more.

Comments ()

Lies, damned lies and statistics

The Fleckmeister writes: ...the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), whose job it is to compute the Gross Domestic Product each quarter, has "stopped reporting the real computer hardware shipment figure used to calculate real GDP growth, though it is still used in GDP calculations." The BEA, which is part of the Commerce Department, made this readjustment because it is "concerned the rapid price declines for computers made the figures misleading." Let's stop and review the bidding for a second. Remember: GDP is the measure of goods and services produced in this country. The government decided that certain of its data series involved in calculating GDP were misleading. So, what did it do? Simply stop breaking them out. Makes sense to me; how about you?

Better yet, the government has decided to begin applying hedonic calculations to health care costs as well. So, you see, health care isn't actually more expensive even if it costs you more to go to the doctor's office than it does to rent an apartment, because the care is better. Doesn't that make you feel good? Maybe you aren't going anymore because you can't afford it now, but if you did have enough money to pay for it, it would actually be cheaper because the quality is higher.

Hedonic calculations may sound superficially logical, but they are nothing more than a smokescreen designed to hide inflation.

Comments ()

Mailvox: He's divorced? I'm so shocked!

AW responds to today's column: "Indeed, one wonders that women have sex at all after plodding one's way through this morass of marital misery." Because it's the surest and simplest way to pay for your meal ticket if you have no other talents or skills. As my first wife once said to me, "I don't enjoy sex with you, I've never enjoyed sex with you, and now that I've got two kids, a house, and a new car, I don't have to fake it any longer."

"Perhaps women have been spoiled by a lifetime of freely saying things to others that would have earned a man doing the same a black eye." Backed up by legal system that operates on the principle, "First, handcuff the man." Never mind saying the most venomous things without fear of reprisal, even if she's throwing crockery (see wife 1.0 again), it's the man's fault. The wonder is that more men don't say "forget this" and decide to turn gay. Or maybe this explains the remarkable strides made by a certain agenda in the last decade...

"People... who don't need people... are the ha-a-appiest people."
- Dilbert

Comments ()

I have been remiss

Someone asked who is in the running for the Libertarian nomination. I only know who one of the candidates is. I'm going to look into that and into the Constitution Party's nominee and make a primary endorsement for both.

We apologize for the shoddy service.

Comments ()

Straight-talkin' George Delano

John Podhoretz writes: As a frustrated White House official told me last week, everything the president has done to anger conservatives arises from proposals he made while he was running for president in 2000. They accepted his advocacy of the proposals then, so why are they complaining now? He did not run for president as a small-government conservative, and yet they backed him to the hilt four years ago. So why the enmity today?

It's a good question, and a sobering one. Recall that conservatives backed Bush in 2000 without knowing just how dreadfully he and this nation would be challenged by the events of 9/11 and their aftermath. They supported him, in other words, when he was merely promising to be a big-spending conservative. The president they got turned into a great wartime leader, and now some conservatives are griping about how he is actually fulfilling some of the promises they were willing to overlook when they wanted to back a winner four years ago.

Yeah, see this is precisely why some of us on the Right didn't vote for him then. And it's why we won't vote for him in 2004. What I'd like to know is why no one ever lies when they run for office and then governs to the Right of their campaign promises.

Comments ()

Mailvox: check 3-4

GNC writes: blah blah blah...if you believe in what you say, why dont you go and teach a group or middle school boys how to deal with their change bodies...what a windbag you are.

Not really hysteria as per (4), but the spelling grammatical errors suffice, especially with just a dash of (3) thrown in for spice.

UPDATE: We finally got our long almost entirely pointless rant about (1) women not respecting men, but it's both too long and too uninteresting to bother posting. Still nothing on (2) though. Hmmm.

Comments ()

Bark little doggy

Rich Brookhiser writes on NRO: We are in a war, GWB understands it, and very little else matters. Of the preceding points, perhaps only the last matters. We want the United States and the civilization it is defending to prevail, and at this moment that means we want George W. Bush to win re-election. We also know that even victory will involve great and destabilizing losses. Nobody promised us a perfect life. That's why we're conservatives.

Ask yourself if this logic would work for you if you substituted FDR, LBJ or Woodrow Wilson for George Delano. Supporting a President who is waging a war and wanting the United States to win doesn't make you conservative. Neither does understanding that no one promised perfection. The sad thing is, there are probably plenty of people who not only think that this means something, but is convincing.

Comments ()

Mailvox: check one-half

Jill writes, somewhat as predicted: Vox you are ranting this time and making no sense. First you don't even eludicate exactly on WHAT women are supposedly "not taking responsibility." And two, don't make me LAUGH. Just because men think women don't take responsibility is nothing more than projection. It has never changed, even down to men STILL blaming women for THEIR lack of responsibility.I suggest men grow up and take the responsibility they have avoided for centuries before they take it upon themselves to preach to the sex that has been shouldering that lack of responsibility.

How can "their words, their actions and their decisions" possibly be considered a failure to elucidate for what women are failing to take responsibility? The specifics vary from individual to individual. I'll consider believing that women are collectively ready to take general responsibility for themselves the next time I see a woman insult someone, get punched in the mouth, then get up and say, "yeah, I deserved that." Which has happened, in my experience, ah, let me see... never.

A female friend of mine once got badly hurt after mouthing off to a stranger who rather forcefully demonstrated his belief in the inherent equality of men and women. Her date, a similarly propagandized young man, didn't defend her, presumably on grounds of self-responsibility. Why should he bear the consequences for her words? A rather damning indictment of where 30 years of feminism have gotten us, true, but she did learn what every man knows; take responsibility for your words, as they can have unpleasant and unforeseen consequences.

I love the capital letters. Jill's email doesn't quite count as (1) asserting that women don't respect men and have every reason for doing so, but the implication is certainly there based on the context of the response. I'll call it one-half down, three and one-half to go. In any event, there's a lot more to taking responsibility than being willing to raise a child after you've had sex.

Comments ()

Down with Derb

John Derbyshire writes: Yes, I got a lot of e-mail about my postings too, some of it angry. Who the heck do I think I am, criticizing Bush's performance? Etc., etc. Well, I'm a citizen, and this is not North Korea. I want GWB to win the general election in November. I wish him well. I think a Kerry presidency would be a horrible disaster.... As for the lese majeste accusation: Shove it. This is a republic.

Word em up, D. The reasons are several, most of them Federal. I totally agree, except for the bit about wanting George Delano to win. Unless, of course, "want" and "believe will be marginally less disastrous" are rather more synonymous than I was led to believe.

Joe Farah puts it even better:

Now there are those who would blame me because John Kerry will become the next president. Don't blame me. Blame Bush. I am not supporting Kerry. Kerry is a creep. But I cannot and will not support the lesser of two evils. My faith teaches me that light and dark don't mix. My faith teaches me I'm not to have anything to do with evil. I'm not supposed to compromise with it.

And that, my friends, is THE WORD.

Comments ()

Those irrepressible socialists

They're at it again. Strange, how these Democratic People's Republics just keep happening to turn their countries into one charnal house after another. Such a long series of an unaccountable coincidences! We surely don't want that to happen here. But to stop it elsewhere, we the people cede more power to the central government.

And they say irony is dead.

Comments ()

Mailvox: Avoiding responsibility

CM writes: You went the long speculative way around in order to get to your speculative, sort-of conclusion. It was a conclusion that left me frustrated, and so I decided to do something responsible about it, instead of: just whine, complain to a gurlll-frain or write you an unconstructive, insulting letter. ANYBODY on the planet, male or female, who doesn't take responsibility for their behaviors, is basically a liar about reality and therefore sins relentlessly against most everybody around them - male or female. That this avoidance of truth-seeking, truth-seeing, and truth-telling is primarily (as you imply) a female sin, is an interesting speculation. I tend to doubt it, and am now going to study the matter. My first step will be to take it up with 6 family counselors I know, 4 who are women and 2 who are men. I promise to write you about what I find out. Give me a couple of months, please.

Thank you for your self-restraint and decision to approach the matter constructively. I'll be quite interested to hear the results of your little investigation. However, I am sure that plenty of men also seek to avoid responsibility. Just look at all the fatherless children, for one thing, and stoners living in their parent's basement. But logically, there are three possibilities:

1. Men try harder to avoid responsibility
2. Women try harder to avoid responsibility
3. Both men and women try equally hard to avoid responsibility

Those are the three options. I don't find (3) to be remotely credible. My personal experience, which is admittedly only anecdotal, strongly tends to lean towards (2). To give one example, when I graduated from college, every single man in my class with whom I was acquainted already had a job. Less than half of the women, all graduating from the same elite university, did.

I happen to believe that many women are worthy of respect that they do not receive. I do not have a definitive answer for why they do not, I am merely attempting to suggest one possible solution that may help these women begin to receive the respect they deserve. The key, of course, is to begin by understanding that not everyone is worthy of respect. To suggest that everyone is so worthy does nothing but diminish the meaning of the word. All we have the right to expect is polite civility and the chance to prove ourselves worthy of respect.

Comments ()

The other side of Columbine

From the Anchorage Daily News:He [Tom Maloney] was fascinated by rockets and airplanes, mastered rock climbing, and obtained his pilot's license at age 14. Fifteen months after he enrolled at Central, on a Saturday morning in November 1998, the eighth-grader strung up a rope and hung himself at his parents' home. When paramedics arrived, he had no pulse. After 15 minutes of CPR, they were able to get his heart going. But the boy had already suffered extensive and irreversible brain damage. His family sued the School District in 2000. Among their claims: School staffers refused to work with the boy's psychologist and destroyed records pertinent to the boy's situation, including documentation showing when and how he was harassed by other students. The suit claimed district employees erred by "punishing Thomas equally or worse than his attackers whenever an assault on Thomas was reported."

...Tom looked defeated and told his mother that he wasn't going to be blamed anymore for things he didn't do.... The next morning, after speaking with her son, Tom's mother left the house for 20 minutes or so to drop his younger sister off at a sewing class, she testified. When she returned, she found him hanging from a rope strung from the ceiling.

This sort of thing makes me feel soulsick. It is the other side of Columbine. Notice how we've never heard of this story, because Tom Maloney chose to direct his desperation at himself. Color me ruthless if you will, but I have far more sympathy for the Columbine killers than I do for the kids who drove them to it.* Klebold and Harris may have become lethal monsters, but they did not do so without significant help from others. In any case, it's a pity that none of these bullied, suicidal children were homeschooled, as that would have almost surely prevented both tragedies. Read the Anchorage piece and notice how the so-called educators don't appear to care much about anything except that their indifferent, incompetent posteriors are not held responsible.

The Rocky Mountain News wrote: No matter how exhaustive, the official report will never tell the entire story or measure the deep scars this tragedy left on the victims and the community.... Why? "I think I know why they did it," the FBI's Fuselier says. "It was because they were so filled with hate. But the real question is why they had so much hate inside them."

The kids know why.

* Yes, of course the two killers are the only ones who were responsible for their actions; their suicides argue that they were quite willing to pay the price.

Comments ()

Story Police

Is there anything more annoying than someone playing story police? I don't care if I'm telling one or listening to one, the chances that anyone seriously cares that Aunt Martha's 1976 Thunderbird is actually red, not blue, are infitesimally small. Now, it's one thing if the correction actually has something to do with the basic point or the punchline, but otherwise, please, people, shut up!

The worst is when the storyteller and the story police get in an argument and everyone has to sit around and pretend that it's not happening. Look, if someone is telling a story, it's their story. Stay out of it. No one cares about the details and it's impossible not to look like an ass when you jump in and start correcting somebody. Men do this, women do this, it's equally unpalatable in either case. Unless the person telling the story is wired up to a lie detector or under oath, do leave it alone.

I don't know if story policing in Emily Post or not, but it boggles my mind that people who would never dream of saying "pull my finger" and letting it rip at a cocktail party will do this sort of thing at the first opportunity. It's much ruder than that.

Comments ()

Vox Eliot

I just launched a little test that is an exercise in literary cynicism. I have come to the conclusion that the quality of the writing is somewhere around the seventh or eighth most important factor in a publisher's decision-making process, so I submitted a proposal to a publisher purporting to be a female writer. It's not a romance novel, but it's in a subgenre that predominantly features women writers. We've come a long ways since the days of George Eliot, baby! I even included a fake bio and an "author's photo" of Space Bunny, based on what might be called the Candace Bushnell theory of literary submission - a babe gets every benefit of the doubt - and ran the text through the Gender Genie to make sure that it read "female".

I'm quite curious to see what will happen. My writing plate is quite full now, but it was a story that I've had floating around the back of my head for about a year now so it was nice to write up a bit of it and do something with it. I'll be pretty amused if it makes it through the slush pile; Space Bunny's sufficiently well-read and knows enough writers to fake the tortured artist thing if she ever needs to speak to an editor on the phone. The most amusing thing would be if the book was reasonably successful and they wanted to do a book tour. I can't imagine I'd be able to talk Space Bunny into doing that, although it would make for a pretty good expose of the extraordinary silliness of the publishing industry after the fact.

I was quite put out when I found out that F.W. Dixon did not, in fact, write all of the Hardy Boys books. And I always wondered how on Earth Don Pendleton managed to write about five million Executioner novels. Although I suppose it helped that the plot was always exactly the same. I think the strangest book of this sort I ever read - part of anyhow - was a porn novel set in the middle ages. I'd picked it up at a garage sale thinking it was a historical novel, and it wasn't until I hit about page 30 and the gorgeous hot-bodied Saracen spy was climaxing while being gang-raped that I stopped and went "okay, wait a minute, that's a bit rich."

Lesson: Don't judge a book by its cover or its author's photo.

Comments ()

I broke my blog

Or something. Does anyone have any idea why the sidebar is showing up in Mozilla, Mozilla Firebird and Opera, but not Internet Explorer. Yes, I know that Micro$oft blows, but I'd like those poor benighted souls who are still trapped in Windows to be able to view things properly too without having to make the Great Migration.

Any ideas?

UPDATE - TZ, I tried to paste the code in here to see how it should be modified, but Blogger won't cooperate and it doesn't show up - looks like it's either the script for the comments or the Alliance, since those are the only two. Can you email me to show they should be changed in order to work properly for everyone?

Comments ()

Loathsome abortionettes

The Alan Guttmacher Institute explains why women have abortions:

Woman is concerned about how having a baby could change her life: 76 percent
Woman can’t afford baby now: 68 percent
Woman has health problems: 7 percent
Woman was victim of rape or incest: 1 percent

Strange, all we ever seem to hear about are rape, incest and health of the killer. A lot of things change with marriage; if you're concerned about how your mother-in-law could change your life, is it cool to stick a fork in her head too?

Comments ()

Why the media hates bloggers

Tasty Manatees sums it up very well - competition, and dangerous competition at that: What's important is that Goldberg and his fellow pundits have almost no idea how the Federal regulatory process works when they write about the Environmental Protection Agency or why Senator So-and-So chose blue socks this morning. They mostly rely on the opinions of experts like me who spent years in school and practice learning how to do what we do or insiders who see what goes on behind the scenes. There are no required qualifications for writing other than knowing how to write competent and interesting prose in the English language, a task that many of the "experts" can do quite well (other than myself, of course). Now, the inside men and the experts that the journalists and pundits have relied on for years don't need them to get their points across. Most of us don't realize it, yet, but in time, we will.

It's true. I realize that most of you probably view me as a media figure, but I'm not. I've never had a regular day-job at a newspaper or magazine, and while I've got a reasonably respectable publishing history, it's pretty much been done as a hobby. I did not take a single English or journalism course throughout my college career, which is probably why I actually know something about a variety of industries - having worked in them - unlike many cradle-to-grave journalistas. I consider this blog to be as important to me as my column; more important in some ways.

There are exceptions, of course, but they are few and far between. The dirty little secret of journalism is that most career journalists have a very broad but shallow knowledge base. Interestingly enough, they tend not to be very intellectual, so they tend to be poorly read as well. Also, as verbally oriented people, they tend to overrate verbally facile people and underrate those whose intelligence manifests itself in less immediately obvious ways.

This post brought to you courtesy of Blackfive, the paratrooper of love.

Comments ()

It's the apophasis, stupid!

Eponymous isn't actually stupid, and even in this post purporting to deny that Kerry insulted Bush's service in the National Guard she is amusing. But if you are familiar with the art of the rhetorical insult, you will be immediately notice that the senator used a combination of apophasis and parallelism to first deny that he was making a point of that to which he specifically wished attention to be drawn, and equating National Guard service with fleeing to Canada. The statement has plausible deniability from a pure grammatical perspective, but none from a rhetorical one.

I don't blame Kerry for contrasting his service record with Bush at all; he'd have to be crazy not to. But considering that politics is nothing if not the practice of rhetoric, there's no doubt that he did insult both Bush and the National Guard. For a victorious Commander-in-Chief, Bush is very weak on the military front, but based on this little incident I don't expect Senator Kerry to be able to exploit it effectively.

Comments ()

I'd marry you if my phylum were Homo Harpyopsis

Desert Cat write in response to Paul Craig Roberts: Good Lord! I ought to try writing like that, just for the invigoration. There's nothing quite so invigorating as the discovery of angry hordes clamoring for your hasty demise...

Yeah, I'm anticipating a spot of that on Monday. It may actually make the response to Spiting Their Pretty Faces look downright reasonable, although perhaps not since there's almost nothing you can say to upset a woman more than telling her that she's unmarriageable. I think my favorite response to a ranting 30-something single woman who is up in arms about how breathtakingly desirable she is and how any rich, good-looking Ivy League grad would be hitting the lottery to have her is: "Don't worry, I'm sure you'll make some man very unhappy someday." In any event, here's a list of the predictable responses:

1) Assertions that women don't respect men and have every reason for not doing so. So there.

2) Assertions that I'm just bitter and hate women because I can't a) get laid; b) a date. And in truth, Space Bunny does tend to frown on the latter, although she was trying to set me up with one of her friends* recently. Is that a bad sign?

3) Assertions that I'm a) sexist; b) stupid; c) poorly educated; d) all of the above.

4) Improperly punctuated hysteria that is hard to read, much less make any sense of.

I think I'll post examples of all four this week. Yes, hatemailers of America, that's how boringly predictable you are. And while it may superficially appear as if I'm indifferent to what you have to say, it's only that I'm crying on the inside.

*Oh, relax. I'm just teaching her friend how to shoot at the range.

Comments ()

Toxic update

The Original Cyberpunk is out for the weekend, so don't expect any updates on the Toxic Pool until Monday evening. In the meantime, check the Comments to make sure that your date is free before picking one.

Toxically,
Vox

Comments ()

Mailvox: Gold and money supply

ME writes: Why do you care about the money supply? Did you not hear that Friedman admitted he was wrong in the June 6, 2003, Financial Times? The money supply is useless trivia unless you know the money demand also. You do realize that the demand for money changes, right? The price of gold tells you both the demand and supply, as it is the intersection point. Would you agree that as the dollar price of gold fell from over $400 in March of '96 to $257 in Sept. of '99 this signaled a lack of adequate liquidity and thus a deflation?

Because even if you only know one-half of the equation, it is still useful information. Especially when the supply curve shows a worrisome anomaly that has not often appeared before. Of course I heard about Friedman; no economist didn't. And I absolutely disagree that the decline in the price of gold signaled a lack of liquidity; the very notion is absurd considering the asset inflation that took place during that time. That decline - which has now been reversed - was a very simple matter of vastly increased "supply" as the central banks dumped the majority of their gold holdings "during" this time, so much so that Portugal, Canada and Australia are almost out. Considering how influenced the price of gold is by the furious water-treaders at the central banks, it's a very unreliable indicator of anything except of the banks' ability to keep things afloat. For the time being.

Why the quotes? Because it is starting to appear that the bullion sales may have taken place long prior, and the Washington Agreement may merely be a cover to convert the leases on the book - de facto sales - into de jure sales for the record.

”Keep in mind that when central bankers talk about selling gold, they usually mean writing off as sold their leased gold, gold that is long out of the vault and already sold into the market and a dangerous liability for the bullion banks that borrowed it.... the Bank of Canada continues to announce (almost monthly) the sale of a little more of what’s left of our gold reserves, which are now less than ten tonnes. That too is a crock. When I published my essay When Irish Eyes are Smiling: the story of Brian Mulroney and Canada’s gold, the good folks at the Bank of Canada told me that there had been no physical gold in the bank vaults for years."

Speaking of gold, the Relative ratio dropped to 1.048 at $395 yesterday before climbing up to 1.073. I hope that's not it for the trough, as I was looking to buy at $375... now $380.

UPDATE: "Gold lending was a small activity during the 1980s. It was a much bigger activity during the 1990s, so obviously it was a business that was occurring on an increasing scale. If the discrepancy was 4000 tonnes over ten to fifteen years, 300 to 400 tonnes a year---well, then it was probably 200 tonnes a year in the 1980s and it was probably nearer 600 tonnes a year by 1995. That meant supply and demand were underestimated by something like 600 tonnes a year."

Comments ()

Another reason to ditch Microsoft

If you're not seeing the Links, Faves and Blogrolls on the left side of the blog, it's because you're using Microsoft's Internet Explorer. It looks exactly as it should in both Opera and Mozilla. If you scroll to the bottom, you'll see that everything is there; IE just isn't recognizing the Blogger template for some reason.

Good thing Microsoft doesn't use that shoddy Open Source method of development!

Comments ()

Da junk in tha trunk

Americans, especially women, are consuming far more calories than they did three decades ago, and the increasingly dreaded carbohydrate food group is to blame, according to a federal study released on Thursday. The finding, revealed in a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, comes amid repeated government warnings of a growing obesity epidemic in the nation as well as an explosion in the popularity of low-carbohydrate diets.... CDC researchers found that women between the ages of 20 and 74 consumed an average 1,877 calories per day in 2000, 22 percent more than in 1971. The average intake for males in the same age group was up 8 percent to 2,618 calories in 2000. The percentage of daily calories that came from carbohydrates, which include rice, bread and pasta, rose to 51.6 percent from 45.4 percent in women and to 49 percent from 42.4 percent in men during the period.

Jacqueline Wright, the lead author of the study, noted that the findings should not be seen as supporting the Atkins diet or any other food regimen that stressed low or no consumption of carbohydrates. "I think we need to focus on total calorie intakes," said Wright, an epidemiologist with the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. The study also found that consumption of fat, including saturated fat, which can clog arteries and lead to heart disease, represented a smaller percent of daily calories by the end of the 30-year period.

Let's see... eat 22 percent more, get fat. That's a tough one to figure out. IF YOU WANT TO LOSE WEIGHT, EXERCISE MORE AND EAT LESS. Sure, it sucks. But that's your option. Atkins works because you can only eat so many protein calories before you get sick of eating, while almost anyone can knock down a bag of Oreos in a sitting, or at least a day. I'm sure a diet based on cardboard or eggplant would work too.

Comments ()

Liquidity trap

You want liquidity trap? You can't handle liquidity trap! Scroll to the bottom, and notice how the peak is at 08 2003. This, in spite of interest rate accomodation and smoke coming off the printing presses. If Greenspan and company can bob, duck and weave their way out of this one smoothly, I may have to reconsider my opinion on the inefficacy of monetary policy.

Comments ()

Don't mess with a big brain

Always fear to argue with someone who isn't afraid to say "I don't know." Chances are very high that they're playing on a completely different level.

Thomas Sowell writes: Once, after giving a talk, I was confronted by a lady in the audience who asked what some people regard as the ultimate question:

"What is YOUR solution?"

"There are no solutions," I said. "There are only trade-offs."

"The people DEMAND solutions!" she shot back angrily.

The people can demand square circles if they want. But that doesn't mean that they will get them. What they are more likely to get is the illusion of a solution by someone seeking their vote.

What he said.

Comments ()

Why I'm not on Townhall

Paul Craig Roberts explains a number of things, including why I'm not an odds-on bet to ever be featured on Townhall. Fortunately, I don't give the proverbial rat's patootie. I don't entirely agree with the eminent Mr. Roberts, though, as I think it is possible for a columnist to educate those who are already somewhat inclined his way, but are not as informed.

I tend to think of it more as providing ammunition. In any case, I''m just defending the mike.

Comments ()

It's just a matter of time

I have no doubt that the terrible news about vaccines is going to make its way out before the public eventually. There's no way that the Congress would have protected the manufacturers, distributors and docters from liability if they actually were anywhere nearly as safe as they're claimed. I hope this is the beginning of the end of the charade, but we'll see. You'd think there's far too much money at stake for the veil to fall easily, but hopefully a few honest scientists will value millions of children's lives more than their careers.

OTTAWA-- After assuring parents that additives in vaccines don't cause brain damage, scientists have found what they believe could be a "smoking gun" linking these additives to autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. In a study that was rushed to print on-line today, two months ahead of its scheduled publication in the journal Molecular Psychiatry, U.S. researchers have discovered an apparent link between thimerosal, a controversial mercury-based preservative once commonly used in childhood vaccines, to an increased risk of neurological disorders such as autism and ADHD. While most vaccines distributed in Canada have been thimerosal-free since the early 1960s, the preservative was used in the annual flu shot that doctors recommended this year for even healthy children. In tests on human brain cells, researchers found two natural chemicals -- one compound that stimulates cell growth and also dopamine, which transmits nerve signals -- are both key to a process in the brain called methylation.

Methylation helps DNA work properly and is crucial to the normal development of the brain.The team found thimerosal, ethanol and the metals lead and mercury all interfere with methylation. What's more, thimerosal did so at doses 100 times lower than a child would receive after a single shot with a thimerosal-containing vaccine. "It was by far the most potent," said investigator Dr. Richard Deth, a professor of pharmacology at Northeastern University in Boston. He said the study, which also involved researchers from Johns Hopkins University, the University of Nebraska and Tufts University in Boston, could account for the rising rates of autism since the early 1980s, when more thimerosal-containing shots were added to a child's vaccine schedule.

A recent review of vaccine-related "adverse events" in the U.S. found a"significant correlation" between shots containing thimerosal and autism,the researchers report.

Comments ()

KMC on "marriage"

I'm generally loathe to continue a previous day's discussion, so as to avoid beating a lifeless equine, but Kevin McCullough wanted to contribute his take by way of his column today. I don't think I buy into the concept myself; Canada is showing that there's no need for such a redefinition of marriage in order to crack down on the traditional and the faithful with newly manufactured hate crimes, while in other places, like Zurich, such "marriage" exists without any attendant speech codes and PC enforcement. As with gun control, a failure to look beyond the borders can sometimes create false dichotomies. But don't take my word for it, go see for yourself.

KMC writes: ...if a state were to give "sanctity" to an otherwise "immoral" activity then there is no need to worry about what that church says anymore. In fact, if the right hate-crime laws are passed then maybe ... just perhaps ... we can shut down those voices who say such things all together.

Maybe this argument might impress a few moderates and shaky conservatives who still believe that legality equates to morality. Since my libertarian logic rejects that concept, I'm left fairly cold by this notion. But, it is conceivable and it is true that the Stalinist nature of the American gay rights movement is surpassed only by the abortionette Left. Not being privy to the inner circles of the Lavender Mafia, I have no idea what the grand master plan behind such "marriage" is. The Norwegian and Swedish statistics suggest that most homosexuals aren't actually interested in "marrying" and are highly unlikely to stay "married" even if they do go through with it . Perhaps the Gayfather will deign to enlighten us; I'm pretty sure our non-rabid queer friends have no more clue than we do.

Speaking of columns, I just turned in next week's. I imagine we may get a few angry feminist sorts popping their noses in, assuming they aren't too bent out of shape to fit. If nothing else, there should be some amusing fodder for the cannons. Just a little something to anticipate in case you feel the need to sharpen your knives over the weekend.

Comments ()

Ending abortion in South Dakota

The Aberdeen News reports: Opponents warned legislators that passing the measure would be a costly mistake. South Dakota will wind up in court, and the legal fees will be huge, they said, reminding state lawmakers that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 1973 ruling that abortion is legal.

Excellent. If the infanticidists are reduced to arguing about the cost of legal defense, the pro-life forces must have the votes to push it through. And just how much of a cow town do they believe South Dakota to be if they think no one there has heard of Roe v. Wade?

This post brought to you courtesy of The Evangelical Outpost

Comments ()

Why George Delano does what he do

The thing that's important to keep in mind is that most Republican politicians, for all their supply-side rhetoric, are still Keynesians. They believe that the prime mover of the economy is government spending, since C+I+G = GDP. Consumption + Investment + Government Spending = Gross Domestic Product. C and I are outside of their direct control, so therefore, G must be increased if the economy is going to grow in a dependable manner.

This is all the more true since I = S. Investment = Savings, but American savings are actually negative, since people are spending more money than they are earning thanks to low interest rates and easy debt. The post-1991 economic boom has entirely consisted of debt-funded C + lots of G + foreign I.

Now here's where we're looking at trouble. In order to pay off the interest on old I, the dollar is dropping off a cliff. This is why foreign I has dried up - remember, domestic I is nonexistent - except for the Japanese, who are playing their own bizarre Keynesian game. C can't increase much more, since everyone has already refinanced their homes several times, blown all their equity and are in debt up to their eyeballs. This leaves two alternatives, rampant inflation or a massive increase in government spending. It looks to me as if the decision has been made to pursue both at once, which shows that things may be extraordinarily fragile. Without this spending, George Delano's advisors believe the economy will tank before November despite the modest increase in C derived from the tax cuts. They don't care what they spend it on, just so it gets spent.

However, the negative reaction of the conservative base appears to be causing the Republican braintrust to rethink this strategy, which means that either a) they'll take the chance that conservatives will stay home and announce more spending; or b) they'll announce new tax cuts to attempt to stimulate C enough to make up for what they hoped to achieve by increasing G. In either case, expect federal debt to increase dramatically.

Of course, the deeper problem is that the entire Keynesian macro model is total nonsense, so the very conundrum is a false one, but until we've got Austrian-school economists from the Mises Institute in the White House, this analytical model should be useful for understanding political behavior as the Season of False Promises draws nigh.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Comments ()

Fun with WMD

The Original Cyberpunk writes: We *know* that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them against the Kurds and the Iranians, ergo, he had them. To argue otherwise is idiocy. We *know* that chemical weapons can stay hidden and dangerous for quite a long time. For example, just last summer, construction workers in China acccidentally dug into a chemical weapons dump hidden by the retreating Japanese army in 1944 or '45, resulting in fatalities and much hard feelings between the two countries. Ergo, this issue won't go away. We *know* that American voters have short attention spans: two months, tops. Further, we *know* that there's no point in announcing political news before Labor Day or on Halloween weekend. So, the question: WHEN *EXACTLY* will Donald Rumsfeld announce the discovery of vast stores of Iraqi chemical, radiological, and/or biological weapons? I pick Saturday, October 16, 2004:

Here's the deal. If you want in, check the Comments and go to The Toxic Pool and see what dates are taken. Nothing's up there until tonight. Then pick your date, add it to the Comments so everyone can see AND mail it to me so OC can add it to the table. Whoever is closest gets first prize, which is a signed copy of at least four of our books, the next three closest get a signed copy of Rebel Moon. Only one date per person, current or former employees of either the Iraqi or Syrian regimes are not permitted to enter. If there's no announcement, then, well, it didn't cost anything to play now, did it.

I got Monday, October 18th.

UPDATE: The Toxic Pool is up! Check it out before picking your dates.

Comments ()

Anonymous blogging

I seriously fail to see what the deal is here. [There's been a bit of a discussion floating around the Sphere thanks to J. Goldberg and the PuppyAbuser] You know everything you need to know about a blog from the ideas they express. I daresay that those of you who visit here regularly or have read my column for two years know who I am a lot better than half the people who primarily encounter me socially on a regular basis and with whom I only engage in meaningless small talk.

It makes no difference that we know Jonah Goldberg=Jonah Goldberg but we don't know if BloggerX=Mark Smith or Jane Weatherbee. Who cares? Ideas must be capable of standing on their own right and I hate the notion that X = true if A is black, but false if A is white. Substitute your personal identifying adjective of choice, but you get the point.

I'm not anonymous anyhow, as anyone with 30 seconds and an Internet link or a decent grasp of classical languages can figure out my private joke between me. But this is the persona that I have chosen for myself in this field, just as Desert Cat and Physics Geek have carved out their own little niches and I think that's cool. Heck, I was just talking with the White Buffalo about the right name for someone who has personally threatened me if their blogstar name is insufficiently flattering. (By the way, El Zinko Pinko, I have to tell you that he has been absolutely dying to make a Teletubbies reference and he is very sad that he doesn't know you well enough to rip you. Oh, that I were so fortunate.)

Which reminds me. There is no better set of monikers than on the radio shows when Todd Steussie was playing in Minnesota. There was "Holding On Number 73 On The Offense Guy" and "False Start on Number 73 On The Offense Guy". Space Bunny was hoping Carolina would lose just so I'd stop saying that every time they showed Steussie on TV. "Hey, false start on Number-" "Would you PLEASE shut up with that?" "But, see, the irony is that it actually was a false-" "I DON'T CARE!"

What was the point? Did I have one? Oh, right. Anonymous blogging is moral, virtuous, good and healthy. And let's face it, it's fun.

Comments ()

Mailvox: notions of decline

Hank writes on homosexuality and Roman decline: Speaking of false correlations here's a great counter example. The rise of Christianity tracks the collapse of the Roman empire. Perhaps Christianity is the root of the collapse. I'd guess probably not, but they both share the same space of history so we could try and draw that kind of a ridiculous conclusion.

If you'd look at how the homosexual emperors were behaving, you'd better understand the notional relationship between the moral degradation and the imperial decline. More than one emperor was murdered by his bodyguard because they couldn't stomach his behavior, which didn't contribute a great deal to political stability. Edward II met a similar fate, as well, but he was an aberration for an English king.

I think my favorite example is this. "He [Elagabulus] impersonated the Great Mother in a lion-drawn chariot and publicly posed as the Venus Pudica, dropping to his knees with buttocks thrust before a male partner.... He had to be dissuaded from castrating himself, reluctantly accepting circumcision as a compromise." His reign didn't last long or end well. Gibbons writes: "he was massacred by the indignant Praetorians, his mutilated corpse dragged through the streets of the city, and thrown into the Tiber."

I imagine that when our president begins behaving in like manner, total collapse won't be too far off. When you compare the first openly Christian emperor (Constantine) with the first openly homosexual emperor (Nero), you get an interesting picture of the different influences on the society. (Yes, I know about Sulla and Caesar, but the first kept it hidden and wasn't an emperor, in the case of the second there are only rumors and insults. I'm not sure about Tiberius, but then, neither were the Romans.)

UPDATE: by the way, I'm quite certain that Christianity helped bring about the ultimate downfall of Rome. Generally speaking, the intellectual freedom that Christianity can and has inspired in many individuals is not particularly conducive to totalitarian rule, which, no doubt, is why totalitarians tend to hate Christians and attempt to control the Church. I personally view homosexuality as a mid-to-late stage symptom of societal decline, not a cause.

Comments ()

Marriage and the State

Stanley Kurtz defends marriage: Because marriage is deeply implicated in the interests of children, it is a matter of public concern. Children are helpless. They depend upon adults. Over and above their parents, children depend upon society to create institutions that keep them from chaos. Children cannot articulate their needs. Children cannot vote. Yet children are society. They are us, and they are our future. That is why society has the right to give special support and encouragement to an institution that is necessary to the well being of children — even if that means special benefits for some, and not for others. The dependence intrinsic to human childhood is why unadulterated libertarianism can never work.

This is such a crock of illogic. Like Stanley, I'm 100 percent opposed to the oxymoronic concept of "gay marriage", but it's ridiculous to state that unadulterated libertarianism can never work where marriage is concerned. People were successfully married and raised children for thousands of years without state recognition.

Doesn't anyone read history anymore?

He does, however, provide interesting evidence that common estimates of the gay population are wildly exaggerated: we are dealing with a strikingly small population — too small to draw clear conclusions. In Norway, same-sex registered partnerships form only .68 percent as often as heterosexual marriages. In Sweden, registered partnerships form only .55 percent as often as heterosexual marriages (i.e. about one half of 1 percent as often).

So much for the ten percent theory. I never bought that for a second anyhow. And this is in Scandinavia, where men are even less likely to marry the mothers of their children than in America.

Comments ()

Kerry-Clinton

Dick Morris has waffled a little on his predictions of the Lizard Queen's future behavior, but he may well be onto something this time: But the big reason Hillary should run is that the Democrats might well win in 2004. If a new president takes office in 2004 - and runs for a second term in 2008 - Hillary will have to keep fresh for eight years, a hard task in the best of times. In the Senate, she would be, at best, an onlooker as the action moves to a Democratic White House. But as vice president, she would have the on-deck circle to herself and would be the presumptive nominee in 2012..... If Hillary doesn't run for vice president on the Democratic ticket in 2004, the person who does will be a strong candidate against her in 2008 if the ticket loses and a presumptive favorite in 2012 if it wins. She doesn't need the competition. Should Bush win re-election, it will likely not be by the massive margin by which he would probably have defeated Dean. There would be no shame for Hillary in running for vice president on a ticket that narrowly lost.

It now appears that I was correct when I agreed with Morris' original 2002 calculation that the Lizard Queen would not run for president this time around. I do think that there is a real chance that she'll accept an offer of a vice-presidential nomination from Senator Kerry, however. Kerry won't win - senators seldom do - but the election will be close enough that Hillary wouldn't be tainted by it and would therefore become the presumptive nominee in 2008. If she allows Edwards, for one, to claim the VP spot, she'll find it nearly impossible to beat him out in the 2008 primaries, as the sputtering failure of Clark's "amazing campaign" has demonstrated the limits of the Clinton machine. If Kerry manages to win, of course, the VP logic becomes even more pressing. And in that case, she'd also make history as the first female VP.

Comments ()

Gay devil worshippers

The Gayfather writes to WND: [Joseph Farah's] God is a false God, who is a homophobic bigot. Our true God gave us our homosexuality as a divinely-inspired gift and blessing, to be enjoyed to its fullest, exultantly, exuberantly, and joyously. Gay is good, Godly, moral and virtuous, and American. You homophobes are evil, unGodly, immoral and sinful, irrational to the point of utter lunacy and beyond, and unAmerican and anti-American. You don't have a clue as to what America and true Americanism are all about.

Ever since reading Sexual Personae, I've suspected that homosexuality is fundamentally a spiritual disease, an Apollonian death cult. Mr. Kameny, the self-styled Godfather of the gay rights movement, seems to illustrate this concept rather clearly. Unrepentant homosexuals do have a god, and he is the one that Jesus and Paul described as the prince of this world. In a previous email to me, the Gayfather has also argued that homosexuality is healthier than normalcy, which is, to say the least, a staggeringly abstract assertion. He takes dialectic to intellectual depths undreamed of by Hegel, Marx or Lenin. One's mind reels when imagining his conception of true Americanism, considering his redefinitions of health, morality and virtue.

1 John 4: 2-4
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

John 14: 30
I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

Comments ()

Mailvox: the corrupt judicial system

DD comments in response to another reader's declaration that prosecutors and judges are ambitious and out to "get their man": I've been a prosecutor for 15 years, long enough to lose any naivete. You're dead wrong. Yes, there are a FEW individuals in those fields more concerned with their own cheap ambitions than justice. However, the overwhelming majority of cops, DAs and judges are honorable men and women who could earn much more money doing something far safer, but continue to do what they do because they want to make a difference. Don't trash things about which you have no personal knowledge.

That's an anecdotal attempt to fragantize the equine ejectus, DD, and it won't stand up before those of us who do have personal knowledge. Most judges are corrupt to the core and DA's simply serve the interests of the State, not justice. In one case where I was assisting preparation, the judge overruled an objection when the Asst. DA began to offer testimony - they're not allowed to, but no bar lawyer ever challenges them on this - because, as she said, although the plaintiff's objection was technically correct, she was just gathering information and was going to admit the testimony because she wasn't going to rule on it. Then she granted the motion to dismiss on the sole basis of the testimony she'd just allowed in violation of the federal rules of court procedure. Even worse, the "testimony" was blatantly false and the Asst. DA couldn't even produce any witness because the only one was dead. I have the transcript; even the judge in the subsequent lawsuit admitted that the hearing was a joke.

I was also the sole witness in an unrelated case where there was no question whatsoever about the wording of a contract, but the judge was too bored to care, so he decided it by flipping a coin. Those have been my two personal experiences, also anecdotal, true, but my cynical view of the court system is backed up by the larger facts as well.

Judges routinely lie to the juries in their instructions to them, as permitted by the Supreme Court (Sparf v U.S. 156 U.S. 51, 1895), where "the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that although juries have the right to ignore a judge's instructions on the law, the jury shouldn't be aware of it." There's also the whole sham of administrative courts, which are designed to look like real judicial courts, but get around the protections of the common law. Which is why we have the "tax courts" and "child services courts" consisting of agents of those very services dressed up like judges and pretending to be impartial, whereas they are executive branch employees operating in overt defiance of the separation of powers doctrine.

And then, there's "case law", which judges use to redefine what the law says. For example, in one state, private property is only interpreted to mean "things that grow in the ground" thanks to one judge's baseless declaration back in the 19th century. There are hundreds of examples of this form of corruption.

The judicial system is entirely corrupt, from the United States Supreme Court down to the state district courts, which has the terrible effect of tainting the actions of even the most well-meaning people working within it. I have sympathy for these individuals, but no respect for the system whatsoever. Sure, there are good people working inside it; one of my best and oldest friends is a high-powered attorney and I've lifted weights and done martial arts with friends who are cops for years. Still, I have no doubt that there were plenty of nice, well-meaning people in the Waffen SS and the KGB too - I doubt they were doing what they did for the money either, but because they believed what they were told. There has never been a police state without police, prosecutors and judges; history demonstrates that individuals in such professions are by no means worthy of a free pass based on their occupation, indeed, it tends to suggest precisely the opposite.

This isn't to say that it is ambition that corrupts the people of the system, it's just that most of those operating within it are not especially bright and have very little idea with regards to what the law actually says or what justice actually demands. And yet, America's hope may well rest on them, on people like Joe Banister, who are courageous enough to admit that they are a small cog in a vast and corrupt machine doing great injustice to the American people.

Comments ()

Oh, the irony

Wired reports: Jerome Armstrong, an Internet strategist for the Dean campaign and Moulitsas' partner in a political consulting firm, first encountered Yellin on MyDD, his now-mothballed blog. Armstrong is clearly impressed by Yellin and fondly recalls the teenager's first electoral effort. "When Stephen ran for student council, he told me he had divided the school into interest groups, the jocks, the popular kids, etc., and tried to figure out where his support was and how to appeal to them," said Armstrong. "He was applying political strategy to a high school race." Despite his political smarts, Yellin did not win a seat. "I had a nice strategy," said Yellin, "but I didn't realize that the most popular people win, not the most competent."

No doubt this kid will make a fantastic Democratic analyst, being so clueless that he lost his first school election. Oh, how I loathe these young political types! In my own dabblings in this sort of thing, I won both races I managed, one my own campaign for school vice-president in elementary school, the other for my friend who was running for senior class president his junior year of college. The key to the first was realizing that all the very popular people were running for president, so I ran for VP, won, and discovered that I hated absolutely everything about school politics and the sort of kids who think they matter. The kid who won the presidential election and is no doubt a Congressman by now won the hearts and minds of the electorate by promising longer recess. In fifth grade!

The key to the second was working to my candidate's strength. He happened to be extraordinarily good-looking, so I arranged to get the Dean of Student's login and password, used it to break into the university's computer system and printed out a list of all the junior girls arranged by dorm and room number. (Mass mailings through the university's mail system weren't possible and he was going up against the popular three-year incumbent). We designed a little flyer that just basically said he was running underneath a big picture of him looking very handsome, all blond bangs, sculpted cheekbones and white teeth, then dropped a copy off under the doors of every junior girl on campus the night before the election. We got about ten phone numbers apiece and he won in a landslide the next afternoon.

Lesson: you can never be too attractive, or too cynical. Sometimes I miss not having a conscience.

This post brought to you courtesy of Clay Whittaker

Comments ()

Mailvox: Another easy one

AW writes: Since you are a Christian, how do you reconcile the idea of a literal hell with a loving God. I am not trying to provoke a debate, or anything of that nature. Rather, I am (was) a Christian myself, who is struggling heavily with my faith because of this. As I read the Bible, hell is a place of torture, and I just don't get it. It isn't the idea of separation from God that causes me problems, but the idea of people being tortured for eternity because of temporal crimes, or bad decisions. I realize you don't hold yourself up as a theological teacher, but since you are a person whose opinions I respect, I was just hoping to get your take or possibly a book you can recommend that discusses this issue.

Evolution, drugs and now Hell... and here I was hoping for something more on the order of: Janet Jackson, over or under the muscle?

Anyhow, let me first state that a) I don't actually know anything about this; b) neither does anyone else; c) there is information in the Bible, which also states that no one is capable of understanding these things clearly. Nor am I a professional theologian, then again, I actually believe in God. Keep your expectations low, as I'm flying free here. Please note that assuming many Christian postulates are required to play here; atheist friends, please save the "I don't believe X anyhow" for another post.

First, I think it's important to keep in mind that our opinions are utterly irrelevant. Either God and Hell exist or they do not. The truth is what it is, so even if God is a cruel, malicious psychopath who gets His rocks off by seeing humans spin their wheels, fail, die and burn forever, it is arguably in your best eternal interest to stay on His good side. Believe or don't believe, but don't disbelieve because you don't like what you perceive to be the truth. That's just stupid ostrichism unless you're actually willing to pay that inestimable price. Given that most people behave like craven sheep when threatened by an audit, I find it very difficult to believe that anyone is seriously interested in going to the mat - or rather, the Pit, over this principle.

Now, I don't think that's actually the case. The deeper problem, I think, stems from the notion that a loving, all-powerful God is some sort of control freak. I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I'm reasonably well read in the Scriptures and I've yet to read anything to indicate that supports a broad view that God is minutely managing everything. Whereas, to the contrary, there are many examples suggesting that we and the angels have tremendous free will and power. Jesus never disputed that Satan had the power to offer him all the kingdoms of the world, and both he and Paul referred to the Prince of the World, indicating that it is not God who rules over the Earth, but Satan. This is why CS Lewis referred to the concept of the Divine Invasion, which is present in both the Chronicles of Narnia and the Space Trilogy. A winter land, a shadowed planet, taken over and ruled by evil, which God must invade in order to begin restoring his original ideal.

As spirits, we have an eternal component which has been tainted by this shadow, and without being cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, we cannot approach the presence of God. Valuing free will, God does not force us to be cleansed, but merely offers such cleansing to us. There's a lot of theories about Hell, of course, but since I suspect that God exists outside of the space-time continuum, it is possible that our spirits will also exist outside the space-time continuum. Since we know nothing of it, it is possible that everything that is outside of God's presence is nothing but chaos and fire, which the damned are sentenced to dwell since they cannot approach the order of God's presence. In this case, torture is not so much punishment as it is simply an inevitable result of a bad decision. And we suffer the never-ending consequences for bad decisions all the time. The mother who leaves her baby in the bathtub for 'just a second", the father who shoots at a flicker of movement that he thinks is a deer, the teenager who turns around to talk to his friend while he's driving... I see nothing out of what appears to be the natural order in that concept.

I am not saying that any of this is the case, you understand, only that it is certainly possible to conceive of a reasonable scenario which permits the simultaneous existence of a loving God and an eternal Hell. But in any case, as I mentioned before, I don't think it actually matters from our point of view, except perhaps to assuage our feelings. It's very clear from the Bible that our task is not to understand God - which at any rate is as impossible for us as it is for the characters in a video game to understand the intentions of the designer - but to obey Him.

Comments ()

Staying off the doggy list

John Adler of NRO isn't afraid to take on a Republican administration: It should be no surprise that the long-coddled sugar industry -- and its hangers on -- are pulling out all the stops to derail trade agreements that could loosen import restrictions on foreign sugar. But it is nothing short of outrageous that the Bush Administration appears to be capitulating, as noted in yesterday's print WSJ. Under the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement, a small trickle of foreign sugar will be allowed in, and the Administration is apologizing to the sugar industry for it.... Americans (including all kinds of American companies that use sugar) will pay more for sweeteners, all to protect one well-connected industry. It's enough to make a free trader sick.

Another republican principle sold down the river by Republicans? Say it isn't so! Not George Delano! Slowly, conservatives begin to wake up. Slowly, but surely. Notice that these Free Trade Agreements are always anything but? There's no need for massive encyclopedic tomes, all you need is a one-page document saying: Congress shall make no law..... Of course, neither Democrats nor Republicans pay any attention to that sort of thing.

Comments ()

The Constitution Party on drugs

Contrary to a reader's comment, the Constitution Party does not support the War on Drugs. Their actual stance is as follows:

The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions in appropriate cases with application of the death penalty. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered. At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved.

It is not identical to the very conservative Libertarian position, which seeks to return the situation to that of the period between 1789-1914, when drug use was a matter of individual choice. Of course, they didn't have opium or cocaine or marijuana back then.... In any event, the Constitution Party is clearly opposed to the anti-constitutional Federal Drug War. I lean towards the Libertarian position myself, but I regard the Constitutional's position to be very worthy of merit except for the bit about the death penalty, which I oppose on the basis of putting up every possible obstacle to the State being permitted to kill its citizens. The bit about the illegal drug flow is redundant, as the Constitution clearly gives the Federal government the power to regulate imports, legal or otherwise.

Comments ()

Republican whore doggies: the list

Whore Doggy: definition: 1. [n] a self-styled conservative columnist who publicly sacrifices his previously-held principles in the interest of furthering the election prospects of the Republican Party. 2. [n] a columnist who sacrifices his principles in the interest of defending a specific politician. 3. [n] a conservative columnist who has been wholly suckered by fraudulent conservative rhetoric.

Gary Aldrich, Townhall
Some might ask, “Where is the Conservative agenda we voted for? Isn’t there one good example of a Conservative agenda item in one single federal agency?” ...I hope we’ve had enough of the failed Clinton concepts for protecting our homeland. Bush should be reelected for that reason alone – and if he is not, I wonder if the Super Bowl half-time show is not a fair representation of what we have become as a people.

Dennis Prager, WorldNetDaily
I believe that this man [George Delano Bush] is changing history for the better, that he is the dam holding back the waters of chaos, that he saved this country at a time when Democrats would have failed it, and that he is both kind and strong, real and decent, powerful and humble.... Unless he is a faker -- and I believe that I can sense a faker a mile away -- it was clear that the president was moved.... I realize that I open myself to ridicule by saying that everything I had suspected about the man was reinforced in a little over a minute....

George Will, Washington Post
Some conservatives believe government strength is inherently inimical to conservative aspirations. This belief mistakenly assumes that all government action is merely coercive, hence a subtraction from freedom. But government can act strongly to make itself less controlling and intrusive, enacting laws that offer opportunities and incentives for individuals to become more self-sufficient.... Bush's presidency, which seals his party's coming-to-terms with the need to put strong government in the service of conservative values, is neither a surrender to the liberal agenda nor an armistice in the struggle over whether social policy should emphasize equality or freedom. Rather, it liberates Republicans to adopt reforms in the provision of education, health care and pensions.

Michael Potemra, National Review
I'M HEARTENED BY CONSERVATIVES... and how they are responding to the Bush NEA announcement. Jonah says that most of the e-mail he's getting-by something like a three-to-one margin-gives Bush a pass on this issue. This is a very important signal, because it shows a certain maturity of outlook on the part of conservatives: a dogged insistence on focusing on the Big Picture.

And to think George Will was once one of my heroes.... There will surely be more. If anyone has some good nominees, email them to me accompanied by a supporting quote. Conservatives, I may not be one of you anymore, as I am a Christian libertarian, but I'm telling you, I'm much closer your side than most of your so-called leaders are.

Comments ()

Collateral damage

Okay, conservative friends and Drug Warriors, let's see if we can pull you out of your nightmarish hypotheses long enough to take a look at the actual facts of the collateral damage issue:

US HIGHWAY DEATHS: 41,611*
LEGAL DRUG OVERDOSE: 27,000**
ILLEGAL DRUG OVERDOSE: 5,200

Now, does anyone believe that legalizing drugs that tens of millions of people are already using is going to octuple the number of people ODing? Because clearly, we're quite willing to accept 40,000 annual deaths in the interest of easy transportation. How much more should we accept in the defense of the Constitution? And the fallacy of arguing that it should be illegal because of the possibility of more people driving under the influence should be obvious to everyone: such driving is already illegal. It's also easy to argue that drug warriors have actually worsened the collateral damage. In Oregon, deaths from illegal drug overdose more than doubled, from 70 to 183, after ten years of drug war.

There is only one serious case for the War on Drugs. It is an excellent way to get large numbe