At least we know we're not underrepresented

Brent Bozell writes: In an interview with Jane Hall in the most recent Columbia Journalism Review, [Tom[ Brokaw suggests there is no such thing as liberal media bias ... and then asserts that liberal bias is an "obligation" of journalism. Journalists should "represent the views of those who are underrepresented in the social context, or the political context, and to make sure that they're not overlooked, and that their wrongs get the bright light of journalistic sunshine."

So there's no left-liberal media bias, there's a left-liberal media obligation. Well, that clears that up. It also makes it clear that the reason Tom Brokaw believes our grandparent's generation was the greatest generation is not because they defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but because they turned America into a left-liberal quasi-socialist welfare state.

Union of the Americas

Since the radio show last night, I've been thinking about why the amnesty is being pushed by the Bush administration. It makes zero political sense. Then it occurred to me that the USA and other governments of North, Central and South America are simply following the example set by Europe. Just as the sovereign political nation that is the EU began as a "free trade" zone, a course has been set to create an American superstate.

This will take time, probably on the order of 30-40 years. But the outlines have been sketched and the structure is starting to become apparent to the most astute observers. Almost everyone will deny this, of course, just as they were denying that the EU could ever be a political entity as recently as 18 months ago. You won't hear any such objections now, since it's undeniable by even the most skeptical at this point. But the skeleton for the current EU was created with the Treaty of Paris in 1951, then given flesh with the 1957 Treaty of Rome. The Union of the Americas is still at a point somewhere between Paris and Rome, which is why I conclude it will be another 40 years before NAFTA is expanded and transformed into monetary and political union.

Flooding the country with people who will support such a concept is vital, so we can expect the massive immigration to continue unabated, just like the Swiss government - eager to join the EU despite the failure of two national referendums on potential membership - has ramped up immigration from EU countries. The best argument for immigration is that our Mexican gastarbeiten are taking jobs that lazy Americans are unwilling to take. But a recent debate in the Dallas Morning News showed that the Hispanic population of Dallas County increased from 30 percent to 40 percent from 2000 to 2002. I find it very difficult to imagine that the economic growth of that area is such that the increase stemmed from a dearth of employable workers. It's a theoretical argument that sounds good until one examines the facts required to support it.

At least he favors legalizing drugs

Rich Lowry writes: [Gen. Clark] accuses the Republican party of a lack of true Christianity, saying that "there's only one party that lives that faith in America, and that's our party, the Democratic party."

Don't most Democrats who aren't nominal once-a-year-won't-kill-me Christians hate Christians who actually take the tenets of the faith seriously, or at the very least wish that they would stay out of politics altogether? Otherwise, what's with all the cracks about Bible thumpers, the virulent antipathy for Catholic and evangelical judges, and the desire to eradicate all signs of Christmas from public view.

One wonders what in the seventh secret name of Gehenna the general is smoking. Clark must have the notion that playing Robin Hood with other people's money is the same thing as charity - of course, Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's, not what belongs toJoseph, Mary, Simon Peter and Paul. And he also said to suffer the little children to go unto him, not to stick a fork in their brains because "mommy" hasn't finished her International Relations degree yet.

Seriously, what does the Democratic Party stand for, sopratutto:

Higher taxes
Abortion
Entitlements
Affirmative action
Eradicating religion
Globalism
Gay rights

The only one that correlates with Christian teaching at all is - maybe- entititlements, and that only because Jesus did say that the poor would be with us always, and entitlements are one way to make sure of that. Is it any wonder that the evangelicals all left that building? Of course, if George Bush keeps it up, my Christian Libertarian party will be the de facto third party.

UPDATE: DG contributes another Clark gem: "Now, there's one party in America that's made the United Nations the enemy. And I don't know how many of you have ever read that series of books that's published by the Christian right that's called the "Left Behind" series? Probably nobody's read it up here. But don't feel bad, I'm not recommending it to you. I'm just telling you that according to the book cover that I saw in the airport, 55 million copies have been printed. And in it, the Antichrist is the United Nations. And so there's this huge, ill-informed body of sentiment out there that's just grinding away against the United Nations." (Jan. 7, Fuller Elementary School, Keene.)

And there's 55 million uninformed people who won't be voting for General Clark. The United Nations certainly is the enemy, as dictated by basic logic and behavior as well as apocalyptic Christian fiction. Anyone else surprised that the good general has trouble separating fact from fantasy? But given the president's amnesty plan, Republicans will find it hard to attack Democrats on giving away the national sovereignty store.

On the radio

In case anyone is interested, I'll be appearing on A Closer Look being interviewed by Michael Corbin tonight at 7 PM Eastern. We will be discussing the question of whether Bush should be impeached or hailed as a hero. It's an interesting question, as you can probably make the case for both. The interview is intriguing from my point of view, as Mr. Corbin is cognizant of von Mises. I'll bet there isn't a single NPR interviewer who could say the same.

I don't know on which stations the show is broadcast, so give Google a whirl. It's out of Denver, I believe.

A different governing ideology

John Podhoretz writes: The Bush administration and the GOP Congress have put it all on the line these past years - from the tough line in the War on Terror to the tax cuts to the Big Government solutions on health care and education. A loss would destroy Republican self-confidence and indicate that the American people are eager for a different kind of governing ideology.

Yes, I suggest that perhaps the American people would be interested in one that doesn't involve Big Government solutions. We can get them from the Democrats, now we get them from the Republicans as well. We can also get them from the Greens and the Socialists. This is why I never vote for any of these parties.

Eliminate the Department of Education, like Ronald Reagan promised. End all Medicare/Medicaid entitlements and ban HMOs. Eliminate all laws requiring a state-sanctioned license to practice medicine - if you want an AMA-certified doctor, great. If you can't afford one, hire whoever you want. This may come as a big shock to some, but state permission has never been a guarantor of quality.

Consultants and lawyers

I'm not sure which I dislike more in general. In my non-media role, I've occasionally run across consultants. It's amazing how they always want to get paid before doing anything, regardless of whether they deliver or not. Even when you begin by explaining to them that you pay only for results, they nod soberly and then come back two weeks later explaining that their time is very valuable and that if they are going to commit any of it that they'll have to be assured etc etc.

I'm not sure which is more insulting, the idea that I haven't heard this line before or the notion that I'll fall for it.

On wartime presidents

The Washington Times writes: During the Civil War, for instance, President Abraham Lincoln extraconstitutionally summoned an army, expended unappropriated funds, unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and suppressed speech friendly to the Confederacy. Congress belatedly ratified Lincoln's legislative usurpations.

Keep in mind this is being said in defense of President Bush's own extraconstitutional actions. This is why I have no respect for Abraham Lincoln, one of my childhood heroes. He was a dictator; regardless of whether you approve of the Civil War or not, Lincoln was no friend of freedom, the Emancipation Proclamation notwithstanding. Like Bush, he had his own Guantanamo Bay and then some, jailing more than 10,000 New Yorkers for daring to speak out against the war and the draft.

I'd never questioned that Bush would be re-elected, but this travesty of an amnesty program may yet sink him. When thinking die-hard conservatives like Michael Savage and John Derbyshire are against you, your base is looking a little shaky. The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are over, and unless the president has a new invasion in mind, we could see again how wartime politicans don't tend to fare too well once the guns fall silent. See George Bush Sr. and Winston Churchill for details.

Questionable conservatives

Is there anyone else who finds this wild-eyed frenzy to dismiss O'Neill at all costs to be rather remniscent of the Clinton defenders? I carry no water for Paul O'Neill, he's the classic moderate Republican big business big government poobah that is the epitome of much that I dislike about the Republican party. Ronald Reagan didn't want him. "Paul O'Neill is considered a menace by those who want to trim federal spending." --Human Events, November 22, 1980, commenting on rumors that O'Neill was being considered for a senior post in the incoming Reagan administration."

And yet, the compassionate conservative Bush did. Now, wouldn't NRO conservatives such as J. Goldberg, P. Robinson and R. Ponnuru scoff at the same defenses that they're currently spinning for President Bush if it were Bill Clinton in office and Robert Rubin were leveling such charges?

Let the chips fall where they may. I don't think there's anything there - military planners are required to plan for every contingency, after all. I do, however, think it is the height of naivety to think that there is not something a little odd about this administration. Can Bush do no wrong, even when he's betrayed conservatives on Medicare entitlements, spending increases and now quasi-immigration amnesty? I wonder, if Dick Cheney or Colin Powell were to make similar charges in the future, will they be scoffed at in the same way?

I always thought Das Partie uber alles was a Democratic phenomenon.

Ixnay on Dallas

Heard from the syndicate today... the Dallas Morning News is not going to run my column after all, since they apparently have too many editorialists and too little space. It's too bad, but this will only set back the masterplan by a few months. I have no less than three novels to complete this year, so shed no tears for me. And they did say that they'll revisit the question in six months.

So much for the libertarian perspective there, at least for the nonce.

Statistics on government murder

The most informative source on mass government murder - for which RJ Rummel coined the term "democide" - is the University of Hawaii professor's Freedom, Democide, War site. It's definitely worth doing some poking around in.

The statistics that I cited are by no means precise, but they are reasonable. The 4x estimate is the easiest, as it was derived by dividing the number of total 20th century victims of democide (169 million) by the number of people believed to have been killed in all the wars and civil wars taking place during that same time (38.5 million).

The comparison between murder and democide is tougher, as it can be calculated in a variety of ways. One significant challenge is that estimated murder rates often include government killings, another is that relatively few countries keep record of such statistics. I derived the number as follows:

- The United States has 19,000 murders in a population of 290 million. This is 6.55 per 100,000, or 0.000065517.
- This is considered to be high by US historical standards (1991 US Senate report) and by world standards as well. For example, Japan's murder rate is 11 times lower, the UK 4 times lower, Ireland 9 times lower. Since the current US rate is high by both world and historical standards, estimating the 20th century global murder rate by dividing the US rate by 4 seemed a reasonable educated guess, which gives 1.64 per 100,000, or 0.000016379.

It's hard to know how precisely how many people lived in the 20th century, but looking at a number of demographic sites indicated that the number was somewhere around 18 billion people on the high end. Dividing the 169 million victims of democide by 18 billion, we get a 20th century democide rate of 0.009388889, or 938.88 per 100,000, which is 570 times higher than the 1.64 per 100,000 estimated annual global murder rate. (Update - of course, multiplying the latter number by 100 gives a direct comparison of 938.88 per 100,00 with 164 per 100,000, or 5.72x.)

This seems too high, especially since Rummel himself estimates the average annual domestic democide rate at only .00235 per year for the countries where democides took place - in a little over one-third of the countries belonging to the UN.

How to rectify these differences? The problem likely stems from not comparing apples to apples, by comparing a percentage calculated from a total to an annual rate. But we can get a ceiling on the global 20th century murder total by multiplying the number of annual US murders by 100, then multiplying again by the global population divided by the US population. (19,000 x 100) x (6 billion / 290 million) = a maximum 39,310,394 murders in the 20th century. Since as was mentioned before, the US rate is high on two accounts, plus the global population is much higher now than it was at the beginning of the 20th century. The divider could therefore be increased somewhat, but since I prefer to be conservative here, using the previous divider of 4 gives us a best estimate of 9.83 million criminal murders in the 20th century, compared to 169 million legal democides.

Thus, I conclude that one's chances of falling prey to a homicidal government in the 20th century ranged from 4.3 (low estimate) to 54.5 (high estimate) times that of being murdered by an individual acting on his own, with the most reasonable estimate being 17.3 times.

The murderous countries list

Some of these will surprise you. France, for example, murdered over 100,000 of its Algerian citizens, which at the time was a legal and constitutional part of France.

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria-Hungary, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Laos, Liberia, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Russia, Rwanda, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe

But of course, it can't happen here, right? And don't you feel better about the United Nations, knowing that the governments - not the people - of all these countries may have sovereign power over you if the internationalists in the Democratic and Republican parties get their way?

NFL update, brought to you by Revlon

This week: 1-3. NFL Playoffs: 4-4.

Where did I go wrong?

1. Assuming that Mike Martz would not outsmart himself. 45 seconds with a timeout in the red zone is enough time for 5-6 cracks at the end zone. Or zero, assuming you're cut out of the Big Game Denny Green mold. The Rams should go ahead and start looking for a new coach now if they want to win playoff games; Martz has proved that he's a poor game tactician.

2. Thinking that Peyton Manning would revert to the mean. He is a star, bordering on greatness and superstardom. Let's see him reach a Super Bowl before conferring it upon him, though. If he's on fire, they can beat New England. Badly. Can he do it three weeks in a row? Maybe. You've got to love Tony Dungy's Grant-Landry demeanor. He may not be a chess master, but there's nothing as cool as Old Skool coaching.

3. In the battle of the smooched buttocks, Mike Sherman got cute and Brett Favre got stupid and the Packers gave the game away. Ahman Green got his 150 yards, Ralph Wiley notwithstanding, which makes the two third-and-short passes in Eagle's territory all the more bewildering. Incomplete - punt, incomplete - punt. And then there's the failure to drive it in on first and goal inside the five. Gee, a field goal in any of those possessions would have come in handy, don't you think?

Was I impressed by Donovan McNabb - sure, he never quit. The scramble-and-throw to Pinkston was fantastic. But do I think he's a superstar quarterback now? Never. If he rushes for 100, throws for 250 and no interceptions against Carolina's defense, then I'll consider it.

Great games, all told. Nothing like the NFL. I'd originally picked Rams-Patriots before the playoffs, and I definitely like Carolina's chances, but Peyton has got me thinking the Colts could get there. Have to think on that one.

Salt on the wounds

Those who were brave enough to try to explain did so honestly. Painfully honest. As honest as this stat from Elias Sports Bureau: The Chiefs are the first team since the 1975 Vikings to start 9-0 and lose their first playoff game.

Ever notice that it's always the Vikings who show up in stats like this? And by the way, that pass by Brett Favre that cost Green Bay the game? That would be Metrodome Brett, the evil twin brother of Brett Favre, Superstar QB. It's a little known fact that the Philadelphia Eagles kidnapped Brett and substituted MetBrett before the overtime kickoff.

Christmas with Big Chilly

Excerpt from actual Christmas letter. Names have been changed to protect the long-suffering.

"Chilliette and I are teaching ourselves Latin, and will pun away in that supposedly dead language for hours. Our astronaut training is progressing nicely though my duties as test pilot have prevented me from getting as much time on the shuttle simulator as I'd like. Chilliette, on the other hand, has just completed her second book on gestational depression in embryonic rabbits, and I understand it has set the animal behavior community on fire."

This was actually only the second funniest Christmas letter Space Bunny and I received this year. First prize goes to our good friend, the former swimsuit model, who wanted to make sure we were all kept up to date on the current state of her breasts. You probably think I'm kidding, don't you.

Battle of the lipstick-smeared QBs

I'm just wondering, has there ever been a playoff game between two quarterbacks whose posteriors have been so often smooched by so many sycophantic sportswriters? I can't think of one. Not even Montana-Aikman, with 7 Super Bowl rings between them, ever received this kind of fawning coverage. Not Staubach-Tarkenton, or Stabler-Bradshaw. It is now considered outright heresy to bring up the point that Donovan McNabb has a career completion rating* almost identical to - and one less Super Bowl ring than - QB legend for the ages and certain first-ballot Hall of Famer Trent Dilfer. And this parody of Peter King's friendship/obsession with Brett Favre barely manages to surpass the average broadcaster's genuflection towards the man who's "always having so much fun out there."

I am with Brett Favre on Saturday morning, somewhere deep in the backwoods of Mississippi. We are hunting for a big game -- namely, our belated Thanksgiving meal to stuff in an oven in Kiln, home to Brett and Deanna Favre. Brett, armed with bow and arrow, echoes of Burt Reynolds from Deliverance, quietly stalks his prey through the brush. I, outfitted only with a Ned Beatty gut, struggle to keep up. I follow behind Brett, step for step. I am so close to Brett right now, I can feel his breath. I can't help but think, I bet Deanna is jealous right about now.

What a quarterback. What a man.

Brett is a throwback all right - a throwback to Perseus, sculpted from the Greek gods. How his rugged Russell Crowe Gladiator beard accentuates his full, buxom lips. The way Brett's hips undulate, and gyrate, and undulate - oh, how they undulate - when Brett talks to me on the driving range. Or the way Brett's nose twinkles when I ask him pointed questions like "Why are you such a good football player when it's cold, Brett?" In a past life, this nubile young man must have been some sort of explorer. Hernando de Soto, perhaps.

Naysayers might have asked Brett at some point about his Thursday performance. But pay no mind to that fourth quarter pick that lost the game for the Sons of Sherman. Brett is a gunslinger. Always has been. Always will be. Those things happen. Brett was just trying to make a play. Brett can quarterback my team any day.
- from Football Outsiders

*McNabb's career passing rating is 8 points better than Dilfer's. However, his completion rating is only 1.5 percent better, and his performance over the last three seasons is strikingly similar to Dilfer's two good seasons in Tampa Bay. McNabb may become a great quarterback someday; he's still young. But to say that he's a superstar is ridiculous. Elway and Marino were the last true superstar QBs, although Favre can make a solid claim for such status if he can lead the Pack/ride Ahman Green to another Super Bowl. Only Manning, Brady and Culpepper appear serious superstar candidates in my book, and in that order.

The Doctor is illiterate

Economically, that is. This article mocking Ol Doc Howie's junior high school comprehension of economics doesn't go anywhere nearly far enough in laying the wood on him. The biggest problem with starting a trade war with Asia is not that we'll increase production costs and lose jobs, it's that we're utterly dependent on Chinese and Japanese capital inflows in order to fund our massive debts.

"... only central bank buying of dollars - or, buying U.S. dollar assets, such as Treasury bonds, thus lending money to the Bush administration - has kept the dollar from destruction. In September, for example, while the rest of the world was dumping dollar assets, the Bank of Japan was spending $40 billion to support the dollar. "Without this Herculean effort by Japanese authorities," Terry Reik of Clapboard Hill Partners continues, "foreign flows would have been an unthinkable negative $35.8 billion. Debt has reached $33 trillion, with annual interest of nearly $2 trillion - even at today's Eisenhower rates - and it's growing seven times as fast as the economy itself."

It's a bad idea to piss off your creditors when you desperately need to borrow more money from them. Of course, we've already begun the process of inflating our way out of it, but in the interest of avoiding total social cataclysm, it would be nice not to have to do it all at once.

I would never vote for Howard Dean but the man is far more of an idiot than George Bush - for whom I also won't be voting - is at his grammar-bending worst. The man who thinks he knows everything about what he knows nothing is always a danger to himself and others.

Wherefore art thou, Ralph?

I love Ralph Wiley. He is a writer's writer. I don't always agree with him, but his fearless approach to his art is a major influence on my own approach to commentary. But I have to address his analysis of the Green Bay - Philadelpha matchup, as I suspect his desire to champion Donovan McNabb may have led him a little astray here. Of course, the beautiful thing about sports is that, unlike politics, we'll know who is right this weekend.

RW: Do you really think Ahman Green, the most beautiful running back in ball right now, is going to rush for 150 yards? Are you insane? With the skill of Philly's corners, Troy Vincent and Bobby Taylor? They can easily single-cover Green Bay's wide receivers and bring Brian Dawkins down into the box like an extra linebacker -- only Dawkins hits harder than most LBs. It's simply a matter of bringing one more than the Pack O-line can block, much as the McTites did to Baltimore's Jamal Lewis.

I don't know if he'll rush for 150. But I don't see a defense that couldn't stop Kevan Barlow shutting him down either. And Donald Driver, Javon Walker and Bubba Franks are not exactly the Baltimore Ravens receiving corps. Philadelphia gives up 130 rushing yards per game, and ranks 8 spots and 20 yard per game worse than Seattle. Green will get his yards, and two TDs as well.

RW: As for waiting for McNabb to nut up, well, you may as well pass the Chunky Soup, be-atch. I seriously doubt that Andy Reid will make the same mistake he made last year with that ultra-conservative game plan, put in maybe because McNabb was coming off that broken leg and limping around. I expect the Eagles to play wide-open; and the Green Bay secondary, as Matt Hasselbeck proved until the last play, is available. McNabb knows what Hasselbeck didn't (though it was nice to see what the Sea-Dogs had, finally -- they've got a squad). McNabb knows full well that corner Al Harris likes to sit on routes. He'll get double-moved in this one.

Matt Hasselbeck: 61 percent completions, 26 TD, 15 INT
Donovan McNabb: 57.5 percent completions, 16 TD, 11 INT

McNabb probably does know it. The problem isn't his experience or a tendency to choke, the problem is his lack of accuracy. After the double-pump, he'll overthrow Thrash, then, on the next play, sail one high over the middle right into Darren Sharper's chest.

NFL Playoffs

Last week: 3-1. I thought the Big Tuna would lead the Cowboys over Carolina.

New England over Tennesee
I don't see the Titans knocking off a quietly dominant Patriots team even with a healthy Eddie George and Steve McNair. The Patriots don't seem as talented as a lot of the other teams still standing, but they're so machine-like and competent it is frightening.

Green Bay over Philadelphia
I went back and forth on this one. It's dangerous to go against the Sports Guy, and contrary to popular opinion, I don't hate Donovan McNabb. However, he's less accurate than Matt Hasselbeck, so he's not going to pick apart the Green Bay secondary any better than Hasselbeck did, and the Eagles are also weaker against the run than the Seahawks, so they're not going to stop Ahman Green either.

St. Louis over Carolina
Carolina is the pet upset pick of the experts, but I disagree. Mike Martz is a smart guy, and this year he's gotten a lot better at not outsmarting himself. When he has to pound, he pounds now, which was never the case in the past. I've liked Bulger since seeing him play in his first game against Oakland; I think his higher INT percentage stems from not having Faulk most of the season. If Martz can't run Marshall against the Carolina line, he'll have Bulger throw to him out of the backfield, where Faulk is arguably more dangerous.

Kansas City over Indianapolis
Peyton Manning was my fantasy QB this year. When he's on, which is most of the time, he's great. But he's also prone to the occasional inexplicable debacle, and after last week's destruction of Denver, I suspect payback is due. I think Tony Dungy is a good man and a solid coach, but a mediocre game-day tactician. Vermeil will outcoach Dungy for the win - I've seen enough Denny Green teams get outcoached in the playoffs to know how this usually plays out. And who was Denny's defensive coordinator for more than a few of those? Right. As Bill Parcells showed, a great coach doesn't need a complete team to win, he just needs something. Parcells didn't have anything to work with this year; with Holmes, Green, Hall and Gonzalez, Dick Vermeil does.

In fact, the Sports Guy seems to have neglected his own Rule #6: check the coaching matchups. In explaining that rule, he even said: "Tony Dungy: You never hear an announcer say, "This game's a chess match!" when Dungy's involved."

Precisely.

UPDATE: Okay, I was wrong about the Rams, although that one could have just as easily gone the other way, the experts notwithstanding. I figured the Rams were in trouble when they couldn't punch it in with three separate chances in the red zone. Also, Mike Martz clearly doesn't have much trust in Bulger, letting the clock run down at the end of the game instead of throwing it into the end zone - rightly so, judging by that last interception on the Carolina 30. And what was up with Carolina failing to call timeout on the kick that should have won the game the first time. Tori Holt's drop was big too. Strange game, but great to watch. I hope Stephen Davis is good to go for next week. Also, it was nice to see the Panthers win despite getting double-teamed by the Rams and the referees.

Halfway through the 1st quarter of the other game. Titans don't look good. Brady does. I'll be shocked if I get this one wrong too.

Gold and moving averages

Adam Hamilton's analyses have been... less than perfectly successful in the last year, but I can't really dog him since mine haven't been any better. We've both been wrong-wrong-wrong on the stock markets, and right-right-right on metals. Anyhow, he's got a very nice analysis of how the price action of the dollar-gold relationship has been revolving around the 200-day moving averages over the last few years.

To sum it up, the dollar's been firming at .90 of its 200 DMA, while gold's been peaking at around 1.13. However, if you look at the Relative Dollar and Relative Gold chart you can see that in Elliott Wave terminology, gold appears to be approaching a short-term third of a third top if you count from the low point of spring 2003. If you add into the mix the fact that Rick Ackerman is still looking for $450 on this run, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a slight correction, one last pop up past the 1.174 previous high, and then the next three-month correction before we start all over again.

I'll probably dabble a bit with some tactical moves, although with metals I much prefer Richard Russell's strategy of sit and ride the bull. Strategy has worked much better than tactics for me anyway.

Big media blogfamy

The Evangelical Outpost writes: Must Read List: Vox Popoli -- Normally the last thing I want to promote is a “big media” writer who enters the world of blogging. But for a writer as talented and as interesting as Vox Day I’ll make an exception. He’s a syndicated writer and contributor to WorldNetDaily. (I found out today that we have something in common. His column is carried in The Dallas Morning News, which has the ninth largest circulation in the country. I myself used to write a column for a Texas newspaper that had a circulation of nine.)

I also recommend checking out his latest column which deconstructs the false claim that Marine general Anthony Zinni made an anti-Semitic remark. He also has what is still my favorite line of the week. In response to Howard Dean’s claim that his decision to support gay civil unions was informed by his “religious faith,” Vox writes, “Well, in fairness, Howard only said he'd be talking about God. He didn't say he'd be listening to Him.”

Actually, Joe and I have more in common than that. We are both massive fans of the man Tom Clancy once described as the Warrior Prince of the Marine Corps, former USMC Commandant Charles Krulak. I should probably mention that my column hasn't started running in the DMN yet, but it will in a week or two. I also think "big media" is probably overstating it by an order of magnitude at this point, but we'll get there soon enough.

Now that I think about it, this would be a good time to start pestering your local newspaper if you'd like to see my column start appearing in it. Unless they've already filled their quota of sardonic Christian libertarian techno-adepts with pop star potential.

Celebrity-chasing columnists

I previously predicted a lot of Kobe Bryant columns in Rabbi "I talked to Michael Jackson once" Boteach's future, so I'm not the least bit surprised that he's leaping on Britney Spears with alacrity. Our societal enchantment with celebrity is bad enough when it passes for news, but I find it even more distasteful when it invades the commentary page. As if there's not a thousand more important things about which to opine. I always thought WND was gunning for the New York Times, not the New York Post's Page Six.

Look, I partied with Hans Lundgren, Guns-n-Roses and David Lee Roth back when I was living in Tokyo. So what? That's no reason to write columns about them every other week, much less brain-dead celebs I haven't even met.

The rabbi isn't the only one guilty of celebrity-chasing. NRO's Murdock couldn't resist the temptation either. Neither could Derb, but he: A) was hilarious, B) mercilessly ripped Miss Spears' talent, celebrity, intelligence and looks, and C) in one smooth flow, dropped a vicious quote from Samuel Johnson, called her the mother of the Antichrist and predicted the Apocalypse. Plus, he's Derb and he's down with the One True Dragon, so he can do whatever he wants, in my book.

Why the Sports Guy rules

Shakiest Coach of the Weekend: Brian Billick. Along with offensive coordinator Matt Cavanaugh, it took them three-and-a-half quarters to realize they should be throwing deep downfield to Todd Heap. Really? It took them that long to figure out that their All-Pro tight end might be able to run by the safeties when they were cheating up to stop Jamal Lewis ... which was only every play? Don't these people play video games? It's the oldest trick in the book! Even early Intellivision had that play (9-4-2-8?).

I can beat the vast majority of gamers at Maddens, from 1992 to 1996 on Genesis, then 1999 to 2004 on PSX and PS/2. But I scoff at anyone who would even dream of taking me on in the brutal endurance test that is Intellivision football - 15-minute quarters baby, the real 15 minutes, none of this latter-day speed-stuff-up nonsense. I played that game by myself for hours, months on end. The only game at which I'm better is US Ski Team Skiiing. Still, the Sports Guy just might give me a game.

Always good to see a fellow fan of the Gold Disc and the Thumb of Power. You know that modern game controllers descend from the Gold Disc, right? Atari 2600 joysticks - pah!

(For those of you experiencing momentary paradigm shift, please be informed that for eight years, I designed, produced and reviewed video and computer games.)

Ski Killington

I'm sure you'll all be surprised that I'm in favor of Killington seceding from Vermont, to better live free or die. Come on, Killington, why not go all the way? There's nothing to fear, as long as you don't have slaves. I'm sure the federal government will bid you adieu with wave and a friendly smile, what with all these soon-to-be-legal immigrants receiving the President's amnesty standing ready to replace you.

Comments

We'll try it out. If it becomes annoying, obscene or too much work to police, I'll simply remove them.

UPDATE: Don't worry overmuch about people trying to pollute the forum. The comments don't show up unless you go out of your way to read them, and I can nuke individual ones anyhow. Nor will this blog become a self-referring circle that revolves around comments posted here. As has been remarked upon before, I have a talent for ignoring that which I wish to ignore.

UPDATE II: That should fix the width problem. Thanks CJ. Also, please email me directly if you are wishing for me to respond to something. I don't promise that I will, but I'm basically just scanning the comments to make sure that no one is abusing the forum. I'm not policing it for agreement with my positions, only for basic civility and, preferably, a modicum of sense.

Britney, whore of Babylon

John Derbyshire cracks me up: It is a given that one generation doesn't like another generation's pleasures. As Dr. Johnson put it in his straightforward way: "Why, Sir, our tastes greatly alter. The lad does not care for the child's rattle, and the old man does not care for the young man's whore." Giving all possible benefit of the doubt to Britney Spears, though, I see nothing redeeming in her act. You can't even sing the songs yourself, or play them on air guitar. For this Buddy Holly died?

An awful suspicion forms in my mind. The empty lewdness of the stage act; the bottomless nothingness in Britney's eyes and words; all that emptiness and nothingness and purposelessness; the trashing of our culture's most hallowed ceremony... for what? Can it be...? Yes! I only hope I can get the word out before they track me down.

Listen: Britney Spears is an instrument of Satan. The poor girl has sold her soul, or had it stolen from her. That travesty of a marriage was not for nothing — it was a union in evil! Its issue will be the Antichrist, and the world will be his dominion. These are the Last Times. You have been warned.

Exit stage left, pursued by a dragon....

Why free downloads are good... for most

I sent the following to the infamous tormentor of puppies after reading a discussion of the RIAA and free downloads on the Blog That Must Not Be Mentioned:

In addition to being a newly syndicated columnist, I happen to be a published novelist. I can assure you, free downloads are a benefit to about 98 percent of all creators because the primary challenge to selling one's books, CDs, etc is simply letting your potential market know that you exist. It's hard to sell something to someone who doesn't know that you or your product are out there.

This is why Hillary Clinton can sell tons of books despite the fact that she can't - and didn't - write one. She has enough fame to cut through the clutter. Downloads will hurt the sales of a Stephen King or a John Grisham, but will only help the average writer since it increases the general awareness of his work.

This is why Baen Books and others have seen an uptick in sales since making their wares freely available for download. The percentage of people who've heard of the product and become buyers may decrease, but for almost everyone, the increase in the number of people who've heard about it more than makes up for any loss.

A belated Christmas present arrives

I just received an Ann Coulter doll in the mail. We're very happy together. You realize, of course, it's only a matter of time before there's an Ann Coulter blow-up doll.

We may never see Eric Alterman in public again.

The blog in his eye

AG writes: Still no luck on the random slides in Impress. I am thinking that perhaps the functionality I need to use has not been written into Impress yet. This functionality would be the ability to select a slide, cut the slide, select another slide or spot between slides, and paste the cut slide there. All I have found so far is the function of selecting a slide and "remove"ing it, but no way to paste it anywhere.

AG is the latest addition to the Reader Blogroll. He's also working on a macro to provide the ability to do slide show randomization in OpenOffice Impress. He's got it partially working, but is not there yet. If anyone knows anything about this, let me know or visit The Blog in My Own Eye and fill him in directly.

If it isn't in print it must not be true

There are times when I have serious sympathy for my fellow elitists who don't believe that the Great Unwashed should be permitted to decide anything but which channel to watch.

John Lott writes: With the avalanche of horrific news stories about guns over the years, it's no wonder people find it hard to believe that, according to surveys there are about two million defensive gun uses each year; guns are used defensively four times more frequently than they are to commit crimes.

The rebuttal to this claim always is: If these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news?

And when would that be, when there's so much celebrity porn that requires indulging? I'm surprised the television media even bothered to report on the Iraqi war, considering that a celebrity somewhere did something during that time. Oh, I'm an elitist all right, I'm just an Aristotelian libertarian Christian instead of a secular Platonist collectivist. Anyhow, it's a good article. Lott seems to know his stuff, although I wish he wasn't so reticent about his research records. He's no fantasist like Bellesiles, but he's not as transparent and solid as he should be either.

What feminism hath wrought

Marvin Olasky writes: ...in India, where cars stop for sacred cows but abortion or infanticide of little girls is rampant, the problem is very visible on streets where young men without women prowl. Skewed birth statistics tell the story. For example, look at the district-by-district birth figures for areas surrounding the ancient pilgrimage region of Madurai in south India. Usilampatti in December 2002 had 910 male births and only 690 female ones. Chellampatti had 848 male births and 623 female ones.

The situation is much the same in China, and will get much worse as access to pre-birth sex-identification technology improves. In Italy, the birth rate has already dropped to 1.2 per woman, far short of the 2.1 needed to keep the population stable. As in India, a son is usually preferred. The irony is that the historically dubious notion of female equality is looking increasingly likely to kill off entire societies in less time than some of the most savage wars in history, mostly by significantly reducing the number of women. Freud asked, famously, what women want. Judged by the results, the feminist answer appears to be divorce, lesbian chic and dead little girls.

Environmentalists and those worried about population explosion may cheer declining birth rates, but I expect that in 25 years or so, when the demographic chickens seriously begin to come home to roost, they'll feel rather differently. And as Denmark, Holland and France are learning, importing individuals from manifestly different cultures to make up the gap creates significant new problems of its own.

On a tangential note, here's an interesting essay on Italian demographics and the immigration issue. It's even got two quotes from Umberto Eco's Cinque Scritti Morali. Che bello!

Where we're heading

A British television talk-show host for BBC1 is under fire for a newspaper column he wrote criticizing Arabs. Robert Kilroy-Silk faces a possible police investigation after referring to Arabs as "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors," reports Sky News. The comments, which included a charge that Arabs "murdered" 3,000 civilians on September 11, were published in a weekend column in the Sunday Express.

Apparently the truth is no defense. Are the suicide bombers Arab? Yes. Is the amputation of limbs a normal punishment in Arab countries? Yes. Are women repressed in Arab countries? Yes, by Western standards. But apparently it's a crime to mention any of this in Britain.

Good thing we have a 1st Amendment to protect our right to free speech... well, we did until the Supreme Court decided that we didn't last month.

Mailbox: Everything is everyone's business

SC writes: I accept the idea that each individual should have the freedom to do anything that does not diminish the freedoms of another without the other's permission. I would make the argument that not wearing a seat belt or motorcycle helmet does diminish the freedoms of others. If you are driving without your seat belt and I cause an accident that would not have caused you injury with a seat belt, but did cause sever injury because your head struck the windshield, I would be liable for your medical bills. With the seat belt law in place, I could argue that the injuries were a result of your choice to break the seat belt law and therefore not my fault. What say you?

With all due respect, I say that shows a failure to think things through. If we're talking about hypotheticals - which we are - then in a libertarian society you would not be liable for anyone else's medical bills. This is why neo-socialist medical systems like we have now in the United States are so pernicious. One bit of government involvement always justifies the next.

Using this reasoning, you have a perfect right to insist that I have my body injected with chemicals I don't want in my body because if I get the flu, you have to pay for my treatment. And in any event, you are not responsible for another's bad choices regardless of whether a behavior-controlling law is in place or not. Everything ultimately boils down to one question. Either the State is supreme (Plato) or the individual is supreme (Aristotle, Jesus Christ). I'm down with the latter, and will brook no compromise.

Mailbox: Howard and God

ST writes: So now apparently Dean's logic supercedes that of God....

Well, in fairness, Howard only said he'd be talking about God. He didn't say he'd be listening to Him.

Mailbox: Protected against yourself

DW writes: I read your blog with interest. Much of it is well-reasoned (NFL allegiances aside, although I certainly can claim no better!). And want to or not, one leaves the blog thinking. Certainly I did not expect to bethinking about cannibalism this morning. Regarding Brandes consent, what about codes that are in place to preventone from inflicting serious harm on oneself?

I do not know the laws pertaining to this in Germany, but that's not the point of my question. Are codes like this an example of state interference in individual choice and morality? If not, could such a principle be applied to Brandes, and if so, would you prefer to see these laws eliminated?

Yes, they absolutely are. Seat belt laws and helmet laws are good examples of this. Such an example certainly applies, and I would absolutely prefer to see these laws eliminated. If the State has the power to tell you to wear a helmet on a bicycle, they also have the power to tell a woman to wear the chador.

Tax trial verdict - the end of justice

The jury has sent the judge another question.

Question: Since no proof has been offered by the government that the defendant's business is required to file under Section 7202, are we to assume that they are not required to file or are we to read all 7000 pages of businesses required to file?

Answer from Judge: I have made a legal determination that during the years in question, Arrow Plastics had a legal duty to collect Social Security, Medicare and FICA and forward those taxes to the U.S.A. and the defendant's business falls into the category of businesses required to file. They should not concern themselves as to the requirement for the defendant's business to file.

The defense objected that this amounted to a directed verdict. The judge overruled the objection.

After this, the verdict came back guilty on 29 of 31 counts. Which is understandable, given the fact that the judge simply made up the law and directed the verdict. "They should not concern themselves as to the requirement for the defendant's business to file." That was what the whole case was about; it was precisely what the jury was there to judge! This is why you must never use a lawyer in these circumstances. The jury has the power to judge the law; the judge does not, but no lawyer will dare to bring up jury nullification for fear of being disbarred. It's too bad the Simkanin jury did not know its own power.

Since there's now no law as written, it's clear that Aleister Crowley's rule is now in effect. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." I don't expect this to turn out well, in the long run. The socialist crisis is approaching - what will they do when strong arm tactics such as these still don't cause freedom-loving people to submit? And what will the next honest and informed entrepeneur take from this lesson in judicial tyranny? Some will submit and pay the taxes they know they don't owe. Some will resist and go to jail with their head held high. And some will quietly leave the country, never to return.

A nation that persecutes its best and brightest doesn't tend to survive long.

Mailbox: No taste for freedom

JM writes: Your answer to the question freaked me out. What about the people in the society? Don't they have the right to be protected from such an act happening in their midst? If there were the possibility of a man murdering and eating another man next door to me, and it was a common practice (who knows where we will be in 30 years?), I would not be able to live in peace. I would never even consider bringing children into the world. Such acts cannot simply happen "behind doors", their very presence in a society effects every member of the society. The act is so reviling to basic human nature that everyone is effected.

For some reason the consent makes it far more bone-chilling than your run of the mill "jungle cannibalism". It is as if you get a glimpse of hell. And by your logic you could have this sort of stuff on pay-per-view. I would rather be persecuted under a tyrant than to live in such a society. Personal freedom in this life is only so valuable, it is not to be idolized, which is exactly what you border on doing.

I think this is absolutely a glimpse of Hell. This is what happens when people turn from God. And legal or no, the possibility already exists. But instead of expecting the government to stop it, I would say that the correct response is social ostracism and a refusal to do business or have dealings with such a person. Sans a government that violates the right to freedom of association, you would be very unlikely to have such a person living next door for long; he would not be able to do so in a town where no one would have anything to do with him. Ostracism is a very powerful force, unfortunately Americans have lost the ability to use it.

Otherwise, you have a society where the government has the power to prevent people from worshipping God next door. You can't have things both ways. I don't idolize personal freedom. God, who has far more power than any government, decided to give it to us as a gift. Who are you to attempt to take away what He has chosen to give? Private property and a philosophy of my rights ending where yours begin is the only reasonable foundation for secular law. I would say, however, that it is foolish to think that it would be better to live under a tyrant - there have been tyrants in the past thirty years who have practiced such abominations themselves. You would prefer to allow them the power to force you to do the same?

Neither governments nor people can be controlled for long. Not for good, not for evil. This is the great lesson of history.

JM responds: This is a very good argument. I gladly submit to it. I never considered the effect two seemingly disconnected freedoms can have on one another. My nightmare scenario was actually a form of tyranny because we would be forced to "get along" with persons who engage in such behavior in the name of respecting their liberty. It is not really a respect of liberty, [though], it is a respect of sin.

Indeed.

What's wrong with cannibalism?

Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News writes: Gang, I think this short City Journal article by Theodore Dalrymple, M.D. could spark an interesting discussion among us. Dr. Dalrymple takes up the case of Armin Meiwes, the German cannibal on trial for murdering and eating his sex partner, the late (and arguably delicious) Bernd Brandes. Meiwes advertised on the Internet for a male sex partner who would be willing to be killed and eaten by him. Brandes showed up at his door saying, "Here I am!" There is, I have read, videotaped evidence showing that Brandes fully consented to what is, you'll have to admit, the ultimate sadomasochistic relationship.

It is widely accepted in today's society that the state has no business interfering in private sexual conduct made by consenting adults. It is also believed by many people that individuals should have the right to choose euthanasia; that is, adults should have the right to end their lives on their own terms, as long as they hurt no one.

The question becomes: On what moral and philosophical grounds does the state justify prosecuting the cannibal Meiwes for participating in a consensual act that happened to involve sex and ritual murder?

Writes Dalrymple: "Lest anyone think that the argument from mutual consent for the permissibility of cannibalism is purely theoretical, it is precisely what Meiwes's defense lawyer is arguing in court. The case is a reductio ad absurdum of the philosophy according to which individual desire is the only thing that counts in deciding what is permissible in society. Brandes wanted to be killed and eaten; Meiwes wanted to kill and eat. Thanks to one of the wonders of modern technology, the Internet, they both could avoid that most debilitating of all human conditions, frustrated desire. What is wrong with that? Please answer from first principles only."

Dr. Dalrymple is not a libertarian, so he is in no way arguing for the defense. But he does raise a very valid point. I'm not a libertarian either, so I can explain (and will do so) why I think this is wrong. But I know there are some pretty strong libertarians among us, so I'm interested to hear what you have to say in answer to Dr. Dalrymple's challenge.

Since you asked for a response from libertarians, I'll be happy to provide one. Meiwes' cannibalistic and depraved actions should be perfectly legal given the circumstances, although they are without question morally reprehensible. Now, either the State has the power to define sin or it does not. If it does have the power to define sin, then adultery, a far more common and socially destructive sin than cannibalism, should without question be banned and punished. If it does not have this power, then the laws against murder must stem from private property rights, in which case Brandes clearly granted Meiwes permission to make culinary use of his body and so there is no crime.

I am a Christian, but I absolutely prefer that the State be limited to matters of defending its citizenry and the private property rights of those citizens. If the State is allowed to play God and define sin, then sin will be defined by the most active special interest groups in the quasi-democratic West, leading to situations where men are convicted for the hate crime of publishing Bible verses as happened recently in Canada, or, conversely, women are sentenced to stoning for getting pregnant out of wedlock. What the State can give, the State can take away; it is an amoral enterprise.

A society cannot hope to exceed the morals of the individuals that comprise it.

Rod responds: I don't think this is sufficient. If the moral basis for banning murder is located in the defense of property rights, and not in the inherent dignity of the individual, then what is to prevent the state from declaring an entire class of people -- African slaves, for example -- as mere property, and denying them human rights?

Besides which, it doesn't follow at all that if the state has the right to pass laws based on a vision of right and wrong -- and that's what all laws are: a codified moral vision -- that the state must make adultery a criminal offense. Unquestionably adultery is destructive of the social order, but it could be argued -- indeed, I would argue -- that making adultery a criminal offense would cause more problems than it would solve. Not so with murder and cannibalism.

Because under my libertarian scenario, the State has no power to supercede any individual's property right to himself. Such an action would be theft; there is no eminent domain. Admittedly, it might be difficult to prevent an individual from selling himself, should he so choose. However, under Rod's scenario, the State can simply declare the class of individual non-human, as the Nazis and the U.S. Supreme Court and now New Jersey have done. The moral basis for banning murder is not based in the inherent dignity of the individual anyhow, it is based on Mosaic law and the conflation of the State with the Church. Unfortunately, we don't have God talking directly to our leaders, except perhaps Pat Robertson, so in this fallen world it is preferable to strip the State of the ability to define morality, legality and sin.

The correlation absolutely follows since Rod's codified moral vision (he's a Catholic Christian) bans adultery as it bans cannibalism. If we're going to delve into moral relativism or utilitarianism, then we have to begin from scratch by making distinct cases for the morality or immorality of adultery, murder and cannibalism. This was not the perspective from which the original question was posed.

It occured to me that the very language used is telling. The post on DMN Daily didn't ask "what is illegal about cannibalism", it asked "what is wrong" with it. Illegal and wrong are not synonymous. What is wrong with cannibalism and murder is that, like adultery, it is an offense to God. One does not eat His temple. That's the sum total. God alone defines our morality; that is why the apostle Paul told the newly Christian Jews that the old Mosaic Law had been superceded and they could now eat the formerly unclean foods. Morality thus is not the law, it is above it.

The only question that remains is do we structure our society with laws in accordance with our best understanding of God's Will or not? Since God appears to be the ultimate champion of free will, I do not think we should, but rather imitate Him in allowing people the maximum freedom and responsibility possible. I suggest that history and the failures of every attempt to force God on individuals through the State supports this stance.

Ol' Doc Howie's in the hizzouse

The White Buffalo writes: Do you know that when I bring your blog up, almost everyday the header at the top is for Howard Dean? The blogspot advertising at the top of your page is a Deanathon.

That's because I've warmed to him now that he's talking about God and the Rebel flag.

The Hogs are back!

If anyone can get the Redskins ship back in order, it's Joe Gibbs. I am not happy about this. Not that I have high hopes for the Vikings making the Super Bowl in the next year or two, but it's a lot tougher if you have to get past teams coached by Bill Parcells and Joe Gibbs.

I much preferred Mike Tice matching wits with Chan Gailey and Steve Spurrier. Oh well. At least the Lions under Millen and the Bears under Colangelo will continue to keep us battling with the Packers for the NFC North.

Brazil gun ban

With a population of nearly 182 million, more than 40,000 Brazilians died of gunshot wounds last year, according to the WHO. The United States, with a population of 292 million, had 29,000 firearm deaths last year.

And here I thought the USA was supposed to have the biggest problem, due to our lax gun laws. I'll bet you that in five years, the problem will be worse than it was before the new gun control laws.

See, elect a socialist and it's only a matter of time - in this case months - before he starts disarming the people. The only good thing is that perhaps the Brazilian supermodel factory will be forced to relocate.

Jonah answers

Made my debut in The Corner today. [Name withheld] as per usual Corner etiquette, but you can probably figure out which definition was mine. Here's what Jonah had to say, and my subsequent reply.

Okay. Here's just one of the basic problems with all of this. If Neocons love big-government, why does Pat Buchanan -- perhaps the only self-described "paleocon" average Americans have ever heard of -- want to expand the welfare state? As Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out in a brilliant take-down of Buchanan, the man's biggest complaint with Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is that it's a rip-off of Buchanan's "conservatism of the heart." Meanwhile I know literally dozens of allegedly well-known "neocons" who very much want to shrink the welfare state.

Meanwhile, the Buchanan crowd says National Review is a "neocon" magazine because it supported the war, while the mainstream press routinely says NR is "paleo" and the Weekly Standard is "neo" even though our respective positions on foreign policy are nearly identical -- albeit from the vantage point of, say, a New York Times or Slate reporter. If being a neocon means being hawkish, then NR was always more neocon than the neocons because we were the ones championing rollback, not containment. And, oh yeah, why did Buchanan want to send the Sixth Fleet to defend Dubrovnik in 1991, if the Paleos are against foreign adventures. And why did über-neo Charles Krauthammer oppose getting mired in the Balkans?

I don't suggest that Neocons love big government. If they did, they'd be left-liberals, after all. I merely suggest that Neocons consider it a perfectly viable tool whenever they feel it is desirable. It is this willingness to embrace big government, on occasion, that sets them apart from traditional conservatives. I believe that the self-professed paleocon whose definition you also mentioned was saying almost exactly the same thing, albeit in different words.

As for Pat, well, let's face it. As strong as he is on some things - I've spent enough years in Europe to know that his Death of the West hypothesis is not the product of a fevered imagination - he can be all over the place. I respect him, but I don't look for consistency from him. Those neo-cons you mentioned may well be willing to shrink the welfare state; my guess is that they're perfectly willing to embrace expanding central state power in other areas more dear to their respective hearts, be it the drug war, Patriot II, or the Federal Reserve system. And, of course, your reply doesn't even begin to defend the Bush Administration, which shows no sign of interest in reducing the welfare state, much less turning back the New Deal.

Maybe Charles Krauthammer opposed it because it was an obviously bad idea? Being a neoconservative doesn't imply stupidity.

Tax trial update - judicial corruption

"At the bench, Judge McBryde openly admitted he had not read any of the Defense motions, but regardless, summarily dismissed all of them within seconds. "

Yes, we're supposed to believe that these jokers are concerned about someone obeying the law. Right. McBryde should recuse himself, as he's either incompetent or corrupt. This would be nothing but a Soviet-style show trial, were it not for the fact that the advocates of total government power have not yet been able to eliminate the jury. If you ever to trouble to read a transcript of one of these cases, you'll see that the judge almost always flat out declares that the law is not what is written, the only law is what he says it is. This is a blatant lie, albeit one that the Supreme Court, in its decadence, has declared acceptable.

This is why you should always defend yourself in a tax case instead of using a lawyer, since lawyers have to fear the judge and let him get away with blatantly biased actions like this. Not being an officer of the court, the pro se litigant does not. Costs a lot less too, and from what I've read, pro se litigants have a better record than defendants represented by lawyers.

The best legal defense in the world won't do you a bit of good when the judge simply rules it out and your lawyer meekly accedes because he doesn't want to get disbarred. This is also why you should never submit to any proceeding other than a jury trial. You will never get a fair trial from a judge - no matter what kind of case it is, he wants to get it over with as quickly and easily as possible. The question of justice doesn't enter in; I've personally witnessed a judge flip a coin to settle what should have been an open-and-shut case. Judicial corruption is an evil that preceded the Magna Carta and it is not only still with is, it is arguably as bad as it's been in centuries.

Remember, courts have been illegitimately sentencing men to prison and worse for millennia. Gandhi, Mandela and the apostle Paul could all testify to this, as could Jesus Christ Himself. For all their pretensions, the courts are not inherently on the side of civilization or the Good, the Right and the True.

I may be wrong about Arnold

It's all rhetoric at this point. But I have to say, he's off to a surprisingly good start:

"Never again will government be allowed to spend money it doesn't have. Never again will the state be allowed to borrow money to pay for its operating expenses.... Every governor proposes moving boxes around to reorganize government. I don't want to move the boxes around; I want to blow them up."

Then again, there was this:

"We agreed to fight side-by-side to get more federal tax money for homeland security, for criminal aliens, water resources, highways, and other needs."

Okay, probably not entirely wrong. Oh well.

On Neocons - a letter to Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg of NRO writes: I would love for a critic of the neocons to give me a serviceable definition of what one is. A few self-described neocons -- Irving Kristol, Max Boot, Adam Wolfson -- are invested in imbuing neocons with a lot more meaning than I believe it has in part because they are leaders of what they see as the distinct political faction Drum's talking about. But on specific public policy issues, I am at a loss to understand what exactly neocons believe to the exclusion of plain old conservatives.

My short definition is that a neoconservative is a big government conservative. This includes numerous politicians and commentators who would probably not consider themselves anything but conservatives. As the Republican party has grown, it has attracted more and more people who are more devoted to being on the winning team than they are to conservative Republican priniciples. Add to this the pragmatic Republicans, who will sell out every conservative principle in order to win an election, and you have the foundation for what increasingly appears to be a transformation into a full-blown neoconservative party.

Neoconservativism rejects conservative isolationism in favor of Wilsonian adventurism. It rejects republicanism in favor of fostering democracy, both here and abroad. It consistently favors favors the acceptance of federalism over battling for states rights. It rejects tradition and what you call the democracy of the dead in favor of building a new world order. It does not respect national sovereignty, and uses left-liberal language of human rights to justify this lack of respect. It rejects the Christian principle of being in but not of a fallen world and imitates the architects of the secular Left in attempting to construct Man's paradise here on Earth. There are different strains to this neoconservativism, but the common theme is a willingness to embrace the expansion of government power for a particular end.

I think there is a strong case for describing President Bush as a neoconservative. He ran away from conservativism with his "compassionate conservative" rhetoric, has twice refused to follow the Constitution in properly declaring war and has instituted a new government entitlement as well as increasing government spending at rate that puts past Democrats to shame.

I am a libertarian, not a conservative, but I don't find it hard to understand why many conservatives are dismayed with both President Bush and his neoconservative administration. I'm somewhat acquainted with the non-official Bush coterie - I once dated the daughter of one of his major supporters - and these were not conservatives offended by the notion of big government, so long as the sum total of its interventions were in their favor.

Tax trial update II

Looks like Doug Kenline is back online audioblogging from the trial in Fort Worth. The courthouse is packed, so much so that Doug couldn't get into the afternoon session. According to Robert Engle, who managed to find a seat, Larkin Rose, Bob Schultz and Ed Rivera were testifying for the defense and Rose particularly had the jury paying close attention to his presentation. Some interesting information on the right to withhold tax money when petitions have not been addressed by the government was presented by Schultz too. Engle's opinion was that it was a good day for the defense, but since he's not on the jury, we'll just have to wait and see.

The informative audio posts are time-stamped 4:37 PM on Tuesday and 5:33 PM and 5:37 PM on Monday. The others should be skipped. Closing statements in the final session still to come, followed by deliberations and the verdict.

Audblog is tres cool.

Girl-girl chic

I'm just wondering how the "helpless homosexual" crowd is attempting to explain away this sort of thing. So, it's genetic, unless it's a high school fashion trend, but you can't choose to quit? Is that it? Right, got it. Or is it genetic for men and not genetic for women, as the writer seems to suggest? But then, that would necessitate gender being more than the invention of oppressive white males, in which case it's the feminist theorists who are dashed upon the cold hard shoals of logic.

Thus quoth the White Buffalo

1. Is the choice to be unhealthy covered in libertarianism?

Absolutely.

2. Are you, Vox Day, a victim of the Madison Ave thought police, accepting their invented standard of beauty? The brothers love a chunky gal.

As the WB knows very well, I happen to have a strong preference for slender blonde women. If Madison Avenue is to blame for this, so be it. I suffer the affliction with quiet dignity. Hold me, Ralph.

Haven't most of history's societal standards of beauty leaned toward the unlean side? Do you dismiss that fact solely on the grounds that to be "heavy" in societies of want symbolized wealth, and therefore the standard of beauty gravitated in that direction because those women were deemed better and healthier breeding partners, or were there other reasons? And do you then follow a logic path that says currently we embrace the thin, in shape look because we believe those women are better breeders? Are there any stats to support the notion that in-shape women fare better in the delivery room, or other factors more important to impregnability, sustainable pregnancies, and success of full term delivery without complications?

Unlean - when did you go PC? Yes, certainly. But what is Progress, if we do not aspire to new heights of beauty? I dismiss nothing, nor have I done any research on who makes a better breeder, though one presumes the classic child-bearing hips make things a little easier.

Besides the inflated public health cost associated with a heavier populace, what other arguments are there for people to be thin (assuming that they, in a libertarian model, are the best determiners of the right course to achieve their own happiness, and may have standards different from your own and even unfathomable to you) This is the first post on your blog in which I see a "personal choice" bias, so I point it out to you. Life expectancy does not equal happiness, thinness does not equal happiness. Freedom from disease might equal happiness on some level, but one could argue that taking on the risks of getting diabetes or heart disease is part of a valid utilitarian framework in which the utils generated in the early part of a life of excess more than make up for the pain and suffering (negative utils) suffered during the diseased end of that life.

I think there's a strong utilitarian case to be made for chunking out, just as there is for smoking and drug use. I absolutely support the decision of every individual to get as fat, stoned and tar-lunged as they choose, however much it might offend my sense of aesthetics. Unlike many columnists, my personal distaste for something does not necessarily dictate my political views. I do find it bizarre, however, that smoking is singled out by the law while another, similarly unhealthy habit is not. Ideally, neither of them would be legally persecuted in any way.

Of course, I don't understand why marijuana is illegal when beer is not either. I'd MUCH rather be surrounded by 200 people stoned out of their mind than 200 drunkards. And the same gateway arguments that apply to the herb apply just as well to alcohol. The one thing that does bother me is the kids who never get to make the choice and enter adulthood with the deck stacked against them, but I would never suggest impairing parental power and responsibility "for the children" for this or any other reason. After all, it's quite possible that the government helped create this obesity explosion by pushing the whole low-fat thing in the first place, not to mention locking the kids up in public schools all day. That would be an interesting study - to see if homeschooled kids are healthier and better shape than their government-schooled counterparts as well as being ahead of them academically.

I have to add, this is all pretty rich coming from a sexist pornographer like the WB.

Junk in the trunk

Among American 15-year-olds, 15 percent of girls and nearly 14 percent of boys were obese, and 31 percent of girls and 28 percent of boys were more modestly overweight, according to a study led by Inge Lissau, a researcher at the National Institute of Public Health in Copenhagen.

How is this possible? I thought the development of low-fat foods was supposed to mean that we could scarf tons of Doritos and Snack-wells and never gain an ounce! It's really strange to me, as the one or two token fat kids in every high school class would barely qualify as overweight these days. I remember being bewildered when my little brother was admiring a few hefty little heifers walking past our soccer practice - they were probably sophmores and juniors in high school - and I asked him if they weren't perhaps a little supersized to generate such interest on his part.

"Dude, they've all got junk in the trunk these days," was his cheerful response. How can this be good for either the individuals involved or the society at large?

Of course, smokers should be shot on sight. For the good of everyone. Because smoking is bad for your health.

Beating their heads against a wall

I don't know how long it will be before CNN offers me a television show - I'm not interested in one - but it's only a matter of time. I said for years that the left-liberal media would get slaughtered if anyone ever put together an even moderately conservative channel; sure enough, it's happening. Fox isn't even particularly conservative and most of its hosts aren't very bright, but they are at least likable and in sync with the American mainstream, unlike the talking heads of the ABCNNBCBS cartel. You can't simultanously be a vanguard and a part of the mainstream, after all.

Instead of pulling their moussed heads out of their posteriors, though, the media executives seem to think that finger-pointing and calling their potential audiences stupid is the way to bring in more viewers. Right, that'll probably work. CNN needs to go overboard to the right if it wants to seriously take on Fox, dabbling in Fox Light will never do. They probably won't start to do this until Fox has three times their viewers and they're desperate enough, though.

As for MSNBC, a distant third among cable news networks, slipped in most categories.... MSNBC is expected this week to announce a new prime-time show featuring Georgia native Deborah Norville as the host. More of what already isn't working seldom turns things around. But she is cuter than either Pat Buchanan or Bill Press, so they have that going for them. I give MSNBC three more years before they go technology channel. One must give them credit for trying Alan Keyes and Michael Savage, but Keyes was never comfortable on camera and Howard Stern had already proved that radio shock jocks don't make for decent television. And Jesse... please. The man can barely talk. It doesn't really matter, as three minutes of cursory discussion and a quick move on to the next subject just doesn't work for me. I'd rather watch ESPN or MTV anyhow.

So, the ratings massacre continues. Fox not only has a bigger viewership already, it's growing faster too. At current rates of growth, Fox will double CNN in 2005 and triple them in 2006.

If I had to guess, I figure that 2006 is when CNN gives me a call. I really don't like the medium, though. Never have, never will.

Sunyata... I'm moving on

I got an email from a former member of my old band this weekend. He saw that there was a bit of a revival happening under a different name and wondered if I was involved. I wasn't, (or so I thought), but I went to check out the web site for Basic Pleasure Model. I was surprised to see that the first single had the same name as one of the last songs I wrote for Psykosonik before dropping out of the group - only the lyrics, that's all I ever wrote - but that's cool, it's a good name.

Holy cats! It's exactly the same song, updated for the new millenium with a garage beat underneath the melody. It sounds great, and it looks like you can buy the CD single already, so definitely check it out. I'm quite pleased that they recorded it, as I've always considered it the prettiest song that Paul Sebastien and I ever wrote together. Here's hoping for a future release of "Cosmic Trigger", a technodance ode to Robert Anton Wilson that didn't quite make the first CD.

Anyhow, there's previews of five different mixes of the Sunyata single at the BPM web site in the music page. Love the new bass in the chorus of the Album Version. Good to see that Paul's kept up the old tradition of having at least 50 completely different remixes for every single. I mean, you wouldn't want leave any blank space on the CD now, would you? Man, I'd forgotten how much I love his voice. I'd also forgotten how the verses went:

Feast your eyes on beauty surrounding, step outside it and see
The central shining void, for that's where you will be
You'll never find the meaning hidden under it all
In every drop of rain, in every tear that'll fall

The centuries they will fly, kingdoms they will fall
You're just a link in a chain, just a crack in the wall
In a hundred years it will all be the same
Your life is little more than ephemeral flame

The words are a little melancholy, but there's a spirit of timelessness to the music that I find quite beautiful.

UPDATE - Just talked via email with Paul. He's very up for some lyrical collaboration like we used to do in the old days, which will be a lot of fun. Paul is too humble, though. I looked at his bio, and he forgot both our Minnesota Music Award for Best Dance Record - a small, but not insignificant award since Prince is from Minneapolis and releases something like twelve singles every year - as well as his four Billboard Top 40 Dance chartings.

Tax trial update

Surprise surprise... the prosecutor in Dick Simkanin's tax case went ahead and raised the usual objection, arguing that the tax code is not relevant to the case. I'm curious to know how those of you who believe that the federal income tax is not a fraud would explain how Mr. Simkanin could possibly be violating the law if the prosecutor is correct and the tax code is not relevant to his case, which revolves around his refusal to withhold from his employees' paychecks. I expect that the jury, as is increasingly often the case, will smell a rat and exonerate him.

And yet, we'll probably have blowhards like Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes arguing that "the law must be followed". Guys, that's kind of the whole freaking point! Cretins.

A sobering caution

What Has Government Done To Our Families by Allan Carlson at the Mises Institute is well worth checking out.

The fate of families and children in Sweden shows the truth of Ludwig von Mises's observation that "no compromise" is possible between capitalism and socialism. Here I show how the welfare state's growth can be viewed as the transfer of the "dependency" function from families to state employees. The process began in 19th-century Sweden, through the socialization of children's economic time via school attendance, child labor, and state old-age pension laws. These changes, in turn, created incentives to have only a few, or no children. In the 1930s, social democrats Gunnar and Alva Myrdal used the resulting "depopulation crisis" to argue for the full socialization of child rearing. Their "family policy," implemented over the next forty years, virtually destroyed the autonomous family in Sweden, substituting a "client society" where citizens are clients of public employees. While Sweden is now trying to break out of the welfare state trap, the old arguments for the socialization of children have come to the United States.

I've noticed that while only a few people are bold enough to argue for outright socialism, you can always find a lot of support for just one "reasonable" step, usually justified on the basis of helping one specific group of individuals. Then, when it fails horribly, more of the same medicine that caused the illness is prescribed. Never mind that the path has been trod before and the eventual outcome is certain.

Neocons and Christianity

SB asks: I do not understand how you, as aChristian, can oppose the philosophy of the neocons.The basic belief of the neocons is that Western values are not relative, but are absolute and true. There is a difference between right and wrong, and people can make value judgments and evaluate good and bad behavior.

I don't have any problem with that aspect of neoconservativism, either as a Christian or as a libertarian. Of course, there's more to neoconservativism than that; so far, you might be describing conservatives.

I would think a Christian would enthusiastically agree with this thesis. It's true, the thesis leads to a possible corollary, that the government is able to take positive steps to ensure that the society is just and moral. It can outlaw abortion, slavery, drug abuse. Taken to its extreme, this philosophy would actually justify returning to having an established church and forced attendance at all services, as we had, for example, in Virginia right up to the revolutionary war. So I can well understand how, as a Libertarian you cannot agree with neoconservatism. But what about as a Christian? Don't you believe that your religion is true? Don't you believe that the state has a minimal role in creating a just society, based on your religious beliefs?

Of course I believe my religion is true. I do not, however, believe that government can or should play any role in attempting to formulate the religious beliefs of a people. Government has a corrupting effect on everything it touches - the Church of England and the history of the Papal States being two fine examples - and faith imposed by fiat is worthless. Furthermore, a government with the power to enforce what I, as a Christian, see as desirable, also has the power to enforce exactly the opposite. Temporal power corrupts Christians as surely as it corrupts non-Christians. Christianity needs no government help to thrive; indeed, history suggests that the opposite tends to be true.

In fact, neoconservativism even directly opposes a Christian worldview, as it seeks to build a worldly paradise. The notion that humans can even hope to bring about "An End to Evil", as the new book by neoconservatives David Frum and Richard Perle is titled, is both absurd and profoundly non-Christian. I also see the desire of the neocons to construct a new global world order based on universal democracy helping to pave the way for what I, as a Christian, believe to be an inevitable and prophesied evil. (Responsibility for the NWO does not solely fall to the neocons, of course.) God, as I understand Him, is a lover of free will.

So, no, I don't agree that the State has any role to play in creating a just society. This pursuit of Cosmic Justice, as Dr. Sowell calls it, leads inevitably to injustice of all kinds. Neoconservativism is far from the worst political philosophy alive today, but it holds little appeal for me either as a Christian or as a libertarian.

Why, Joel, why?

I'm still kind of at a loss as to why Mowbray went after General Zinni like that. (see CURRENT COLUMN on the left for details) He wasn't that vicious about the State Department, even though they actually had it coming to them. I don't think he seriously believes Zinni is a Jew-hater, so I suspect that he's simply trying to defend the term "neocon", which is coming into increasingly bad odor among leftists, conservatives and libertarians alike.

The neocons in the press seem to be getting pretty jumpy. Michael Ledeen just about had an aneurysm going off on Ron Paul, who is the only member of Congress for whom I have any respect regardless of how poorly read he happens to be on Ledeen's ouvre. And speaking poor reading comprehension, Ledeen himself ignored the very substantive points that Paul correctly made with regards to the failure of Republicanism.

If Ledeen's strange overreaction is typical, the neocons are also kind of girly. "His attack... incitements to personal violence." Eeek! It's a slow week that I don't get at least one direct threat of something unpleasant. BFD. Maybe if Ledeen and the other neocons hit the gym once in a while they wouldn't wet themselves every time someone said something less than flattering about them. And perhapsJoel Mowbray wouldn't feel the need to stand up for them either.

I mean, I'm from Minnesota. We have something like eight Jews in the state. Growing up there, I thought I was ethnic because I'm of English descent with dark brown hair. Since I have little interest in the media circles, I have no idea who is and who isn't a Jew except for Jonah Goldberg and Rabbi Boteach. What I do know, however, is that I like very little of what I hear from the neocons, who seem to use conservative language to defend left-liberal actions and policies.

Just for the record, I like much of what Joel Mowbray and Michael Ledeen have to say. They're not the bad guys.

That's the media for you

I've argued for years that the average journalist is not only far less intelligent than he thinks, he is usually poorly educated as well. I'm acquainted with more than a few, and I've yet to meet one who could acquit himself well on anything but politics and current events. Their knowledge tends to extend primarily to subjects they've covered, and they have a strong inclination to assume that having heard of something is equivalent to knowing about it. Thus, I found this tidbit from Suzanne Fields' column to be vastly amusing.

"...the Chutzpah Award for the year that just died must go to Polly Toynbee of London's daily Guardian for an enlightened rationalization and demonization that boiled over like volcanic lava. Toynbee fell for the infamous Nigerian scam and had to find somebody to be mad at, and it couldn't be herself. She received a letter purporting to be from a 14-year-old Nigerian girl who needed money to pay to complete her education. Toynbee was touched. She sent the child a check for 200 pounds ($356) and immediately felt warm and fuzzy for her act of charity.

Warm and fuzzy soon evaporated. A perfect copy of her signature was soon attached to a form asking her bank to transfer a thousand pounds ($1,783) to an account in a bank in Japan. A suspicious clerk at her bank stopped the transfer just in time. The Nigerian bank scam is familiar to millions, and many of the greedy and gullible have been taken in by the familiar gross e-mails that clog computer terminals with offers of breast enhancement, penis enlargement and videos promising pornographic pleasure.

Toynbee's brush with financial disaster taught her a lesson that has eluded everyone else. She learned that the villain in the fraud is not a Nigerian scammer, but ... George W. Bush. "We reap from the Third World what we sow," she told her readers. "If some Nigerians learned lessons in capitalism from global oil companies that helped corrupt and despoil that land, it is hardly surprising they absorbed some of the Texan oil values that now rule the White House."

Damon Runyon nailed the likes of Polly Toynbee: "Life is tough, and it's really tough when you're stupid.""

At least this answers Space Bunny's question: what kind of idiot responds to this junk? Elite journalists, for one. For my favorite response to the scammers, check out this epic tale of scammers, Mighty Cthulhu and one evil-minded Lovecraft devotee, complete with color commentary.

Good games

Good first round, promising a more interesting second round than usual. Carolina's defense has the ability to slow down the Rams offense, while Green Bay's running game will hammer Philadelphia. I can't see Indy staying with KC or Tennessee beating New England at home, though. It still looks like a St. Louis vs. New England Super Bowl, but if Carolina upsets St. Louis, I could see Green Bay getting there too.

I cannot stand ABC's B-team, though. "You don't think the Ravens want to win this game?" "You don't think Steve McNair is tough?" "You don't think [fill in the blank]?" Nobody thinks that and you know it. Someone buy the man a new expression, please. You don't think we're sick of it?

Stupidify the citizenry

From the Washington Times: Students in Maryland again scored dismally on high school competency examinations last year, according to results posted recently by the state Education Department.... About half of 65,000 students failed the algebra and biology tests in 2003 - about the same rate as in 2002. Four in 10 failed government, and six in 10 failed English.

That would be why one reason I don't want government schools teaching religion, or anything else for that matter.

The Axis of Naughty howls with dismay

IM writes: A dark day! As a new supporter of the Axis of Naughty, and one of your loyal fans, I must say that I am disappointed in your support of a centrallized, organized Alliance... I joined the Axis precisely because it is a decentrallized, truly free movement of individuals seeking to support a man who has been viciously demonized by his detractors.....

Viciously demonized? What other form of demonization is appropriate for a man who is known to have invested large portions of his ill-gotten puppy-blending gains in the Mark of the Beast?

How peculiar

The results of a poll taken by Kevin McCullough after the radio show I did with him on Tolkein. Who is the hero of The Lord of the Rings?

Sam: 511
Frodo: 126
The Entire Fellowship: 63
Gandalf: 49
Aragorn: 28
Eowyn: 21
Gollum: 2

I'd be curious to know if there's any difference between those who have read the book and those who have only seen the movie. Space Bunny points out that although Sam did resist the lure of the Ring, so did Frodo before he'd spent all that time carrying it. Samwise is heroic, to be sure, but the hero of the trilogy? I'd put Frodo first, followed closely by Aragorn, with everyone and anyone else a distant third.

Speaking of the show, Kevin writes: Several of you have been writing asking if you can re-hear that segment with VOX, we may re-run it on the air today or sometime this week... Cool. Or heck, let's just do another one discussing why 511 people are off their rockers, or better yet, this.

Don't drink and fly

GH has a few beers and writes: Every time there's an accident the non-aviation media print more misconceptions then the truth. I do not consider myself an aviation expert, for the subject areas of aviation are too vast for any one individual to claim themselves an expert. I have 36 years of experience in aviation. I have license and certificates that say I have the knowledge and skill to perform the task required by the law. I define my knowledge of aviation to my students by this comparison. I am only a case of beer in the vastness of all the beer and you are the empty cup waiting to be filled. Some have called me a keg. I'll drink to that.

The press is a half empty shot glass, the other half is 99.999% misconception. My experience is that it takes a minimum of eight months with a big emphases on minimum to find out the truth. The press is too impatient to wait that long. They need closure. They will find individuals with a six pack of more or less knowledge than me. They give them their fifteen minutes of fame and the title of expert. The conclusion is based on opinion, not fact. When the truth does come out a year later it is a non-story.

I was on the light side when I said a million hits. It's election year, I have no doubt that you will. Blast your political foes. People are going to say did you read Vox Day blog today.

Being a libertarian is never having to fear dearth of political targets.

Mailbox: Learning Disabilities

PZ demonstrates his failure to learn that touching a hot stove is a bad idea: People like you want the Ten Commandments in public buildings but you don't erect massive granite stones in your churches our your backyards.

Right, as if no church has the Ten Commandments displayed somewhere. Those little monuments and friezes hardly stand comparison with the grandeur of many a cathedral, or the overpowering sci-fi aesthetics of one church that a Jewish friend describes as "the church with the direct link to God". (Seriously, the massive spire looks like an antenna designed to reach the Horsehead Nebula.) I don't see any real need for such monuments, but there's nothing wrong with them if the people of a community want one.

For those who are too simple to understand why there's nothing wrong with them, I'll elucidate:

1. A public building is not Congress. Nor is a judge or a community board.
2. A monument is not a law.
3. Erecting a religious monument in a public place is not the establishment of a state religion. Have a look at the Church of England or the Sharia for details if you are confused as to what comprises a state religion.

People like you want prayer in school because you're too lazy to pray with your own children. It's not the place of government to teach your children religion. That's why we have Churches.

Right, two million children are being homeschooled by parents who are too lazy to even pray with them. What a blitheringly stupid assertion! We're not only teaching our children the Lord's Prayer, we're teaching them to read the New Testament in Greek and the Vulgate in Latin, while the government schools are teaching those poor kids with indifferent or ignorant parents how to put a condom on a banana. It's not the place of government to teach children anything.

PZ, that big thing sticking out of your back is a fork. You're done.

No, no, a thousand times no!

The 2004 Stadium Debate: Why it will be different
Happy New Year, and welcome to the 10th annual Great Minnesota Sports and Public Policy Scrum, otherwise known as The Stadium Debate. Rep. Phil Krinkie, a longtime opponent of sports plans, describes another stadium battle as "same [stuff], different day," adding that it's similar to a rider saying, "Hey, cab driver, one more time around the block!" But Roy Terwilliger, chairman of the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, said he feels "a real sense of urgency" this go-round....There's a sense among stadium proponents that opposition seen in earlier episodes might be subsiding.

We've heard that one before. In fact, we've heard all of them before, including the bit about interest rates never being lower. This time, however, the interest rate point is probably true. Nevertheless, no government should fund sports stadiums. Ever. Period. The very notion is ridiculous and every argument for it has been repeatedly exploded.

But greed and the desire to spend other people's money knows no bounds.