ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, August 07, 2004

Kumbaya

Ladies and gentlemen, without further ado, Ms Theresa Heinz Kerry:

You cannot solve problems by throwing stones, and you cannot solve problems by telling lies, and you cannot solve problems by wishing ill to other people," she said. "The only way you solve problems is by holding hands and talking about it....

Oh sweet Moses! There are times when I think it's possible to be an adult and a Democrat. This isn't one of them.

Beside the point

Michelle Malkin thinks she can simultaneously play and referee:

Taken in totality, rather than in selective slivers, my defense of Roosevelt’s homeland security measures remains unrefuted.

Next, please.

Malkin skips over the point that her entire thesis is utterly absurd! The totality of all the minor dangers Malkin cites doesn't come close to that posed by the British Army in the War of 1812 - when British troops actually invaded the American homeland, burned the White House, etc. and yet the Commander-in-Chief did not then feel the need to completely shred the Constitution as did FDR with his executive order to intern and relocate American citizens of Japanese descent.

There was never any serious danger to the West Coast. Even if a factory or two was sabotaged, even if a military base or two was spied upon, even if a submarine lobbed a few shells at Los Angeles, it was not going to have any effect on the war effort whatsoever, as US industrial capacity absolutely dwarfed that of Germany and Japan combined. Since Malkin apparently knows nothing about military history, she rests her case on posterior-covering reports which consist of little more than what-ifs and just-maybes. Not having read the book, I don't know if she's actually foolish enough to claim that the West Coast was under the threat of invasion, but from the sound of her defense, I don't think she was quite that detached from the history of this space-time continuum.

As for the protective aspects of the interment, if Malkin's book causes her to become insufficiently popular with enough people, shall we lock her up against her will? For her own protection of course.

With Michelle's support for the Patriot Act and now this boot-licking justification of State muscle-flexing, it seems she is as naive as she is lovely. Would-be dictators always promise protection from incipient danger, if only they can set themselves above the law. That hoary old trick was ancient when Marius was pulling it on the Conscript Fathers.

UPDATE: Here's some information on the man that Ms Malkin is defending. It's particularly interesting to hear that he bragged he had "committed enough illegal acts to be impeached and jailed for 999 years" even before he was seizing the nation's gold and forcing American citizens out of their homes.

MarketVox: catching up

A week or two ago, I mentioned that if Wave 3 began in Feb-March, that it could be expected to run downhill until July 2006. One thing interesting about yesterday's swoon was that in addition to breaking the important supports at 1080 and 1074, the SPX actually managed to get ahead of the schedule I proposed for it.

With 16.56 percent of the estimated 640 days to the next major bottom, the SPX has fallen 17.06 percent. The NDX, on the other hand, has only fallen 18.63 percent since its top, in 21.25 percent of the time. (The NDX usually tops differently than the SPX and DOW, although they bottom together at the big turns. In this case, it came 30 trading days earlier.)

Since the market never moves in straight lines, we'll probably see a mini-rally soon, but I wouldn't start looking for a multi-day one until the NDX falls another 5 percent or so. The last two short term moves were (i) down 10.86 percent and (ii) up 3.89 percent, so 6.87 percent in five trading days would seem too little movement in too short a time to mark the end of (iii).

All of this assumes, of course, that the wave patterns are meaningful. Always take it with a grain of salt.

You're going to get what you deserve


MEXICO CITY - The US drugs czar has admitted that Washington's anti-narcotics policy in Latin America has so far failed.

Mr John Walters, who heads the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, acknowledged that billions of dollars of investment over many years have failed to dent the flow of Latin American cocaine onto US streets, but he predicted progress would be seen soon.

It's not working, so of course, efforts will be redoubled. After almost 25 years of the War on Drugs, with nothing to show for it except hundreds of thousands of innocent people in jail and numerous American liberties destroyed, you'd think pro-drug war conservatives would consider pulling their heads out of their posteriors and wake up to how they've been helping destroy America.

"But what if we legalized drugs," they gasp in horror. "Surely the country will collapse in a maelstrom of crack whores and coke fiends!" Well, Mr. Historical Ignoramus, seeing as how society and individual rights were in better shape back when the government was less powerful, rope was made of hemp and cocaine was legal, I don't think we have a whole lot to fear, not from drugs, anyhow.

Using the power of the central state to control human behavior is always a mistake. As with the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs was designed as a weapon to be used against the American people. Don't believe me? Fine, email me your telephone number and I'll phone in an anonymous tip about the meth lab in your garage. Then you can discover firsthand just how well your Constitutional rights protect you.

Are you noticing a pattern here? We must throw out the Constitution because the Japanese are going to invade across 5500 miles of ocean! We must throw out the Constitution because Billy might smoke pot! We must throw out the Constitution because someone might send money to their bank in the Caymans! We must throw out the Constitution because someone is killing someone else in Iraq! We must throw out the Constitution because someone blew up two buildings in New York! We must throw out the Constitution because we need to promote economic growth!

Americans deserve precisely what they're getting, which is to say a nation sans Constitution and individual rights. Ben Franklin warned us from the start, but no, we knew better! Things are different now, in this, the modern age. Sure, there may have been conspiracies in Rome, Byzantium, China, Greece, France, Spain, Germany, Russia and every other state power in the history of the world, but you'd have to be a crazy wearer of tinfoil hats if you think anyone would conspire after power in America! Why would anyone want to control the richest, most militarily powerful nation the world has ever known?

So, vote for Bush or vote for Kerry if you like, it makes no difference. Truly, it doesn't. The die is cast and it has been for some time, probably since 1971 and Bretton Woods. I'm voting Libertarian because I believe there is value in acts of defiance, and because it is better to grasp at the slimmest of slim chances than to lend my hand and my consent to the devastation.

Politicians like to say they're bullish on America. But odds are high that it's those who short it that will reap the profits. In forty years, when the United States abandons its sovereignty to become a state of the American Union, (as the Free Trade Area of the Americas will likely be known as it follows the model of the European Economic Community), you will not be able to say that you weren't warned.

Slothful atheists


But perhaps the most striking of all the differences between American and European working patterns, however, relates to working hours. In 1999, according to figures from the OECD, the average American in employment worked just under 2,000 hours a year (1,976). The average German worked 1,535 - 22 per cent less.

According to a recent American study, the average Frenchman works a staggering 32 per cent less. The journalist Madeleine Bunting has recently lamented that British workers are being pushed towards the American model, but the British worker is still working 12 per cent less than his American counterpart. This gap between American and European working hours is of surprisingly recent origin; 25 years ago, it didn't exist. Between 1979 and 1999, the average US working year lengthened by 50 hours, nearly four per cent. But the average German working year shrank by 12 per cent. The same was true elsewhere in Europe.

How are we to explain this divergence? The obvious answer is European legislation such as the French 35-hour week or the recent British reduction of the hours worked by junior doctors. Another theory points to differences in marginal rates of taxation. But I cannot resist suggesting another possible explanation - one that owes a debt to Weber's famous essay The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which he wrote almost exactly a century ago.

Weber believed he had identified a link between the rise of Protestantism and the development of what he called "the spirit of capitalism". I would like to propose a modern version of Weber's theory, namely "The Atheist Sloth Ethic and the Spirit of Collectivism".

Interesting concept. It makes sense that atheists would be less inclined to work hard, since if this life is all they've got before vanishing into oblivion, there's no point in slaving away instead of devoting oneself to an Epicurean philosophy of eat, drink and be merry. Oh, sure, some misguided non-souls among the godless might be inclined to work hard to make a better life for their children or something, but in general, it would be logical for the soulless to employ the same parasitic attitude towards societal wealth that they do towards societal mores.

I can't say I entirely disagree, either. As I've written previously, I don't think anyone ever went to his Maker - or into the dark bowels of oblivion - wishing he'd spent more time at the office.

Friday, August 06, 2004

It's a mystery

Rich Lowry scratches his head:

It's always a kick to speak at a YAF events. Any eye-batting aside, what was most notable about this year was just how many smart young conservatives out there seem to think that there are no important differences between Bush and Kerry--whether this election really matters was a question that came up repeatedly. I find it hard to fathom how someone can think that, but there you are...

Gee, I have no idea. Perhaps it's because they're the smart ones.

One at a time

JS sends a timely email:

My change-of-party form is now making its way through the bureaucracy. As soon as they process it, I'll be officially registered Libertarian. Ironically, it appears the government has trouble even processing a simple form. I got a call saying the processing was delayed because the portion of the form which had my address on it had been "cut off by their letter opening machine".

Anyway, I wanted to thank you for the part your blog and columns have had in helping me make this decision. Six months ago I fretted over the decision to leave the Republican party. However, given impetus to think it through, I realized I had always preferred George Washington's America over George Bush's. The final "decision" was no decision at all, with little fretting necessary. I'm less a "convert" to the Libertarian Party than one who simply (and finally) noticed which party walked the walk instead of just talking the talk.

This is by no means the first email of this sort that I've received, but I thought it was worth posting considering the recent conversation about what libertarians are doing. The most important things don't involve getting involved in formal party politics, but in convincing those around you that principle matters.

And JS, you are very welcome. The battle won't be won, tomorrow, November or the next election cycle, but it isn't lost until the last man quits.

Strong, educated women

Fred praises the Mexicanas:

Now, young and beautiful has its charm. Men do not, as a rule, seek out withered crones. But—and I know many of these men well—what draws them is the warmth and womanliness of the Mexicana. In Mexico you don’t marry one of the guys. You don’t marry a child-support bomb waiting to explode without visitation. You don’t marry a hundred pounds of irrational anger looking for an excuse. You marry a woman. The difference…my God, the difference.... Yes, money is the only effective aphrodisiac, anywhere, as any man knows who has been in the Philippines with a paycheck. Drive a flashy car in Washington and leave hundred-dollar tips and you will have women all over you....

Violeta was suddenly, utterly, and in the short term irremediably without work or money. She also had a daughter of nine to care for. For a long time it was beans, tortillas, and water. Mexico does not have the social safety net that Americans rely on. So they stayed home and read. Violeta got through the Decameron and four volumes of Borges.

While I don't even know that I've ever met a Mexicana, I can't help but wonder how many of the self-professed strong, educated American women, who require intense therapy and Prozac the first time someone dares to disagree with them, have even heard of Boccaccio, still less the Chinese Encyclopedia.

A word of advice. If men tend to smile nervously and back away from you on a regular basis, it doesn't mean that they're intimidated by your stupendous brain, it means they think you're a lunatic.

The anti-Patriot Act

As one reader here recently noted, cheerleaders of the Bush administration defend the Patriot Act even though they admit that they have neither read it or know what it contains. They presume that it is good because it is against terrorism. I'd be interested to know how they defend the following provisions, which have nothing to do with terrorism:

Several provisions of the USAPA have no apparent connection to preventing terrorism. These include:

Government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court order. Sec. 217.

Adding samples to DNA database for those convicted of "any crime of violence." Sec. 503. The provision adds collection of DNA for terrorists, but then inexplicably also adds collection for the broad, non-terrorist category of "any crime of violence."

Wiretaps now allowed for suspected violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes anyone suspected of "exceeding the authority" of a computer used in interstate commerce, causing over $5000 worth of combined damage.

Dramatic increases to the scope and penalties of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes: 1) raising the maximum penalty for violations to 10 years (from 5) for a first offense and 20 years (from 10) for a second offense; 2) ensuring that violators only need to intend to cause damage generally, not intend to cause damage or other specified harm over the $5,000 statutory damage threshold; 3) allows aggregation of damages to different computers over a year to reach the $5,000 threshold; 4) enhance punishment for violations involving any (not just $5,000) damage to a government computer involved in criminal justice or the military; 5) include damage to foreign computers involved in US interstate commerce; 6) include state law offenses as priors for sentencing; 7) expand definition of loss to expressly include time spent investigating, responding, for damage assessment and for restoration.

As was the case with the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act means that simply redefining things, like website graffiti, as terrorism, the government now has another weapon in its arsenal which will be used to assault American liberties.

Mailvox: the elephant stops smiling

Laughing Elephant writes:

If I did see more LP and CP voters like that, maybe I'd have more confidence in the LP and CP and would be inclined to join your lot. Perhaps I just haven't met the right members yet. Thanks for articulating a coherent argument in favor of voting with the LP & CP parties. Almost everything else I've heard here these past few days has been the case about why not to vote for Bush, which is entirely different.

I don't see how that last statement can possibly be true. I've repeatedly stated that people should always vote their principles. The Libertarian Party is the only party with an ideological dedication to small and limited government. The Constitution Party is ideologically dedicated to the U.S. Constitution, (also good, but one step removed from ideal, in my opinion), whereas the Republican Party has an ideological dedication to strong interventionist government that dates back to its founding, the brief shining moment of the Goldwater-Reagan years notwithstanding.

That is a broad point which has next to nothing to do with Bush, except in that Bush's governance has been a reflection of the GOP's historical ideology.

Perhaps you still remain unconvinced, but judging from the emails I've received, there are hundreds of Republicans who are planning to vote for the LP and CP for the first time this November. Change will never come from those who are unwilling to abandon the status quo.

Mailvox: selling safety

ZT questions the timing:

My biggest problem with the Interment issue is the US military is guided, or a better word would be hampered, but US public opinion. Fear of Japan hitting American soil was the root cause of the Japanese internment. It doesn't matter what the General or Admiral's knew. The Political powers that be caved to the fears of the populace. The population had no idea of what the Japanese military was capable of even if the US military did....

Feb 19, 1942 the Order 9066 was given creating the internment camps. March 1942 the Japanese had conquered many place in the Pacific leaving only the Philippines fighting for its life. It isn't until Midway, which was after the start of the Interment camps, that the US force begin to have a hope of stopping the Japanese advance. So my question to VD is which point in time did the US military know the Japanese fleets abilities and when did they think they could stop them? Was it before Feb 19, 1942 or after?


Let's look at the facts. To invade a much smaller country, the USA and Britain required 5,000 ships and 4,000 landing craft to cross 21 miles of sea in the D-Day landings. The Japanese never possessed a tenth that many ships and they had almost the entire Pacific Ocean to cross. Nor did they have the industry to even think about building such a fleet. Their top naval priority after Midway was to replace the carriers they lost, but throughout the course of the war they managed to produce only 10. In the same period, the US produced 150.

But let's pretend that a general with no clue about supply lines and whatnot seriously believed that the Japanese were going to roll the dice and throw their entire Navy into a wildly risky invasion of California. While the internment order went out before the Battle of Midway ended on June 7, 1942, at which point the Japanese lost their offensive ability. The internments and relocations had barely begun in May, even so, the last internment camp was not closed until August 1948, although all Japanese were cleared [to return to the West Coast] sometime in 1945.

An encyclopedia entry - with which I don't always agree, as they use a statement of the Secretary of War to offer support of the policy even though he opposed it - states "Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not subject to the internment policy, despite the fact that they were closer to essential military facilities than most of the Japanese Americans in the western states. The main reason for this was the territory was already virtually under martial law. Also, given that about a third of the population of Hawaii was Japanese American, it is likely that wholesale detention of Japanese Americans in Hawaii would have crippled the local economy."

So, the military situation was so dire that the local economy of Hawaii took precedence? That's interesting. Even more damning is the fact that unlike the English and French coastlines, the American coast was never prepared to resist an invasion, because the military strategists knew one would never come. A raid, a submarine lobbing a few shells, sure, but an invasion? Never.

The politicians didn't give in to popular fears. Instead, as has always been the case, the government simply used the fear of the public to throw off its restrictions. It worked in 1942, and judging by the attitudes of those supporting past violations as well as current abominations such as the Patriot Act - as if the name itself isn't a giveaway - it will work equally well in the future.

Thursday, August 05, 2004

Mailvox: Now I see!

AJW explains patiently:

As I understand it, the Japanese-Americans weren't rounded up till Midway. It wasn't a kneejerk reaction, it took time. Things that take time usually have a plan or logical reason. What happened behind the scenes that lead to the Battle of Midway? We broke the Japanes Naval Code.

Hmmm? I wonder, does breaking the code, learning the enemies secrets, have any thing to do with this. Would our counterintelligence agencie(s?) have used this information to identify Japanes agents operating in California? You bet they would have. Now we have a delimma. How do you isolate the enemy agents operating on American soil without giving away the fact that you can read the enemies code? You round them all up.

I see, it was necessary to put aside the Constitution and the rights of the American citizens involved because this was in the military interests of the government. Now I understand. And since warfare and communication codes are modern inventions, it's pretty easy to see why the Founding Fathers never considered that it might be necessary to fight a war or deal with spies, otherwise they surely would have made sure that the government had this ability to suspend habeas corpus and whatnot in time of military conflict.

Not the debate he wanted

From Matt Drudge's report on UNFIT FOR COMMAND, a book by Swift boat veterans opposed to the bemedaled Jean-Francois.

According to Kerry's Silver Star citation, Kerry was in command of a three-boat mission on the Dong Cung River. As the boats approached the target area, they came under intense enemy fire. Kerry ordered his boat to attack and all boats opened fire. He then beached directly in front of the enemy ambushers. In the battle that followed, the crews captured enemy weapons. His boat then moved further up the river to suppress more enemy fire. A rocket exploded near Kerry's boat, and he ordered to charge the enemy. Kerry beached his boat 10 feet from the rocket position and led a landing party ashore to pursue the enemy.

Kerry' citation reads: "The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission."

Here's what O'Neill and the Swiftees say: "According to Kerry's crewman Michael Madeiros, Kerry had an agreement with him to turn the boat in and onto the beach if fired upon. Each of the three boats involved in the operation was involved in the agreement." O'Neill writes that one crewman even recalls a discussion of probable medals.

Doug Reese, a pro Kerry Army veteran, recounted what happened that day to O'Neill, "Far from being alone, the boats were loaded with many soldiers commanded by Reese and two other advisors. When fired at, Reese's boat--not Kerry's--was the first to beach in the ambush zone. Then Reese and other troops and advisors (not Kerry) disembarked, killing a number of Viet Cong and capturing a number of weapons. None of the participants from Reese's boat received Silver Stars.

O'Neill continues: "Kerry's boat moved slightly downstream and was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade. . . .A young Viet Cong in a loincloth popped out of a hole, clutching a grenade launcher, which may or may not have been loaded. . . Tom Belodeau, a forward gunner, shot the Viet Cong with an M-60 machine gun in the leg as he fled. . . . Kerry and Medeiros (who had many troops in their boat) took off, perhaps with others, and followed the young Viet Cong and shot him in the back, behind a lean to."

O'Neill concludes "Whether Kerry's dispatching of a fleeing, wounded, armed or unarmed teenage enemy was in accordance with the customs of war, it is very clear that many Vietnam veterans and most Swiftees do not consider this action to be the stuff of which medals of any kind are awarded; nor would it even be a good story if told in the cold details of reality. There is no indication that Kerry ever reported that the Viet Cong was wounded and fleeing when dispatched. Likewise, the citation simply ignores the presence of the soldiers and advisors who actually 'captured the enemy weapons' and routed the Viet Cong. . . . [and] that Kerry attacked a 'numerically superior force in the face of intense fire' is simply false. There was little or no fire after Kerry followed the plan. . . . The lone, wounded, fleeing young Viet Cong in a loincloth was hardly a force superior to the heavily armed Swift Boat and its crew and the soldiers carried aboard."

"Admiral Roy Hoffmann, who sent a Bravo Zulu (meaning "good work"), to Kerry upon learning of the incident, was very surprised to discover in 2004 what had actually occurred. Hoffmann had been told that Kerry had spontaneously beached next to the bunker and almost single-handedly routed a bunkered force in Viet Cong. He was shocked to find out that Kerry had beached his boat second in a preplanned operation, and that he had killed a single, wounded teenage foe as he fled."

"Commander Geoge Elliott, who wrote up the initial draft of Kerry's Silver Star citation, confirms that neither he, nor anyone else in the Silver Star process that he knows, realized before 1996 that Kerry was facing a single, wounded young Viet Cong fleeing in a loincloth. While Commander Elliott and many other Swiftees believe that Kerry committed no crime in killing the fleeing, wounded enemy (with a loaded or empty launcher), others feel differently. Commander Elliott indicates that a Silver Star recommendation would not have been made by him had he been aware of the actual facts."

This could finish Kerry off. He already looks like a self-serving quasi-psycho with his self-directed home movie heroics. If it's the word of Monsieur Flip-Flop against veterans who were on the scene, Kerry is pain grillé

Mailvox: maybe I'm crying on the inside

TH writes belatedly:

Let me begin this note by saying that although the American political scene is interesting (and many times amusing) I do not spend a great deal of time reading the newest latest political doctrine nor do I spend hours and hours of my time pouring over the Internet doing research on each issue like many of my politically minded friends. However, this may soon change due to your article "Janeane Garafolo is a short, fat idiot." And, by the way, Ms. Garafolo should thank you for that, as it is your article and others like it that have made me turn away from the GOP in disgust.

Tito, get me a hanky!

I have no intention of arguing each tiny issue point by point, as I admit that I am not an expert on each issue nor do I wish to be. But you do have to respect the person, be they Democrat or Republican or even Ms. Garafolo, that actually takes the time to read and digest the issues. And you especially have to respect Ms. Garafolo for having the courage to be willing to make herself a media target by publicly standing for her beliefs. (After all, there are those that may call her unflattering names simply because she speaks her mind politically as she is guaranteed by her American birthright. Can you imagine that?) I respect open discussion of valid, relevant issues. It's difficult to believe that you would support that viewpoint when those who do not agree with you are termed as "short, fat idiots."

One is wise not to argue on matters of which one is ignorant. But I call someone short when they are short. Fat when they are overweight. Idiots when they demonstrate that they have not only failed to digest the issues, but don't have a clue of what they are talking about. In JG's case, the title happened to fit very nicely. Perhaps you dole out your respect with all the reluctance of an intoxicated Tri-Delt, but mine must be earned; it is not freely given.

I realize that a title like "Janeane Garafolo is a short, fat idiot" brings the reader's attention to your article; sure that tactic works, but it's still a cheap shot. And in my opinion, undermines the more serious messages your article attempts to address.

Yes, this is the school of thought that suggests Ann Coulter would have more of an impact if she would only comport herself in a manner that would ensure no one read her books and columns. And what serious message? I wrote that article in 15 minutes. I can't be forcing esoteric eschatology and economics down everyone's throats every week.

Recently, in the midst of the Democratic National Convention, I have heard a lot of rhetoric and read a lot of articles about the Bush campaign and found that they operate like you; cheap shot name-calling tactics aimed at anyone who isn't "one of them" as a substitute for valid discussion. In my opinion, these cheap tactics work best for politicians that have nothing to say and nothing to boast. They cannot champion their own ideals or successes because they have none. I've heard enough bashing by Bush, and I am waiting for substance..........and I'm still waiting..........

Yeah, well, don't hold your breath. Even the platform will be substance-free, from what I hear - not that George Dole will read it. You're not seriously suggesting that there was any substance at the Democratic convention, though, I hope. That wasn't so much a lack of substance as it was anti-substance, which is to say, complete dishonesty. Whatever happened to that whole Senate career anyway, Jean-Francois?

Now, I'm always happy to discuss ideas, of course, the problem is that it's a little difficult to discuss the impact of inflation with someone who's never heard of the CPI, much less hedonic adjustment or the history of fiat money in France. But go ahead and throw down if you've got something to bring. If I wasn't afraid to go head-to-head with the economist that Nelson Mandela flew in to advise him on the current South African constitution or to smack down the professor who wrote the Econ 101 book we were using my freshman year, I'm certainly not worried about you.

Michelle goes Monica for FDR

I skipped reading Powerline for a few days and was a few sentences into this post when I realized that far from being an indictment, Michelle Malkin was apparently defending FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII in her new book. Scrolling down to the previous Powerline post revealed that the title: In Defense of Internment is not a sarcastic appellation in the Erasmian mode, but a straightforward justification of American concentration camps.

Needless to say, I haven't read the book yet, but once I get my hands on one I will review it here. I very much doubt I'll find her case convincing, as no amount of clear and present danger justifies the complete abrogation of the U.S. Constitution, much less the farcical possibility of a serious Japanese threat to the U.S. mainland. As one Powerline reader wrote in to comment:

"It amazes me that self-professed conservatives still insist on carrying water for the greatest American icon of the left, FDR, on the issue of WWII internments. The internments were morally wrong, practically unnecessary, and unconstitutional. As far as its unconstitutionality, I know that Justice Scalia ranks the [Korematsu] decision as one of the worst in American jurisprudence (I take Scalia over Malkin). As for its necessity, J. Edgar Hoover reported to FDR that the FBI had found no evidence for even a single act of espionage or sabotage amongst Japanese-Americans and Japanese nationals. It was immoral because it deprived tens of thousands of people (including tens of thousands of American citizens) of their unalienable right to liberty (as well as effectively depriving them of most of their property) without anything close to due process. FDR's attorney general was against it, as was the rest of his cabinet (the closest one of them came to concurring was Sec. Of War Stimson who believed that Japanese nationals, but not American citizens, should be interned).

Nor is there a direct correlation between mass internments and the use of profiling in law enforcement/homeland security. The one deals only with a temporary administrative inconvenience versus the violation of fundamental rights. I'm for the use of profiling, but I don't see how Malkin's quixotic effort to justify the historical side issue of WWII internments will do much if anything to further that cause.

"Self-professed" being the key word. I'd previously thought that Malkin was nothing more than another cute Republican media whore, but apparently she's something worse, a strong government "conservative" in the Bush mode. Conservatives really need to be a little bit more aware of who is climbing into their beds and who they embrace as their intellectual champions. What's next, the conservative case for Stalin's socialism in one country? Or perhaps for a sequel, Malkin can champion FDR's seizure of the nation's gold and his attempt to pack the Supreme Court.

I have no problem whatsoever with private companies being allowed to profile and discriminate to their hearts' content. I have no problem with the states closing the national borders to immigrants. I do, however, have a massive problem with those who defend the federal government's right to put American citizens in concentration camps. To paraphrase the words of a true conservative, PJ O'Rourke, advocating the expansion of central state power isn't just treason to conservativism, it is treason to the human race.

Janeane Garofalo is a short fat pussy

Larry Elder has a run-in with the pasty-faced wonder:

When Garofalo agreed to a sit-down, she clearly knew nothing about me. When I defended the administration on the War on Terror, a frustrated Garofalo started to get up and leave, muttering, "This show sucks." After I called her a coward, however, she sat back down and finished the segment.

After our interview, Garofalo began broadcasting her radio show on "Air America." Several of my callers – I was still on the air at the time – said that Garofalo called me a "house Negro" and a "fascist." Then something interesting happened. Garofalo's people asked me to appear on her show. Would I agree?

I promptly said yes, after which I was informed that, no, they really had no time for an interview. What? After all, they asked me to appear, and when I promptly accepted, Garofalo's people suddenly decided they could not fit me into their schedule! Here's my speculation: Garofalo assumed that I feared appearing on her show. She extended an invitation in hopes that I would refuse. She then would go on the air, call me a coward and accuse me of fear in the face of hostility. Well, I called her bluff, and somebody backed down.

And yes, Garofalo is still a short fat idiot, as I wrote back in March 2003. I'm even more dubious about the war on method than she is, but the dim bulb wouldn't know what a fascist was if one bit her on her oversized and appropriately named gluteus maximus. Now, there are without a doubt some fascist strains in the present Bush administration, but they are the same strains that were present in the Clinton administration and would be present in a theoretical Kerry administration as well. Fascism is simply another movement for expanding the power of the central state, something that Garofalo herself advocates on a regular basis.

She's not equipped for educated debate, though, so it's probably best that she run away as fast as those stumpy little legs will carry her.

Whose side are they on?

Ramesh Ponnuru writes in NRO's Corner

This is the third time in a row that the national Republican party has intervened in the primary for the third district in the House on the losing side. It managed to be against Adam Taff when he won the primary (in 2002), and with him when he lost it (as he appears to have lost yesterday). Every time I asked a party operative about the support this year for Taff over conservative Kris Kobach, I was told that Taff was going to win the primary going away. I figure that Kobach will now get party support; the incumbent Democrat, Dennis Moore, is one of the GOP's top targets. But winning the race is going to be difficult, and the NRCC, by supporting a primary campaign that harshly attacked Kobach and depleted his funds, has made it harder. I'm not against national-party intervention in principle. Given this awful track record, maybe next time around the D.C. party should let Kansans choose their own candidate without the benefit of its expertise.

As is often the case, the national Republican leadership opposed the more conservative candidate in the party primary. Who needs them, when it's clear that the NRCC sees its job as preventing the Republican Party from moving to the right? I note that Alan Keyes, despite his credentials, only appears to have become acceptable as a candidate for the Senate in Illinois since the candidates preferred by the state party leadership have dropped out. Keyes looks like a sacrificial lamb at the moment, but he's a bright man and perhaps he can turn it around.

He's one Republican candidate for whom I would vote, along with Ron Paul.

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Mailvox: Skool daze

The White Buffalo bellows:

Do you have any stats on how private vs public schooled perform?

The only thing that I've ever seen is a comprehensive study based on the standardized achievement tests. It was mostly billed as a homeschool report, since it was the first study to look at a large number of homeschoolers but it also had the results of the public school kids as well as the privately school students taking the IOWA as well. Unfortunately, the private school data appears to have been left out of this particular citation.

However, I remember reading this study, which I first saw mentioned in the Washington Post a few years back, and I recall clearly that the conclusion was that the homeschooled kids were reaching in nine years the level that private school kids reached in eleven and public school kids reached in twelve. If one were to consider the tests to be reasonable approximations of academic achievement, (and they are almost certainly more credible than the inflated grades now being handed out at most schools and colleges around the country), then private school would appear to add approximately a year's worth of schooling over public school.

There must be other studies out there, but that's the only one that springs immediately to mind.

Growing fast and furious


Almost 1.1 million students were homeschooled in 2003, according to the Education Department's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The NCES says the number of students taught at home in 1999 was 850,000.

7.4 percent annual growth in homeschooling? That's great news. If there's one thing that makes me feel any sense of optimism about the nation's future, it is that statistic.

Mailvox: word games

BG writes of the Oshkosh gun seizures:

My friend BW doubted the story and tells me he called the assistant editor. This is what emailed me.

"This is the story reported on the news of the shooting and gun confiscating. It appears two search warrants were issued and the rest consented to the searches. The guns were returned to the citizens after ballistic test were performed to compare to the bullet when found. This I got from the city assistant editor of the Northwestern newpaper, yes I called and talked to her. The story was on the front page, but not the lead story. According to the police department, news channel and newspaper, the wisconsin gun owners assc. used this incident to boost membership and contributions. Looking at their play on words I would tend to agree. "

Why wouldn't the WGO use the incident to boost membership? The actions of the police department were outrageous and make very clear why the WGO is needed. The only play on words being performed here is by BW, who confuses a consent to a SEARCH with a consent to a SEIZURE. This is why the Constitution bans illegal searches AND seizures; if the two were identical, only illegal searches would need be banned. The two actions are completely different. When a policeman asks to search your car and you consent, you are not granting him permission to take your girlfriend's purse or to remove the spare tire from the trunk.

The newspaper itself wrote: He [Police captain Jay Puestohl] acknowledged consent to search does “not necessarily” mean officers have consent to remove property. Puestohl also said nothing illegal was done by removing the firearms and that investigators needed to examine them. He declined to say on what grounds officers had the right to remove the firearms, though.

Puestohl's wrong, of course, and it would have been more accurate for him to say "not" instead of "not necessarily". It's good that the police apparently had the good sense to eventually return the gun owners' property - which is not reported in the original article, by the way - but just as a bank robber is still prosecuted even if he returns the money he stole, the policemen responsible should be prosecuted for theft.

Told you so


House Speaker Dennis Hastert says he's committed to abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, but he does not expect President Bush to make it a campaign issue.... In an interview with the Associated Press, Hastert said he had talked in general terms with President Bush about his proposals.

"I think he's on board on the litigation issue and the regulation issue," he said. As for the tax proposals, however, Hastert said, "I think that's a piece they don't want to bite off in the campaign. They have other things they want to talk about."

Clearly, this is a major priority for the President. It must be part of that super-secret second-term plan. Why talk about something that would be massively popular with the American people in an election campaign? Either Bush does not support the idea or he's even more strategically incompetent than I'd imagined.

Tuesday, August 03, 2004

War is a racket

David Hackworth writes on WND:

For example, the CPA paid 74,000 guards even though the actual number of guards couldn't be validated. On one site alone, 8,206 guards were on the payroll, but only 603 warm bodies could be counted. Elsewhere, more than $17 million was allocated to guards and the Iraqi army without one piece of backup paper. Pals in Iraq say this has been standard drill since the birth of "a very dysfunctional" CPA.

The report cites, "An improper $120 million disbursement was made in May 2004 because of miscommunication between CPA-OMB and Comptroller's office." In other words, $120 million went south, but was blithely rationalized as some clerks getting their wires crossed!

Well, what's a missing $8.8 billion dollars anyhow.... This episode brought to you by the Coalition of the Willing and the taxpayers of the United States of America.

Mailvox: on voting your conscience

WA asks me to respond to David Kupelian's article on the November election:

Christians, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, constitutionalists, patriotic independents and other traditionalists: When you look at George W. Bush today and are dissatisfied – dissatisfied that he raised the federal budget sky-high, that he granted de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, that he doesn't always follow the Constitution, that he invaded Iraq, that he hasn't done enough to fight abortion and gay rights, that whatever ...

What conclusion do you draw?

One conclusion is that Bush is a globalist, money-grubbing elitist Bonesman conspirator, or at best a clueless, sold-out puppet.

Another interpretation at the opposite end is that Bush is a general at war – a general who knows more than you do, who sees the lay of the land, who comprehends the odds, who knows what troops he's got, and determines which battles he can and must win and which ones he has to concede, at least temporarily – even if it looks bad to his supporters.

As there is a plethora of information in support of the former which is also backed by the history of the ruling parties two factions, while there is absolutely nothing but blind trust supporting the latter assertion, I don't see how any thinking being can possible conclude the latter. Every argument for President Bush's re-election posits that he is a good and decent man, primarily because he claims to be a Christian. Well, so do the Archbishop of Canterbury and the gay Episcopalian priests, and I don't hear any conservatives asserting that they are therefore genuinely good leaders worthy of support.

I pay very little attention to words and a lot of attention to actions. The irony of the pro-Bush conservative's position is that he is forced to argue that the president does not have the political capital to enact policies that have far more popular support than the war on Iraq upon which he spent it all. If nothing else, this makes him at best a lousy political general in whom to place one's trust. But I don't think that's the case, as I'm quite confident that he's nothing more or less than a globalist tool, functionally identical to Jean-Francois and almost every other politician in the ruling party.

One aspect of Europe that I found markedly superior to the USA when living there was the far more astute attitude of the populace towards the politicians. They know the politicians are all corrupt, whereas in the United States we insist on excusing them on the basis of "stupidity". When individuals and institutions succeed repeatedly at achieving what they set themselves, for good or for ill, stupidity is unlikely to be involved.


Kerry would betray the unborn, betray our youth, betray both the haves and the have-nots, betray us all. With inspiring rhetoric and fanfare, he would unravel what remains of our national sovereignty, leading us down the road to servitude, poverty and insecurity in a thousand smothering ways – all the while piously thinking he was ushering in a new era of peace.

And this is different from George Bush in precisely what way? If you want to vote for a winner, go ahead, vote for whoever is ahead in the polls on November third. But don't try to pretend to me or anyone else that principle is involved. If your strongest argument after four years of governance is "don't think, just close your eyes and trust", you don't have a leg to stand on.

I'd rather switch than fight

Several of you have asked what I would do, if faced with a situation like the one in Oshkosh. I think it's important to first understand that everything, literally everything, takes longer than those who see what is coming expects, and so it is a huge mistake to overreact directly to a simple probe and confuse it with the real thing.

It is wise, however, to use it as a warning and begin to prepare for the less desirable eventualities. My personal preference, as modeled by some of my intellectual heroes like Ludwig von Mises, is to simply leave. Anywhere is preferable to a society in the process of radical transformation - see South Africa and Russia for details. At no point in history has a society ever successfully resisted the suicidal urge to drown itself in chaos, and while there is one factor operating in America's behalf - never before has a population been so well armed - it's not difficult to envision an event that would lead the public to clamor for its own disarmament. If it is not too bizarre to apply a principle of socionomics here, I would not be surprised to see just such an event sometime before July 2006.

Of course, it's not possible for many people to leave, nor are many who could leave inclined to do so. To those who stay, the principle of misdirection in all things is key. As it relates to the current subject, if they want guns, make sure you have some openly purchased guns for them to seize. Let them have them, behave in an appropriately servile manner, and take any action you deem appropriate later.

What most people don't understand is that the police and government are terrified of the public. They know they are massively outnumbered. That is why they behave so arrogantly, like teenagers working themselves up to spray paint a street sign. And they are right to be afraid - in Peru, the police were afraid to even leave their homes as the initiation rite for the Shining Path was to shoot dead a uniformed policeman on the front steps of his house. It is not mass riots and demonstrations that they fear, for those can never be so large that they cannot be controlled one way or another.

What they fear is the quiet, invisible violence of places like Northern Ireland, where the entire British Army was finally forced to agree to a truce that was a de facto victory for the IRA. This is why the Bush administration is secretly trying to negotiate a deal with the Ba'ath and Sunni leaders, as they know that the foreign jihadists can be defeated with Iraqi help, but that the indigenous resistance will never be overcome now that the hearts-and-minds campaign has clearly failed. Government, however totalitarian, always depends on the consent of the governed, regardless of whether that consent is given freely or fearfully.

Perhaps these concerns are unfounded. I admit to the possibility that they are. However, I've never found it helpful to assume the innocence of government actors in any situation. Their interests seldom align with mine, and when they not only fail to answer my questions honestly but seek to evade them, well, I consider that sort of thing to be a red flag. It never hurts to be prepared.

Monday, August 02, 2004

Testing, testing

And the gun seizure tests begin:

Police evacuated citizens from their homes within a quarantined area near Smith Elementary School Saturday night (July 17, 2004) to conduct a broad gun sweep of the neighborhood following the shooting of Oshkosh police officer Nate Gallagher. Residents reported returning home from area shelters -- where they were herded by police -- to find their guns gone. Others watched in awe as police took their firearms after giving police consent to search. Some were told by police their firearms would be subjected to ballistics tests, and would be returned.

"However, the bullet that hit officer Gallagher was not found," said Corey Graff, executive director of Wisconsin Gun Owners Inc. "So how can police conduct ballistics tests if there's no bullet with which to match the results? It defies logic." Graff said the biggest issue is what he calls the department's "Guilty-until-proven-innocent" posture towards citizens....

Warrants for searches were issued for at least two homes, (perhaps more) but homeowners in the area reported having all their firearms taken by police. Some witnesses said the whole neighborhood was evacuated by force and citizens were being told – not asked, but told – to hand over their guns. Some weren’t even asked.

What I'm wondering is if this little incident was ordered by the Oshkosh police, or if it was ordered by others interested in learning just how willing Americans are to submit to having their weapons seized.

Mailvox: discuss amongst yourselves

Res Ispa puckers up:

How about timing your blog to post a thread about the Monday article at 12 eastern when WND updates to the Monday edition? Being in the mountain-time zone I generally read the Monday WND before going to bed Sunday night. I would love to have the opportunity to make acclamation, glorify and pay homage to your superior abilities as a wordsmith and ingratiate myself to the genius that you are.

It is my sincere desire to osculate your gluteus maximus until you achieve a Limbaugh-sized ego and you obtain your own radio show challenging him for superiority of all things conservative. This is a two part strategy:

1. establish the Vox Day pundit groupie fan club
2. get a guy with a Minnesotan accent nationally syndicated

Hey if they’ll put Don Cherry on the air why not you?

That last bit would have been more meaningful to me if I had any idea who Don Cherry is. Anyhow, that's not a problem, assuming that I don't forget. So, we'll see. As I've repeatedly stated, I have no desire for a radio show - those little MP3 experiments taught me that - although I might be interested in some sort of Internet broadcast thing once that technology becomes feasible.

I don't really have any more to say about immigration at the moment, but in case anyone is interested in harping on today's column or slapping my wrist with a "bad libertarian, bad!" this would be the place.

Too good to be true


A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush term is getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill sources tell DRUDGE.

"People ask me if I’m really calling for the elimination of the IRS, and I say I think that’s a great thing to do for future generations of Americans," Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert explains in his new book, to be released on Wednesday.

"Pushing reform legislation will be difficult. Change of any sort seldom comes easy. But these changes are critical to our economic vitality and our economic security abroad," Hastert declares in SPEAKER: LESSONS FROM FORTY YEARS IN COACHING AND POLITICS.... "By adopting a VAT, sales tax, or some other alternative, we could begin to change productivity. If you can do that, you can change gross national product and start growing the economy. You could double the economy over the next fifteen years. All of a sudden, the problem of what future generations owe in Social Security and Medicare won’t be so daunting anymore. The answer is to grow the economy, and the key to doing that is making sure we have a tax system that attracts capital and builds incentives to keep it here instead of forcing it out to other nations."

It would be delightful to see the income tax fraud shut down and the IRS banned, except that few government agencies are ever closed, and in any case, some agency will be assigned to see that businesses are collecting the sales tax. Still, that would be far less intrusive than the current system of enforced financial nudity. However, this theoretical second-term policy will be opposed by Republican and Democratic state leaderships alike, as it would play havoc on many state revenue systems that piggyback off the Federal income tax.

The fact that this is coming from a Republican leader with a book to sell in an election year makes it more than a little dubious. Sure, it's remotely possible that someone in the Republican leadership has looked into the issue and been convinced that the present tax system is wholly indefensible in both legal and Constitutional terms - I think there's now six former IRS agents, (who know a lot more about the realities of the situation than the pro-tax idiots on the Internet), who have switched sides and joined the tax honesty movement - but this would hardly mark the first time that Republicans have pulled a bait-and-switch on the public.

Since the IRS is an executive branch agency, the President could shut it down tomorrow with an executive order. It's his call. As for the income tax, the law doesn't require filing it anyhow, it requires nothing more than "voluntary compliance". (Granted, the IRS will try to steal your bank account and garnish your wages if you don't comply voluntarily, but that doesn't mean their actions are legal. Quite the opposite.) If the President does something in that vein, I'll take this seriously, otherwise, it should be taken no more seriously than that old vow to shut down the Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Arts. Having failed to deliver time and time again, Republican promises no longer bear serious consideration.

Pro-democracy terrorists

Rainer gets it backwards:

I agree with you on this, [the mistake of nation building] and I think that it is going to be very difficult to establish a democracy here. However, I don't think that it is a matter to be thrown away. Just because some terrorists don't want it doesn't mean that nobody should get it.

The problem isn't that the terrorists and their allies don't want democracy, it's the US administration and their appointed puppet Allawi that don't want democracy. A free and open vote in Iraq would likely elect the more radical Islamic elements which are currently allied with the foreign al Qaeda fighters. In fact, Debka is reporting that the US administration is now in secret negotiations to bring the Ba'ath back into government, along with the Sunni leaders, in order to split them from the foreign jihadists:

Since the first week of July, the Bush administration has been immersed in a secret, high-wire diplomatic exercise aimed at bringing down the level of Iraqi insurgent attacks on US troops, or perhaps halting the violence altogether, by coming to terms with the enemy. DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s intelligence sources report exclusively that the initiative is being carried forward by a prominent non-Iraq Arab figure as intermediary on behalf of the highest White House echelons. His identity is top secret for reasons of security. (Our editors have his name but promised to preserve his anonymity in return for this exclusive).

All that can be said at this time is that the intermediary is not based in Iraq; he goes over for delicate negotiating sessions in the Bush administration’s name with Baath guerrilla leaders, militia commanders and heads of the great Sunni Muslim tribes and clans. At all times, he is in direct communication with the White House.

The only three Americans in Iraq privy to this negotiating track are Robert Blackwill, the president’s senior adviser on Iraq, US ambassador John Negroponte who is not personally involved, and the commander of American forces in Iraq, General David Casey, who is in charge of security arrangements and any changes on the ground arising from progress in the talks. The only two Iraqis kept informed are prime minister Iyad Allawi and deputy prime minister for security Salih Barham.

DEBKAfile adds: the negotiating track began with a preliminary condition: Baath and Sunni leaders must undertake to disengage from al Qaeda and other foreign Arab fighters.

Still think that we're on the side of freedom and democracy in Iraq? I don't think so. I'm not sure precisely what model George Bush and company are hoping to construct but they're not even pretending to create a constitutional representative democracy, much less a true government by, of and for the people over there.

Sunday, August 01, 2004

Out of LUC

This, again, brought to you by the Coalition of the Willing and the Law of Unintended Consequences:

BAGHDAD, Aug. 1 -- Car bombs exploded outside at least five Christian churches in two Iraqi cities during Sunday evening services in coordinated attacks that sent terrified and bleeding worshipers fleeing into the streets as stained-glass windows shattered and flames engulfed the buildings. More than a dozen people were killed and scores injured in the assaults, the first mass violence against minority Christians who have long coexisted peacefully with Iraqi Muslims.

See, there's a small problem when you bring freedom to people who want to kill lots of other people. As every great philosopher of liberty has pointed out, freedom and liberty require a certain something - Tocqueville called it goodness - in order to prevent them from being abused to harm others. Freedom is self-limiting in this regard, as those who wish to run amok will soon find themselves clamped down upon in one way or another.

The notion that democracy is possible, much less desirable, in Arabic Islamic culture was always ridiculous. Sure, a barely recognizable form of it works, at the point of a whole lot of guns, in Turkey, but the very protest proves the point. After eighteen months, this nation-building is looking more viable by the day. Of course, the administration's cheerleaders will no doubt point out that these latest bombings only shows how desperate the terrorists have become, although I have to say it is getting is harder and harder to distinguish between the many examples of their supposed desperation.

Bane-spotting

Sweet home Alabama

Isn't it interesting that no matter what wrongdoing or incompetence is exposed, government employees never experience the consequences of their actions. In Alabama, an IT employee responsible for confirming and documenting the misuse of government computers was fired after he installed spyware on his supervisor's computer which demonstrated that the supervisor spent 70 percent of his time playing solitaire and another 20 percent surfing the stock market.

(Actually, this supervisor sounds pretty harmless. If all government employees would confine themselves to similar activities, we'd be in good shape.)

The IT guy installed the spyware only after first submitting several complaints about the supervisor's activity. Of course, government being government, the supervisor received a reprimand while the IT guy was terminated. After all, they can hardly keep people around who insist on letting the taxpayers know on what their tax dollars are being spent, can they?

If you don't mind a bit of a tangent, I'm reminded of Carroll Quigley's prediction that technology will eventually even out the playing field between individual and state. There is hope, always. In twenty, fifty or one hundred years, when a single individual will be able to hold the mightiest national government hostage with a pocket nuclear device or nanotech weapon, even the most die-hard central statists may be forced to admit that a voluntary system of government is the only viable option. Perhaps that will be the silver lining in the dark cloud of fifth-generation warfare.

For who will want to seize the reins of power if that is equivalent to painting a big red glowing target on your forehead. Or, as is more likely to be the case, on your DNA.

Mailvox: see Spot read

Spot is underwhelmed with WND's science correspondent:

Also, it usually takes 9-12 months for papers to be published in specialized journals, and new ideas are always subjected to rigorous peer review processes. WND's assertion that this demonstrates hostility on the part of dogmatic scientists is just silly.

I am not qualified to address Spot's points with regards to the possible ramifications of the theory of a non-constant speed of light, so I shall leave that to the more scientifically interested. I have no reason to doubt that he's correct, except for what appears to be his poor reading comprehension. First, Chris Bennett makes the assertion, not WND, and if WND has a "science correspondent" it would be Dr. Kelly Hollowell, who is a scientist, PhD and weekend columnist. Chris Bennett would appear to be an engineer at a technology firm in California, he is not a WND correspondent, columnist or even regular contributor as far as I am aware.

Second, Bennett clearly states that the peer review treatment of these particular scientists was both unusual and hostile. He writes: "Setterfield, Dr. Tifft, Dr. Paul Davis, Dr. John Barrow and others have been subjected to peer review which borders on ridicule." Here, the phrase "which borders on ridicule" modifies the preceding noun "peer review". It is not so much the assertion which is silly, but Spot's attempt to dismiss it.

WND is by no means perfect. Dark Window, among others, rightly flogs it for its tendency to link to National Enquiresque "interest" stories such as the cringe-inducing Iranian frog-birth story. But then, it's hard to argue with results that have a) produced nationally syndicated columnists and national radio shows, b) a monthly readership that blows away better-known names like Slate and Salon, and c) allows almost complete editorial freedom. Can you imagine the Atlanta Journal Constitution letting its headline columnists translate the Fascist manifesto or waste precious column space on Tolstoy and weird trend theories? WND is dedicated to freedom of all kinds, and intellectual freedom not only permits but downright requires the possibility, even the likelihood, of occasionally making a complete ass of yourself.
Newer Posts Older Posts