Pattern blindness

I was reading some of the emails to WND this morning, and I was struck by the short-sighted consistency of the conventional Republican position. Everything is always about the next election, upon which the fate of the nation is always hanging.

The fact that the election of a Democrat does not significantly worsen things and that the election of a Republican does not significantly improve them as the nation continues its slow death-spiral never seems to enter into this short-term equation.

If, on the contrary, one steps back and sees precisely how the seeds of the future destruction were planted in 1861, in 1913 and in 1933, long before either of the present bi-factional candidates were born, one realizes that it makes no difference whatsoever if Bush or Kerry are elected, as neither of them have any intention in chopping down what have grown into trees towering over the rights and liberties of Americans, killing the national birthright in their oppressive shade.

Who is wiser? I have seldom heard that it is best to listen to the advice of those who look no further than tomorrow.

Weird grumblings?

Michelle Malkin writes:

In response to some weird grumblings that a reader alerted me to, I note for the record that I took Sitemeter off my site about three weeks ago because it was publishing traffic numbers phonier than Enron's. I think it wiped out about a week's worth of visits for some reason. I e-mailed Sitemeter for help and they never wrote me back. So I took it off the blog.

Ms Malkin seems to be under the vague impression that I begrudge her her links or her readership. That's obviously not the case, as if I had the desire to be a media whore and maximize my exposure by running back and forth between CNN and Fox I would have long ago moved to NYC or Los Angeles instead of living in what the Original Cyberpunk describes as my cave in the snow-covered Andes.

As all the regulars know, I don't take the SiteMeter statistics seriously. Some of you were even openly disappointed when I explained that the number of people visiting here had to be rather lower than reported as SiteMeter tends to overcount hits. But, since that's what the Truth Laid Bear uses for the TLB Ecosphere, that's what we use here. If everyone overcounts using the same method, it may be useful for comparative purposes, after all.

The point was not to slam Ms Malkin - although her apparent inability to grasp the point is amusing - but instead to highlight the human tendency to butter up those we regard as our superiors in some way. (Wonkette, another relatively new and much-linked blog would have served as well, I simply happened to have more data on Ms Malkin thanks to her WND connection.) Many people who link to me are readers and regulars here, and I'm pleased to link to them in return. However, it's clear from visiting some other blogs that link here and subsequently request addition to the blogroll that they are only interested in what is rather distastefully known as "link-love" in order to widen their own exposure.

Is there anything wrong with that? No more than there is anything wrong with butt-kissing in general. I despise it, some people, on the other hand, clearly crave it. Your mileage may vary. To me, the purpose of a blogroll is not to demonstrate how well-connected one is, but to offer new and perhaps unexpected alternatives wherein people may find something of interest. For example, I frequently visit Yahoo! Finance, but you'll never see it on my Faves. I want people to visit Mogambo and Charles Stross, I want visitors to know where the regulars' blogs can be found. But I see no point whatsoever in trying to present an inflated image of me or my blog.

The truth is what it is.

Mailvox: caveat emptor

DS has reasonable doubts:

Having subscribed to Elliot in the past I find that it may be useful for investing (not trading) but only in the largest view one can take. They have been so wrong so many times on even what I would call the year view, much less month, week, day or intraday. They were wrong throughout the 90's waiting for the top of V that to have followed them meant financial disaster if you shorted and very low returns if you sat on the sidelines. I lost alot shorting on their advice last year when they called over and over and over for the start to wave III down. My feeling is that like most of us they are way too soon in their calls but have to say something to their subscribers. They will eventually be right but in the mean time I learned the hard way not to trade in any time frame on their advice.

There's no question that the current state of Elliott Wave understanding leaves much to be desired. I, too, was anticipating a decline last spring at the start of the war for other reasons thanks to a flawed system of my own development, so I'm hardly one to cast stones on this subject. But timeframes are clearly a major weakness in the current level of analysis, although I don't think there's any nefarious need to feed the subscribers that's involved - accuracy is far more saleable than action here - instead, I suspect it's simply the age-old problem of human impatience coloring the wavecounts.

For example, the idea that Intermediate Wave 3 was about to begin in early 2003 appears almost absurd in retrospect. Why? Because Wave 1 took about 640 trading days from March 27, 2000, to October 10, 2002. (The precise figure depends on the specific market, of course.) Now, if it's true that we saw the peak of Wave 2 in March 2004, that's only 319 days, pretty close to 50 percent of the time-length of Wave 1. So, far from this countertrend wave being exceptionally long, as many would have it, it's pretty close to the minimum that one would reasonably expect even if one knew nothing of Elliott Waves. A counterwave may be longer or shorter, but it's not reasonable to EXPECT it to be one-tenth the time of the preceding wave.

As the S&P 500 is the largest of the three indexes, it is the least easily manipulated. Assuming the Intermediate wavecounts are correct, the countertrend response of Wave 2 was a 50.83 percent retracement of the Wave 1 decline over almost precisely 50 percent of the trading days. The Nasdaq-100 featured only a 19.54 percent retracement, while the Dow did best in reclaiming 85 percent of its losses. As 50 percent is a reasonable amount of time, the Dow is unlikely to re-establish new highs and there are a plethora of other factors indicating near-term continued decline (after the expected mini-rally over the next week), I don't expect a need to redo the Intermediate wave counts.

Time decay is fatal. I think products like RYVNX are probably much better for those with a bearish outlook, as it significantly reduces the danger of impatience. In any case, I don't believe that Elliott Waves are definitive, I only think that they may prove to be the tip of the iceberg that is our understanding of the way in which mass forces operate over time.

Mailvox: Rip away

I wonder if anyone will review one of VD's novels. I'm not certain if that would qualify as brave, or foolish.

I daresay that I am probably more inclined to rip apart my novels than the average fiction reader here. Some writers are very defensive; I seem to be of the sort that loathes their past work and sees only its shortcomings. To be honest, I'm of the opinion that my fiction has, to date, fallen markedly short of what the average person here probably believes my potential to be. It certainly hasn't lived up to my expectations thus far. I'm not being humble - perish the thought - that's just a fact. The vision is there, but the articulation is not. Not yet, anyhow.

Still, the last book was not embarrassing and the one I just turned in may be a little better, (certainly it is stranger), but I'm starting to feel somewhat handicapped by my subject matter and my protagonists. On the one hand, I want to cut loose and reveal the depth of my vision, on the other hand, the tamest of my books has already proven to be "too intense" [their words, not mine] for at least one Christian chain.

Also, I'm not a natural writer; I don't have that gift for beautiful words that some writers have by instinct. Fortunately, I have enough firepower to fake it, to an extent, but compared to the real thing it always falls pathetically short. In summary, I'm a Salieri who must envy the Mozarts and trod along the pedestrian paths as they effortlessly soar the heights. Bastards.

My hope, and I'm perfectly aware that I may be kidding myself, is that I have sufficient upstairs wattage to create something great by sheer force, in which case it is only a matter of discipline which has hitherto been lacking. But as I am told my books continue to improve - at least I know I'm no Johnny One-book, or perhaps I should say, Jay, I remain optimistic.

Mailvox: the sarahcentric universe

Sarah is overcome with the vision in the mirror:

everything *is* about me!! After all, how can anybody not love me? It would be a travesty! So, you know, if I do write a review - and my review is at least half about me, well, you can't begrudge me that! I am doing it for all of you. To behold my magnificence and splendour: it is a gift! That I would deign to do so in your presence should be deemed a privilege! It is all of course for your benefits.

How on Earth did you miss becoming a stripper?

Anyhow, as to book reviews, if people would like to start emailing me fiction reviews in the following format: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_voxday_archive.html#108948029239882361, I will post one of them here each week and save the others for when the web site is ready. Try to stick to the format and be sure to include what you feel to be a representative text sample.

Don't feel any need to stick to the classics or the intellectually impressive, but feel free to review them if you like. This isn't a contest, just something that might make for interesting discussions from time to time.

Tolstoy, Elliott and Iraq

Debka reports on the Iraqi situation

A. Baathist guerrillas have instructed cell leaders to continue their insurrection but hold back from a death blow against the new government - which is why their planned mega-operation did not materialize on sovereignty day. Guerrilla leaders have come to accept that toppling the government could lead to the exit of US forces from the country and create a vacuum that would invite its oldest enemy, Iran, to step into the breach.

B. The same insurgent underground while keeping up its attacks on Iraqi and US targets is keeping a weather eye open for chances to forge local truces on the lines of the Fallujah ceasefire that ended the month-long US Marine siege by handing security over to former Baathist generals.

C. The insurgents would exploit such local truces to seize one Iraqi town after another, pushing the Americans aside and restoring Baathist dominance to most urban areas of Iraq. Government and American forces would keep control only of intercity regions and connecting routes. This carve-up would suit the insurgent movements because they do not have enough manpower to take over every inch of the country.

D. The Baath leadership is making a point of stressing to its fighting elements that the Allawi government in Baghdad is the target of a political, but certainly not a religious, war. This guideline makes it clear that the Baathists do not share the war objectives of al Qaeda and the foreign Arab fighters fighting alongside them.

E. The Baath have called off guerilla attacks in the Shiite regions of Iraq including Baghdad’s Sadr City hoping to bring back the Shiite Baath cadres who deserted after Saddam Hussein’s downfall.

What's intriguing to me is how little this has to do with US goals or pre-war US expectations for post-war Iraq. And how is the situation significantly different than if American forces had toppled Hussein and then left? It's clear that US troops are increasingly starting to be seen as irrelevant, as the Baathist/Jihadist coalition appears to be splitting apart preparatory to the coming four-way fight over the spoils. Five, actually, if one counts the Kurdish irredentists.

It's interesting, too, to see how the equations have changed. Having been hurled out of power by American troops, the Baathists now fear them leaving too soon, before they can adequately prepare an alliance strong enough to fend off Iran. Oh, I'd love to see the look on the various neocons' faces as they begin to realize the folly of their arrogance in attempting to not only control, but dictate events of this magnitude. A huge boulder thrown into a stream will make a big splash and may even redirect the stream's course, but it will not stop the water, which in time will simply flow over, around and through the obstacle.

If we accept Tolstoy's view for the nonce, then the USA appears to have simply been the tool required by history's ineffable forces to smash the dam of Hussein's power. Having done so, it is no longer needed and will be returned to its toolbox as the situation sorts itself out. I reached the somewhat the same conclusion as Debka - the most likely outcome is an alliance between Allawi and the Baathists focused against the non-Iraqi jihadists, who would then be expected to either align themselves with Iran in an attempt to take power in Iraq, or, as is more likely, focus their attentions on the richer and easier target that is Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has no US troops, no Baathist-Allawi alliance and is extremely disliked by the jihadists for the same reason that the heretic is more despised than the pagan. Furthermore, it fits with the Law of Unintended Consequences which states that for every major government action, there is an unforseen and disastrous reaction. If the third of a third is just getting rolling, we haven't even begun to see anything yet.

Mailvox: Hollywood posers

BG has a legitimate gripe:

What is it with mass media moguls needing to revamp beloved stories, thinking that they'll sell? The makers of Troy urinated all over Homer's epics, Bruckhiemer felt the King Arthur story needed a rehash so Lady Guenevere could throw down for a few rounds, but neither is as horrifying as what the makers of the next Superman plan to do.

The script calls for: A gay Jimmy Olsen(cause everybody's got to be gay these days, right?);"Player" Superman deciding not to save some people so he can hook up with Lois; Superman's powers come from his suit (ala The Greatest American Hero television show) and many other less serious abominations. Why can't Hollywood mentally defecate on the masses with some miserable offering of its own conception and leave our classic stories alone?

Why not? Because Hollywood has no genuinely creative minds. Even its most original products, such as Star Wars - totally revolutionary for its time - was primarily a synthesis of Flash Gordon space opera and the Kurasawa movie Hidden Fortress. There's nothing wrong with creativity via synthesis, as it is the best that all but the most truly creative can do, but Hollywood can't even manage X*Y=Z most of the time, settling instead for 1/2(X) + (cliches galore) = pure drek.

The two archetypical directors can be considered Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings) and Paul Verhoeven (Starship Troopers). The former was scrupulously accurate in his attempts to hold to Tolkein's book as much as reasonably possible, whereas the latter famously claimed never to have even read Heinlein's classic. Jackson's success might lead one to hope that directors will learn that the author's vision must always trump their egotistic urge to stamp their own identity on the story; the massive ego required to become a director in Hollywood does not bode well for the wide acceptance of this lesson.

I find it telling, too, how Hollywood repeatedly returns to the old standbys - do we really need yet another Superman movie? - instead of drawing on the wealth of storytelling that has been created over the last 50 years. If I could select five books that I'd like to see on the big screen, they would be:

1. The Dark is Rising, Susan Cooper
2. Lord of Light, Roger Zelazny
3. Dragonsong, Ann McCaffrey
4. The Fencing Master, Arturo Perez-Reverte
5. Goblin Moon, Theresa Edgerton

I've never understood why Dick is so popular among the movie-making set, while Heinlein goes almost ignored. He has so many short, juvenile books that would be so easily translated into movies that it amazes me they aren't a filmic franchise of sorts. I suspect it's because Dick, like other sloppy novelists for whom I have even less regard, such as Kurt Vonnegut, Tom Robbins and Philip Roth, is considered very clever by the intellectually dense.

Mailvox: help for a would-be homeschooler

SK has a request:

Our eldest daughter is the mother of our beloved X who is four-years-old. Her mother is certain that she cannot do an adequate job teaching her daughter, her husband has resented that she has stayed home with her so far by working as both a housekeeper and a home day care mother. She is a capable business manager and able to earn a substantial salary, but does NOT want to raise her daughter in childcare. It is clear that her husband is insistent on public school ASAP. My daughter did not attend public school past the fifth grade, and was unable to read when we took her out.

I recently talked to my daughter about K-12 sex ed, which indoctrinates children into the belief that homosexuality is acceptable. She was absolutely certain that it couldn't be so. I need the "low-down" on California Public Schools... I need information that will be persuasive with her parents, especially when her dad did not finish the eighth grade, and believes that public school is just great, that private school is elitist and that the idea of home school is outrageous....

Please feel free to pass my request on: creative52x@earthlink.net

As I have no more information on the particulars of the California public school system than I have on ritual human sacrifice - actually less, come to think of it - I thought I'd pass this on to you all. If anyone has specific information, (no generalities or theoretical arguments), please email it to the above address.

As an aside, it's always interesting to me how people can be certain of this or that when they freely admit that they have no information on the matter. And speaking of human sacrifice, I suspect that many parents couldn't care less what is or isn't going on with their children's "education" and won't give up their cherished free K-12 day care until the so-called teachers of the NEA actually start sacrificing children to whatever dark god is is they worship.

Let the waves come

Rod Dreher writes:

...a personal essay from today's NYT Magazine about a Manhattan woman living with her boyfriend, who got pregnant with triplets. Stricken by the possibility that having three children at once would force her to move to Staten Island and start shopping at Costco, she decides to have a doctor pierce the beating hearts -- she and her lover saw the hearts throbbing on the ultrasound -- of two of the babies in her womb, and kill them. All so she could maintain her Manhattan lifestyle. The mind reels...

Tell me that equine excrement again about how the USA is uniquely blessed. As Flavor Flav would say: "You're blind from the facts on who ya are cos ya watching that garbage."

Alexis de Tocqueville once famously wrote that: "America is great because America is good. When America ceases to be good she will no longer be great." America is no longer great nor is it good, it is, as I wrote last week, entirely dead. What is left is a corpse, and one that reeks of blood and evil at that.

We're not only on the cusp a third of a third down, as a nation we deserve to plunge into the Abyss. I don't know about you, but I suspect I'll be watching the next 9/11 with dry eyes. "All so she could maintain her Manhattan lifestyle." Reading that makes me wish they'd sunk the whole damned island.

Fear is the mind-killer

Sarah ruminates:

I like the idea of writing reviews. I changed my mind about it, though. How can I possibly write a decent review in the face of everyone else who goes to Vox Popoli. I can't compete with that. I won't even try. It'll probably suck. And what if I give a positive review on something, somebody reads it, and then they say that the book sucked! What if it's not just one person but a whole bunch of people. I can't deal with that sense of failure.

First, it will be a little while before Digital Cowboy and I get the CGI forms going and work out the HTML design for people to contribute book reviews to voxday.net. But what Sarah needs to understand is that one cannot improve without doing. Sure, her first reviews might well be unintentionally amusing - if they weren't at least half about her instead of the book, I'd be shocked - but she will learn from both the rightful and the unreasonable scorn.

Sarah, consider how your ability to articulate an argument has been refined since you first started posting here. Now, it's not important for you to write book reviews - it's certainly not a way to make a living - but it's important for you to learn how to face down your fear. Fear of failure is not only unreasonable, it's pernicious since it guarantees failure without learning. It's much better to try and fail 100 times than to never try and always fail, because each failure provides information that may increase the odds of success the next time around.

So, write a review or two on your blog. If you use the model I used in reviewing The Atrocity Archive, you'll at least have a structure and ensure that you address all the significant points, which will put you ahead of 85 percent of all book reviews ever written right there.

Frank Herbert was right. Fear is a mind-killer. So, instead of seeing fear as something to be avoided, look at it as a test. Do it precisely because you're afraid of it.

A testament to human nature

Inbound Links: 786
Inbound Unique: 709
Current Rank: #38
Current Status: Playful Primate

This is interesting. A reasonably major syndicated columnist, who shall remain nameless, is often on TV. Everyone in Blogworld knows who they are, and so when he/she/it began a blog, everyone jumped on the bandwagon in a hurry to link to it. Presumably because they just love reading it, right? Just to put everything in perspective, Vox Popoli's rank is as follows:

Inbound Links: 238
Inbound Unique: 189
Current Rank: #322
Current Status: Large Mammal

I think that's respectable in an Blogosphere of some 3800 blogs. I'm happy with it, anyhow. Now, as this nameless columnist also appears on WND, I happen to know that my WND readership is, on average over a three-month period, about 25 percent larger. However, this is perhaps not a fair comparison as the other individual's column is much more widely syndicated than mine, so it's quite po many WND readers skip it on WND since they've already read it elsewhere.

This discrepancy, however, is a little more difficult to explain:

Average Daily Visits: 182
(data from SiteMeter)
Average Daily Visits: 1,669
(data from SiteMeter)

In other words, 709 bloggers are linking to what they think is a big name blog, but it's obvious that most of them aren't even bothering to check it out on a regular basis. Now, perhaps this will change over time or perhaps the SiteMeter data is bad, but if it is correct then it would appear to reveal both: a) the embarrassing limits of human reason, and b) the unattractive human tendency to kiss tush.

Mailvox: virgins and volcanoes

jr considers the fate of Miss Spears:

The whole thing resembles nothing so much as the pagan virgin sacrifices of old, where the admittedly (at least on the surface) willing victim is showered and adorned with the riches of the village on her way to being consumed in the belly of Moloch. And the crowd cheers.

Magumba hey
Magumba ho... ungowa

Magumba hey
Magumba ho... ungowa

Magumba hey
Magumba ho... UNGOWA!

Still the young man sits there on the beach.
He's staring misty-eyed out into space.
He's thinking about his girlfriend, (the late deceased).
At least her death had purpose,
His life is a waste!

Let's face it, songs about tribal virgin sacrifice rule. Leilani don't go to the volcano....

Mailvox: contradictions... or not

Char gets pensive:

Interesting -- the construct "free will" here and in the Tolstoy story above, the opposite or lack of free will. The contrast makes some food for thought. I enjoy your web site and thanks for allowing visitors.

I don't see that Tolstoy is NECESSARILY anti-free will in the quotidian details of life - shall I have yogurt or cereal for breakfast - so much as he is intent on puncturing the illusion of free will with regards to the individuals who stand at the cusp of great events. True, if one had to pin him down to one camp or the other, I suspect he would likely side with the omniderigents, but that's largely irrelevant with regards to the matter with which he is concerned. Tolstoy is clearly wrestling with the What, not the How much less the Why.

Tomorrow's column

J did well, although it shouldn't have been very difficult to ascertain where I am going tomorrow as both Tolstoy and Elliott Waves were both mentioned recently on the sidebar of the blog.

There is appearently some connection between EWT which holds that markets are not moved by individual events but mass psychology, and Tolstoy who believed that history/sociology is not moved by individual actions but by the sum of countless forces acting upon mass society.

There is indeed such a connection, although I'll leave the matter for tomorrow's discussion. But I was quite surprised by Gary's comment, as he picked up on an insight that I, too, had reached.

"War and Peace", for example, is not a novel. It's an arguement presented in the guise of a novel. It was the only way Tolstoy could present characters thoughts prior to actions and show how they often contradict, thus how no one is in ultimate control of himself but move through "unconscience action".

The lesson of Britney Spears

The depths of truth can be illustrated at times by the most unlikely sources. Consider the case of the recently divorced and currently affianced Miss Spears. Here is a young woman more attractive than the norm - not significantly so, but that is part of her appeal to the masses - who has amassed a remarkable amount of fame and fortune in her short time on the planet. Even what would, to the casual observer such as myself, appear to be a complete lack of talent beyond the choreographed rump-shaking that your average pole dancer could approximate with ease, has not prevented her from becoming a top-tier star.

A few weeks ago, Matt Drudge brought our attention to the sad story of Miss Spears' first husband, a childhood friend, who, despite being handicapped by an apparent intelligence barely on the north side of a rock, appears to be a genuinely decent human being. According to his telling - and we have no reason to disbelieve him - it was not his wife who wished to end the marriage but her parents, advisors, employees and assorted hangers-on, all of whom are financially dependent upon the Britney Spears industry. Obviously, they felt that at 22, the industry would be more profitable were it not distracted by the blessed state of matrimony.

There is a saying: be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. The Spears' profiteers succeeded in breaking up the marriage, as the humble Mr. Alexander was not about to stand in the way of his old friend's business. But Miss Spears has that sort of youthfully lush figure which not only indicates today a woman who will likely endure a long battle against caloric intake, but in days of yore was seen as a woman ready to breed.

As Miss Spears was no sooner wrested from the large, but harmless clutches of her ex-husband than she managed to fall "in love" with a useless male specimen of the sort known as a "dancer", it would seem that the industry was indeed more interested in her natural instinct to find a mate and propagate the species than maximizing her future profit potential. The biological imperative trumps the financial mandate, it seems. One imagines that Britney Spears Incorporated is not only ruefully wishing that it had been wise enough to leave the industry to its own devices in matters romantic, but is collectively wincing as it calculates what it will eventually cost to remove this parasitical gigolo. If the parasite is as ruthlessly self-seeking as it appears to be - it takes a stone cold squid to abandon not one, but two children, and their mother - it will require some expensive financial surgery indeed.

I found it amusing that on the very same day that Britney Spears Inc. was threatening to sue the New York Post for claiming that she had been drinking whiskey in a picture it published a few weeks ago, (for the same reason that CourtneyLove is not often used to endorse teen products), the U.K. Sun published several photos of her publicly groping the aforementioned useless specimen in an R-rated manner. One wonders if B.S.I. will soon release a press release explaining that Miss Spears was only attempting to determine what brand of underwear her fiance was wearing, and that in her innocence of male intimates, she did not realize that the tag generally goes in the back.

Let me assure the gentle reader, there is indeed a point to this vaguely salacious pop cultural gossip. For if a young woman cannot be controlled by her parents and those closest to her, even when her financial best interest manifestly depends on her accession to such control, no human can be reliably controlled by anyone, much less the decrees of a distant government. Humans cannot be controlled! Not in their best interest, not in their long-term interests, and certainly not in the interests of their self-anointed masters. Not for long, anyhow.

This is the great tragedy of the Platonists. Regardless of what current ideological excuse is currently justifying their mastery, the Platonist will always end up betraying it, as, in frustration, he turns lethal force on those he once thought only to guide and help. For all the empty-eyed, gum-chewing, udder-engorged resemblance that the average teen mall rat bears to domesticated ungulates, she cannot be herded! What God has given to even the least of those created in His image - free will - no mere mortal may hope to take away.

Another correlations quiz

Here's another one for the precognitive-minded. Next week's column conflates the work of a Russian novelist and a contrarian form of technical analysis. No one managed to score last week - a few hapless post-column assertions notwithstanding - so I'm curious to see if anyone can do better this week.

Someone skipped logic class

Kyle Williams writes on WND:

Yet, for some conservatives, choosing a candidate isn't limited to George W. Bush and John Kerry. Because President Bush has betrayed conservatives on various social and fiscal issues, the conservative base is divided and hasn't rallied around Bush like it did four years ago. This leaves some conservatives wondering whether or not they should jump ship for a third-party candidate like Constitution Party nominee Michael Peroutka or even the Libertarian, Michael Badnarik. Meanwhile, the rest of the conservative/Republican camp is griping that a vote for a third-party candidate will do nothing but help John Kerry.

In reality, they're right. A vote for a third-party candidate may be a stand for ideals, and it may send a message to the GOP, but it won't do much good. There aren't enough conservatives who will vote third party to scare GOP officials, but there are just enough third-party voters that it may help John Kerry. Yes, a vote for Michael Peroutka is a wasted vote. It's hard to say whether a third-party candidate will ever be viable, but it's obvious that no third-party nominee has a shot at the presidency in this election cycle.

Therefore, conservatives need to look at the priorities. What's important? If we truly care about appointing conservative judges, then we can't have John Kerry in office. If we truly care about the economy, then we can't have Kerry in office. If we care about the War on Terrorism, then we can't have Kerry in office. If we truly care about cutting taxes, then we can't have Kerry in office.

The only viable alternative is President Bush. He's not a conservative, true. He has betrayed conservative principles and has taken actions that would make a liberal proud, but he's the man when it comes to the economy, taxes, war on terrorism and, most importantly, the judicial branch.

This column could be cited as a persuasive argument against homeschool, if only the public schools still taught logic. But in an case, let's follow young Mr. William's advice to look at the priorities:

1) "If we truly care about appointing conservative judges...." George Bush hasn't managed to get any conservative judges through a Republican House and Senate. Perhaps if conservatives are satisfied with mere appointments, one could construct a case on this basis for Bush. But, as conservatives are more likely concerned with seating conservative judges, not merely seeing them appointed and rejected, Bush's first term should suffice to demonstrate that this is not an adequate reason to vote for him. Whether he truly wishes to seat such judges or not is unimportant, the fact of the matter is that he hasn't and he won't. Still, the president's work to retain Arlen Spectre as the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee suggests that he does not truly wish to see conservative judges on the bench.

2) "If we truly care about the economy...." George Bush has engaged in unrestrained Keynesian expansion, using tax cuts and increased government spending in combination with massively easy monetary policy in order to postpone the inevitable post-boom bust. This never works long and only exacerbates the eventual bust, the next (third) wave of which has already begun. It's no secret that George Bush is an economic illiterate, but so are his economic advisors, who are using outdated economic models repeatedly proven to be disastrous failures.

3) "If we care about the War on Terrorism...." Right, undeclared and extra-Constitutional war on method and a Commander-in-chief who's afraid to name the enemy or attack his strongholds. No thanks.

4) "If we truly care about cutting taxes...." This is the one viable point. If you're a one-issue voter, by all means, vote for George Bush on this basis. But it may be wise to keep in mind, he's not doing it on principle, he's doing it because he's desperately trying to increase liquidity and get you spending in order to bring up the C component of GDP... and his concomitant inflationary fiscal policy in collaboration with Greenspan's inflationary monetary policy has the net result of lowering your discretionary buying power even as more money goes into your pocket. 2 percent more money doesn't buy 18 percent more gold, or 40 percent more gasoline.

And then, there's the open admission that George Bush is no conservative. So, why should conservatives support a non-conservative? Right, because he's the lesser of two evils. I should point out that as a Christian libertarian, I believe in free will, so I fully expect people to decide to support evil on a regular basis, using a wide variety of rationalizations. All I ask is that conservatives remember that this is indeed a choice they are making, that no one is forcing them to knowingly support that which they believe to be wrong.

Mailvox: in defense of tribunals

Bill defends the President:

Vox, the military tribunal thing was and is tricky. The people we're holding are not prisoners of war (no uniform, no command structure, and they target civilians) so according to the Geneva convention (which they didn't sign) we could just shoot them after a proper military trial. However, Bush and co. realized that this would be a PR nightmare.

And after the Lynn Stewart incident (the mother of the Patriot Act), we realize we couldn't give them a regular trial either. So they came up with the military tribunal thing. What other option did Bush have, turn them over to the Syrians for a trial? This is pretty far outside regular jurisprudence. Clintoons infamous Executive Orders were obviously self-serving, it wasn't like he was simply trying to solve a problem and protect America's interests.

This defense is illustrative. Bill suggests that the administration had two legal choices. Shoot them or turn them over to someone else. First, handing them over to a third party can't be equated to releasing them, as implied here. Neither the Northern Alliance nor the Iraqi allies are reported to be squeamish about rough justice for their enemies.

Second, even this defense demonsrates that the president is more concerned about PR than he is about the law. So, his advisors cook up a stupid and legally questionable scheme, then try to defend it as if their motives are not tawdry politics, but a matter of national defense. Of course, if it was that serious, they'd have been executed in accordance with the Geneva Convention already; the real problem is that it's difficult to take prisoners once no quarter has been declared. And, it threatens to turn into a PR disaster anyhow. You would think that some day, the Republicans will learn that since the press is not on their side anyhow, they might as well do the right thing and get roasted for it instead of doing the wrong and more dangeous thing and getting roasted for that.

Although others may have done so, I have never stated that Bush is worse than Clinton in his repeated attempts to abuse the legal system, only that his actions are opening the door for the next Clinton to be worse. Bill sounds like a typical leftist here, arguing that it is the intentions behind the attempted abuse that are relevant, whereas it is truly only the precedents being set that matter. The ignoble nature of the present administration was clear in its use of Guantanamo Bay, which, like Echelon, is a shining example of how the Federal government always attempts to circumvent the laws designed expressly to hobble the exercise of its power.

Republican defenders of the president will no doubt continue to excuse his every action, however indefensible, under the guise of "we are at war". This is nothing new, it has been done on behalf of every wartime administration of either party. But I will have little sympathy when those same Republicans shriek in outrage when the next Democratic president abuses these new techniques for circumventing the limits on executive branch power, conveniently forgetting their own role in creating the monster.

Like a Moonbat out of Hell

INDC: The primitive paranormal beliefs of moonbats are quite interesting; most seem to have the unshakeable belief that they can channel the will of genocidal dictators. Very strange.

Jeff Goldstein: Um, Hitler would've made you into a lampshade, you Gypsy treehumper.

INDC: Commissar, where are you going? Commissar? Commissar?

The Commissar: Must ask why she neglects Stalin.

INDC: Alright, then. At least he'll blend in.

Ah, yeah. Nothing like watching the freaks come out in daylight. I think my favorite was the apocryphal message of the quote from a classic science fiction novel. It's inspired me to attend to the Democratic convention wearing a white robe and holding up a sign that says: "Grok the fullness". If that don't larn 'em, nothing will.

Alas, Alice, we hardly knew ye

LIMBAUGH 4.8 SHARE [WABC] SMASHES 'AIR AMERICA' 1.7 SHARE [WLIB] IN ALL LISTENERS [12+]... 'AIR AMERICA' FADES MONTH TO MONTH: 2.2 SHARE APRIL DEBUT, 1.7 SHARE IN MAY, 1.2 SHARE IN JUNE...

I'd take more pleasure in watching this ongoing car crash if I hadn't known it was inevitable from the start. It must kill Al Franken inside to know that he's getting his head handed to him by someone he regards as his inferior. The iron law of supply and demand dictates that all liberal media will be brutally raped in the media every time there is a head-to-head competition. We've seen it on a large scale with Fox vs. CNN, we've seen it on a small scale with WND vs. Salon and now we're seeing it play out on the airwaves.

As the Sports Guy says, it's too bad you can't bet on these things.

Outrageous antics

From Inside the Beltway:

The White House cracked down on a popular pair of Los Angeles radio hosts who grew irritated with Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchison for not cracking down on illegal aliens who've flooded southern California.

"John and Ken," heard over radio station KFI, initially applauded U.S. Border Patrol sweeps in and around Los Angeles that rounded up more than 400 of the estimated 2 million illegal immigrants who cost California taxpayers billions of dollars. But after Mr. Hutchison recently scaled down the sweep — posting the agents closer to the Mexican border — the radio pair broadcasted and posted his telephone number in Washington, causing the White House phone system to be jammed by thousands of calls. The White House has now contacted the duo and demanded they cease and desist such antics.

Antics... such as facilitating the public's ability to contact the appointed official directly responsible for a policy of which it does not approve. Yes, this is certainly an administration that believes in government by, of, and for the people, isn't it.

You would think that the fact that thousands of people disapprove of Mr. Hutchison's change in policy might be taken into account. But the masters always hate it when they can't rule over their serfs in peace and quiet.

Perhaps of interest only to me

I should also mention that the Zodiac is a Scott Summit design. To see more of his work, visit www.summitid.com. His other PDA credits include the AlphaSmart Dana and 2000, the Stowaway XT keyboard, and the never-released Palm Pilot Razor design that preceded the Palm V.

I'm not in the market for an ebook reader myself, since I need the Dana's keyboard, but the Zodiac Tapwave would have to be it, if I were. I find it interesting to know that the same guy who designed the excellent Alphasmart Dana also designed the Tapwave. Like the Dana, it has two SD slots, which would allow you to pack in more than 4,000 Palm-format ebooks without touching the device's system RAM. Now, if they ported the original Wing Commander to it, or MAME, well, I might have to reconsider... it is a gaming platform, after all.

Nice work, Mr. Summit.

Why I'm not flying anytime soon

On June 29, 2004, at 12:28 p.m., I flew on Northwest Airlines flight #327 from Detroit to Los Angeles with my husband and our young son. Also on our flight were 14 Middle Eastern men between the ages of approximately 20 and 50 years old. What I experienced during that flight has caused me to question whether the United States of America can realistically uphold the civil liberties of every individual, even non-citizens, and protect its citizens from terrorist threats....

As we sat waiting for the plane to finish boarding, we noticed another large group of Middle Eastern men boarding. The first man wore a dark suit and sunglasses. He sat in first class in seat 1A, the seat second-closet to the cockpit door. The other seven men walked into the coach cabin. As aware Americans, my husband and I exchanged glances, and then continued to get comfortable. I noticed some of the other passengers paying attention to the situation as well. As boarding continued, we watched as, one by one, most of the Middle Eastern men made eye contact with each other. They continued to look at each other and nod, as if they were all in agreement about something. I could tell that my husband was beginning to feel anxious.

The take-off was uneventful. But once we were in the air and the seatbelt sign was turned off, the unusual activity began. The man in the yellow T-shirt got out of his seat and went to the lavatory at the front of coach -- taking his full McDonald's bag with him. When he came out of the lavatory he still had the McDonald's bag, but it was now almost empty. He walked down the aisle to the back of the plane, still holding the bag. When he passed two of the men sitting mid-cabin, he gave a thumbs-up sign. When he returned to his seat, he no longer had the McDonald's bag.

Then another man from the group stood up and took something from his carry-on in the overhead bin. It was about a foot long and was rolled in cloth. He headed toward the back of the cabin with the object. Five minutes later, several more of the Middle Eastern men began using the forward lavatory consecutively. In the back, several of the men stood up and used the back lavatory consecutively as well.

For the next hour, the men congregated in groups of two and three at the back of the plane for varying periods of time. Meanwhile, in the first class cabin, just a foot or so from the cockpit door, the man with the dark suit - still wearing sunglasses - was also standing. Not one of the flight crew members suggested that any of these men take their seats.

The problem isn't that the government isn't going to be able to stop this. The government can never be relied upon to stop anything, except perhaps an amphibious invasion by another nation's military. The problem is that the Federal government is actively working to prevent the airlines from being able to address the situation themselves.

If we still had free association in the United States, an airline could choose to deny flying anyone it believed posed a risk or even made its passengers feel unsafe. This would certainly be discrimination, and, horror of horrors, I say to you now that there is nothing wrong with discrimination. If the business of Syrians, blacks, homosexuals or Christians is of no interest to one in a free society, free association means that one has the right to decline it. (The injustice of segregation was that it was publicly enforced law, which is another matter altogether.)

This discrimination can be financially suicidal, or it can be absolutely necessary if you want to stay in business. The airlines are already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, the next series of explosions bringing down several on the same day will finish them off unless they are allowed to do as they see fit in protecting their equipment, their employees, and most importantly, their paying customers.

Ironically, as with 9/11, people will look to the Federal government to solve a problem that its policies will be proven to have created.

UPDATE: An NRO reader writes in:

"Either there is something REALLY bad going on or that article is an urban legend. I just read a very similar story a couple of weeks ago (linked from Instapundit or AndrewSullivan or Boortz, I can't remember) written by a man travelling with his wife and son. The story wasn't quite as dramatic as this one but it involved suspicious arab passengers that were "wisked" away by who boarded the plane upon arrival. I can't remember the exact details of the story but it seems to have all of the ear marks of urban legend-om."

I don't know "Annie Jacobsen", so I can't testify to the versimilitude of the article, but if it's a hoax, the details are uncharacteristically accurate. True, she claims that the flight left at 12:28, not 12:22, but I don't think a six-minute discrepancy casts the entire article in doubt. From NWA.com:

Northwest Airlines 327
Fri, Jul 23
4hr 39min
12:22pm Depart Detroit (DTW)
2:01pm Arrive Los Angeles (LAX)

Convention conspiracy

NRO is madly buzzing about how Kerry's apparent dismissal of the Lizard Queen is nothing but a stunt designed to create more excitement when she makes a "surprise" speech at the convention. I'm hoping that she'll tear off her human skin, hiss at the camera and strangle Kerry with her tri-forked tongue before devouring both him and John Edwards live in front of a horrified nation.

The terrified Republicans will have no choice but to send a delegation via submarine to a small island in the Antarctic, where they will perform a shoggoth designed to awake the Deep One who sleeps beneath the ice. When Cthulhu rises, Dick Cheney will be sacrificed to appease the Great Tentacled One and New York City will be demolished by the subsequent epic battle between the demon lizard-bitch and the Elder God.

Why vote for the lesser of two evils? Cthulhu 2004!

More on "More Cowbell"

I was just thinking, who is the greatest guest host in the history of SNL? Not in terms of who did the best overall show, or which show you would have liked to have been present in the audience - Pamela Anderson, obviously - or who had the best intro bit, but who produced the most memorable quotes that you and your friends still drop on each other today?

I'd say it has to be Christopher Walken. You've got "more cowbell", you've got "a degree from the University of Bei-jing", you've got "I got a passport to Florida", you've got "no, don' go", and to top it all off, you've got the phrase that spawned the worst published poem in history, "my little wide-eyed, white-tailed doe". I can't even remember most of them from the census-taker, I was laughing so hard.

You realize that I'm snorting and chuckling helplessly as I'm writing this, of course.

Mailvox: laying down the hickory

The Gargler gargles:

Vox.. you're pretty fond of a little saying. "Tell it to the whigs!". Ah what a battle cry! It summons up images of the possibility of rebellion within the politcal world... Sadly its inaccurate. The Whigs were never anything to be feared, and calling them well organized is simply ignoring history. We're talking about a party that lasted an astounding 16 years, from 1834 to 1850. That's the official story anyway, though the initial party coalition actually started in 1824, when some boys got together to try to whip Andy Jackson (Tennessean by the way). I suppose we could give them credit for 26 years then huh?

Nate would have somewhat of a point, if one were so myopic as to reduce world history to American history. I use "tell it to the Whigs" to illustrate the shallow thinking involved in assuming that a two-party system is eternal. First, the very fact of the American Whigs relatively brief political lifespan supports my point, second, the British Whig party was one of the first modern political parties and was part of a now-defunct two-party system with the Tories, or Conservative Party. The remnants of was variously known as the Country, Whig and Liberal Party now survive in the Liberal Democratic Party, but the Liberals were replaced as the primary British opposition by Labour around 1925.

Bitch slap

The former chairwoman of the New York State Democratic Party on Wednesday called it "a total outrage" and "very stupid" that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has not been offered a prominent speaking role at the Democratic National Convention.

"It's a slap in the face, not personally for Hillary Clinton, but for every woman in the Democratic Party and every woman in America," said Judith Hope, a major party fund-raiser.

I could almost kiss John Kerry. Sure, he's a loathesome, treasonous socialist creep, but no one who uses his moment in the sun to publicly bitchslap the Lizard Queen can be ALL bad.

Sports Guy on the Shaq trade

And then there's Angry Shaq. He needed this to happen. Honestly, he hasn't given a crap about basketball for four years, since they won that second title and crushed the Sixers. After that happened, Satiated Shaq stuck around and kept playing, knowing that he could accomplish more on cruise control than just about every other player in the league. I don't think it was a malicious act on his part. It was his version of MJ scurrying off to hit baseballs for two years.

Maybe we were insulted as basketball fans, but this was also the one quality that made him stand out over everyone else: This is a good guy. He takes care of his family, looks out for his friends, never stops having fun. He dabbles in movies, music, TV, even comedy roasts. He figured out how to handle the media early in his career -- mumble through your answers, use intimidation when necessary; and eventually, everyone will leave you alone. I think he's one of the smartest athletes in any sport. Seriously. Who leads a better life than him? What team athlete makes more money than him? Who balanced the characters of Public Superstar and Private Superstar more brilliantly than him? We don't know ANYTHING about him, yet we feel like we do. And he likes it that way.

Which made it especially ironic that, for years and years, Shaq wore the "black hat" and Kobe wore the "white hat" on the Lakers. To the general public, Shaq was just a big mumbling monster, a physical freak with no discernible basketball skills, someone who couldn't even make a damn free throw. Casual fans (and Lakers fans, which is basically the same thing) gravitated towards Kobe, partly because he reminded them of a young MJ, partly because he seemed like such a decent guy. Nobody realized that Kobe was an impossible prima donna behind the scenes, a brooding loner consumed with basketball and nothing else, someone lacking the requisite social skills to get along with teammates on even a rudimentary level.

I'm no NBA fan, but I always enjoy the Sports Guy's analyses, as he throws himself into them with complete abandon. Unlike almost every other sportswriter in the business, he has no fear of stating his opinion, even when it leads an entire city to regard him with utter loathing. But I didn't like Houston either.

And besides, how can you not love a column called "More Cowbell". Because I got a fever, and the only thing that's going to cure it is, more cow-bell. It seems ESPN is more flexible than WND - I wanted to call my column "Defending the Mike" but that got ixnayed. I suppose "More Cowbell" is marginally less obscure, but still....

And here I thought they wanted the Jews out!

The preacher placed before a World Muslim Brotherhood conference a working document drawn up at “a secret meeting of the movement” somewhere in the Middle East, calling on all brethren in the Muslim world to rise up and foil Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon’s plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and, most of all, to combat any potential Egyptian or Jordanian role in its implementation. The Brotherhood was exhorted to resort “to all means available.”

McCain can't count

Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue, taking to the Senate floor to call such a constitutional amendment unnecessary -- and un-Republican.

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

38: States with explicit Defense of Marriage acts
05: States with similar statutory language
43: Total States with Defense of Marriage laws
50: Number of States in the Union

Apparently Sen. John McCain is operating under the assumption that 14 percent is somehow equivalent to "most". Edwards may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but McCain's mathematical genius may be why Kerry elected to pass on him as a running mate.

And we let this joker vote on the budget?

Mailvox: pin the tail on the Libertarian

Jayuf asks:

What do you believe is the one significant flaw with the LP platform? Is it their stance on abortion or their stance on immigration?

The LP position on immigration will keep me from voting for Badnarik. It does not seem rational in this day and age to grant amnesty to illegals who have originated from states supporting militant Islam.

Good question. I'd actually been giving this matter a little thought of late, and I believe that it is the abortion plank that is the significant flaw. (I should mention that amnesty is a position of the Bush administration, not the Libertarian Party, wherein there is no such thing as an "illegal" immigrant.) Immigration is problematic, but very few people will refuse to vote Libertarian on the issue, as neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are the least bit interested in closing the border either.

The Libertarian Party's position on abortion is a priori reasonable. An individual has a property right to their own body, ergo, the government has no ability to violate that property right. This was a logically sound conclusion in 1971, when it was first articulated. The problem is that it is now scientifically outdated. The unborn child is now proven to have different DNA, therefore, it is a distinct individual with its own property right to its own body as well as a concomitant right to life. The fact that it cannot survive on its own is irrelevant; neither can a newborn and as birthing technology improves, even the mother is becoming increasingly unnecessary as a host.

For example, when a woman has her eggs fertilized in-vitro and implanted in another woman, does the surrogate mother have a right to abort the unborn child? It's her body, after all. The fundamental wrongness of the property right claim to the unborn child becomes all the more obvious when one considers the question of an artificial machine womb. If the child is no longer even in the woman's body, how can she possibly claim the right to kill it without consequence?

More on this and immigration later.

A cordial salute

Okay, this made me laugh. I came across it courtesy of le petit Dark Window. I'm not sure which I appreciated most, the innovative group protest - wouldn't want to participate in that one myself - the president's response, or the guy's reaction to the response. It's all good, except for the reminder that free speech and protest are no longer legal in the USA. And that goes doubly for the last sixty days before an election.

At the front of this second bus was The W himself, waving cheerily at his supporters on the other side of the highway. Adam, Brendan, and I rose our banner (the More Trees, Less Bush one) and he turned to wave to our side of the road. His smile faded, and he raised his left arm in our direction. And then, George W. Bush, the 43rd president of the United States of America, extended his middle finger.

Read that last sentence again. I got flipped off by George W. Bush.

A ponytailed man standing next to us confirmed the event, saying, "I do believe the President of the U.S. just gave you boys the finger." We laughed probably for the next half hour, and promptly told everyone we knew.

I love the American spirit, especially when it resides in those with acorn-sized intellects.

Conspiracy theory

Could Microsoft be behind a smear campaign aimed at Linux? If not Microsoft, then who? Let's look at the continued attacks against Linux. The media is peppered with them. When one starts to die down, another one crops up. While every single one of these assertions is laughable, the never-ending barrage of anti-Linux propaganda has got to take its toll on potential users. Here are a few of the accusations you might find in articles planted here and there in the media:

Linux is not at all secure and poses a major security risk.

Linux is not cheap. Despite being free, it actually costs more to implement and maintain.

Linux is prone to hackers and viruses, because the code is easily available.

Linus Torvalds didn't write Linux; it is in fact a compendium of old code that was cobbled together.

Linux is next to impossible to support, because no one company is responsible for it.

As there are no profits to be made from distributing or supporting Linux, it must die from eventual neglect.

Much of Linux is stolen proprietary code, and you could be liable if you use it. Furthermore, SCO will sue you if you use it.

Clearly, Mr. Dvorak is a paranoid wearer of tinfoil hats. I find it interesting that people are so willing to believe in the evil intent of Microsoft - not that I disagree, being a quasi-religious Fedora/Opera/OpenOffice non-user of Microsoft products - but are, on the other hand, always eager to absolve the Federal government of any like prediliction for the Dark Side of the Force.

This strikes me as being more than a bit backward.

Flawed Libertarian logic

A libertarian posts at Michael Badnarik's blog:

Something Vox doesn't necessarily point out is that while Mr. Badnarik is *personally* pro-life, he recognizes that there is significant controversy surrounding when "life" begins (at conception? at birth? at some point in between?), so the state can not legislate against abortion, since a fetus is not unarguably a "human life".

Who doesn't recognize that "there is significant controversy when 'life' begins". I mean, if it could be proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that life began at 3 days, 18 minutes after conception, I wouldn't have any problem with abortions performed before then. But that's not the case, and is unlikely to ever be the case.

This libertarian's sloppy thinking has it exactly backward. The states not only CAN legislate against abortion, they MUST legislate against abortion since a "fetus", or unborn child, is ARGUABLY a human life. The Libertarian Party's platform is simply outdated on this issue, reflecting the reasonable but inappropriate application of its anti-government intervention philosophy made around the time of the party's founding in 1971.

One reason I appreciate Michael Badnarik is that he has reached his pro-life position through the genuine application of libertarian logic. This promises well for his leadership, not of the country, most likely, but of helping the Libertarian Party find its way to the proper libertarian position on abortion as well as leading the party to a position of greater intellectual influence in the nation.

In any case, even with its outdated pro-choice platform, the Libertarian Party is committed to returning the issue to the States, where it belongs, and will end federal funding for the abominable practice, which is more than the supposedly pro-life Republicans have done.

Holy religious conservatives, Batman!

You know George Bush is in serious trouble when lifetime Republican stalwarts are beginning to turn their back on him. Joseph Farah is a genuine independent. Ilana Mercer and I are outspoken libertarians. We didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or his father before him. But Tom Ambrose, the Commentary Editor at WorldNetDaily, has always been a strong Republican. That makes these words all the more incredible:

Let's be real: There is no longer any substantial difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The GOP now even actively supports pro-homosexual and pro-abortion politicians. Enough is enough!

Religious conservatives comprise some 30 to 40 percent of the Republican Party. Rather than supporting spineless, highly compromised GOP phonies, why not work for something worthwhile such as the Constitution Party's political platform?

For me, the bottom line is this: I do not want to stand before God one day and tell Him I enabled evil to continue unchecked because I was afraid to do the right thing and, consequently, caved in to what was expedient. No matter what happens, God is still sovereign, but at least I can say I stood against the evil now engulfing the United States. Will you be able to say that?

Much respect, Tom, much respect. I have a feeling that the Libertarian and Constitution Party's vote totals are going to surprise everyone this fall. This assumes, of course, that there IS going to be an election.

Bitten in the buttocks

People often ask me why I am a libertarian, not a conservative, and why I prefer the Libertarian Party, despite the one significant flaw in its platform, over the Constitution Party. The answer is simple. Government is a two-edged sword, and attempting to use it for good purpose always backfires in the end. Only the Libertarian Party has the proper distrust and distaste for the dangerous and often deadly institution.

Conservatives are rightly alarmed about homogamy, or "gay marriage". But as they are stupidly wont to do, they have again turned to a government solution, which is ironic as it is only government involvement in marriage - often regarding things that conservatives laud as supporting marriage - that has allowed this situation to come about. I don't actually mind the concept of a Defense of Marriage Amendment, I simply consider it useless; since the courts freely ignore most of the other amendments there is no reason to believe they wouldn't simply contort the language to ignore this proposed amendment too.

Now, James Dobson is without question a wise man when it comes to children and relationships, but he is a short-sighted and clueless observer of government. For, as he states in support of the rapidly dissolving Amendment:

Dobson says another "phony excuse" is that marriage is a state issue. "Every legislator must surely know, however, that it would create chaos to have 50 different definitions of marriage in the United States," Dobson wrote in his letter.

Experienced observers of American politics will recognize this as the same argument that is used to justify every expansion of central state power. It has been used to justify every intrusion on State sovereignty. Indeed, it has been used to force most of the cultural policies that Dobson rightly deplores down American throats.

I like and respect James Dobson. But as a wiser man than Dobson once said: "those who live by the sword will die by the sword. If conservatives wish to preserve marriage, they will have to take a libertarian approach and remove government entirely from the sanctioning, licensing and recognizing of the institution.

I'm with N.W.A.

A Denver police officer likely mistook a soda can for a weapon before shooting and killing a 63-year-old man in his bed, Police Chief Gerry Whitman said Monday.... The shooting comes weeks after the city and police announced reforms to the department's use-of-force policy in the wake of controversy surrounding police shootings.

I'm sure they'll announce some more reforms soon. Here's a suggestion: how about not shooting anyone in freaking bed!

I trust the general public with guns a lot more than I trust the police with guns. An armed citizenry is more effective against crime and furthermore, there has never, in the history of firearms, been a police state without an armed police.

No sell-out

I spoke with the Elliott Wave people about how I could add some more economic content to this blog, and they were kind enough to allow me access to their affiliate content. As those of you who actually read the economic columns know, I think Elliott Waves are a potentially useful method of understanding the patterns of the markets, and perhaps even history as well.

Just to make things clear, I have no relationship with Elliott Wave International, I do not have any financial interest in the products they are selling nor am I interested in accepting blog ads at this point in time. However, I think you'll find that they do have an intriguing take on the financial and currency markets at what is proving to be an all-too-interesting moment in history.

Read if it interests you. Ignore it if you don't. And, as always, caveat emptor.

Mailvox: I'm so jealous

Dreadpiratesnuggles shows off his math:

That's 290 years... Ok, my bad, closer to 300 years vs. 800... So I was off by a measly 500 years! Relatively speaking, what's the difference?

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that there's an executive at CNBC barking at his secretary: "Get this guy on the phone! We need to give him a show now!"

Mailvox: when the moniker fits

Puzzled wonders:

It must be that you don't understand our electoral system. Unless Petrouka gets -more- electoral votes than either Kerry or Bush, he will not be elected. Drawing votes away from Bush only add's to Kerry's margin.

I find it incomprehensible that anyone would think that Kerry would be a better pro-life vote, when powerful figures in his party are calling pro-lifers terrorists, and Christians a greater threat than Al-Qaeda.

Who said Kerry would be a better pro-life vote? It's quite clear that Bush=Kerry when it comes to abortion. Neither of them will end it, neither of them will return the issue to the states, neither of them will restrict it. Even if one takes the unprincipled pragmatic approach, it makes absolutely no difference if you vote for Bush or Kerry with regards to this particular issue. Bush has a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a Republican-nominated Supreme Court... if he has not acted, then he will not act.

Oh, sure, Bush affects to feel bad about abortion... wait a minute, so does Kerry. Okay, Kerry will allow money to go directly to fund foreign abortions, while Bush will require it to go through the United Nations first. There IS a difference!

Even a pro-abortion Libertarian would be a better pro-life vote than George Bush, as he would be willing to return the issue to the States, where it belongs.

Mailvox: Is America safer?

Bill responds:

1) We've stopped one of the major terrorist sponsoring states in the region, and rounded up several leaders of terrorist organizations.

2) We've killed thousands of militant islamo-wackos, a small start, but a start. If we'd pulled out as soon as the Iraqi government had toppled Iraq would definitely be another Ashcanistan.

3) We now have a major military base in the mid-east that ain't in Saudi.

4) We've removed the principal sponsor of Palestinian terrorists. Saddam was a powerful symbol for them, and provided money and training as well.

5) Just the reforms that have happened to date are putting serious pressure on Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. If things continue to improve the pressure on them builds.

1) No, we haven't. Iraq was number five, at most, behind Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and Egypt. Iraq wasn't funding anyone except the Palestinian Authority. Of course, so was he United States.

2) Afghanistan turned into Afghanistan after a decade of Soviet occupation. What makes you think Iraq won't regardless of how long we stay there? It is estimated that 10 percent of the global Muslim population is sympathetic to the jihad. Since the Soviet butchery in Afghanistan and Chechnya hasn't exactly proved dissuasive to this point, I don't think a few thousand more can be considered as amounting to much.

3) As you note, we already had plenty of bases in the Middle East. Why did we need to leave our bases in Saudi Arabia? Why will the new Iraqi government, or the next Iraqi government, prove to be any more cooperative regarding our bases there? How are the new bases indicative of more protection than the old ones?

4) Total nonsense. We are personally guaranteeing the safety of the most powerful symbol of the Palestinian terrorists. We are also helping pay his salary.

5) This has nothing to do with America being safer now than five years ago.

I note that none of these addresses my point that none of our actions in Iraq has made America one iota safer from terrorist attack than before. Simply refusing to provide visas to terrorist-sponsoring countries would have accomplished more. This is neither a defensive war against the global jihad nor preparation for it, instead, the administration has weakened the national resolve for any such future conflict.

But then, I don't expect anything but incompetence and unintended consequences from the Federal government anyhow, so I'm not exactly surprised. Tolstoy addresses this rather nicely in his section on administrators. More on that later.

Another whitewash

That noted liberal Democrat, Paul Craig Roberts of the Creators Syndicate, is apparently less than impressed by the Senate's ability to report on the administration's misdeeds:

The only open question is whether President Bush was an active participant in the disinformation or was deceived like the American public. If he knowingly participated in the deception, he must be impeached. If he was deceived by his own appointees, why hasn't he fired them? Bush's reelection would signify that the American people lack the competence or character for self-rule.

The report from the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence proves once again that government lacks the moral integrity to conduct an investigation. The senators did not bring responsibility to any individuals for a gratuitous invasion that has generated hatred of, and insecurity for, Americans for decades to come. Instead, the senators' report held accountable that which cannot be held accountable: "the process."

We were told that 9/11 was due to the failures of flawed procedures. So, too, was the incorrect intelligence on Iraq, according to the Senate Select Committee. In neither case are any individuals to be held responsible. Nothing, it seems, bears any significance except for the increasingly fictional economic statistics and the bureaucratic machinery. Ideologies aside, Washington appears to be evolving into something more weirdly Soviet by the week.

As to those who are still convinced that the Iraqi occupation is making Americans safer, I have a simple question: how? If I had millions of dollars in Saudi money, a cadre of fanatical followers and connections into Russia via Chechnya and China via Ningxia Hu, the fate of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist regime, for good or for ill, would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on my ability to send a few young men to flight school or to plant a black market explosive device in a shipping container bound for Boston Harbor.

Think, people. Think.

Lenin, inflation and the destruction of capitalism

John Maynard Keynes on Lenin and inflation:

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, Governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity (or fairness) of the existing distribution of wealth.

As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of Society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

Bill Fleckenstein, the market analyst and hedge fund owner who continues to hammer away at the disaster that Alan Greenspan and the politicians of both parties are creating for us, quoted this in the context of the inflation that the CPI charade no longer hides. He also adds that he is concerned about the likelihood of a medium-term market crash:

My gut feeling -- though there is no way for me to quantify it -- is that probability of a crash at some point in the next six months to a year is far higher now than in 1987. One subjective reason is that I just don't think it's possible for all the thousands of hedge funds and hundreds of thousands or millions of people who think they're talented enough to outwit the stock market -- and who believe they can play this game of speculating in an overvalued, dangerous stock market -- to get out whole....

Personally, as I often note, I am short stocks (mostly tech stocks), own gold and silver (as well as gold and silver mining stocks) and foreign currencies.

I haven't gone short yet - I'm waiting until the next mini-bounce plays out, but that otherwise describes my essential positions as well. This is NOT the time to be long stocks, as it does not look as if the Fed can extend the Wave 2 countertrend any longer. I learned my lesson from last time - don't fight the Fed, but instead wait until they throw in the towel. The Fed can't defeat the market, but it can delay the inevitable for a while.

Why Bush is a poor pro-life vote

Many conservatives have tried to overlook President Bush’s liberal tendencies in hopes that at the least G. W. Bush will appoint a pro-lifer to the Supreme Court, and in so doing, help overturn Roe v. Wade. Their hope is not only without evidence, it is plainly contrary to evidence. In his prime-time television debates with Gore, George Bush flatly denied that he had a pro-life litmus test for Court appointees.... His record as Governor of Texas shows that he does indeed appoint pro-abortion judges, so we should not be surprised if President Bush were to appoint pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court.

Frequently displayed as evidence of President Bush’s pro-life views is his signing of legislation when he was Texas’ Governor that forbade underage girls from getting abortions without parental consent. The pro-life community roared their approval: a 13-year-old girl can’t get an aspirin without parental consent, why should she be allowed to undergo a surgical or chemical abortion without parental consent?! That’s sound pro-life legislation, right? George Bush must be pro-life, huh? Wrong! Did you realize that this piece of legislation was nullified by a Texas Supreme Court decision that ruled 6-3 that an unexceptional 17-year-old could get an abortion without telling her parents? The New York Times reported, "It was, after all, appointees of Gov. George W. Bush who took the lead on the issue…" You see, it was G.W. Bush who appointed or approved of four of the court’s nine justices and has been a political patron for a fifth, Harriet O’Neill, who wrote the majority opinion in the parental notification case. If this is what President Bush means by "strict constructionists," then any hope that he will appoint a pro-lifer to the Federal bench is baseless.

This abundantly-footnoted article, written by the founder of a pro-life physicians group, should suffice to explode the last principled reason to vote for the Republican candidate. (Anyone who believes a Democrat won't leap at the chance to use the war on method as an excuse to continue strengthening central state power is ignorant of both US military history and dialectic.) Bush has already shown that he is unwilling to face down the Democrats despite having a majority in both House and Senate; if elected to a second term he will surely cave to the minority, as is his wont, and give us more Supreme Court judges in the mode of David Souter.

I assert that both Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party and Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party are demonstrably better than Bush on abortion, despite the Libertarian Party platform's pro-choice policy. (Badnarik, by the way, is openly pro-life on the grounds that the unborn child has a same right to life as any other individual.) Returning the question of abortion to the states, as the Libertarians demand, would end 1000x the abortions that the Partial-Birth Abortion ban has, and as the PBA ban is all that the Republican President, House, Senate and Supreme Court have been willing to do in four years of power, it is safe to assume that this is all that they will do.

If you're not voting for Bush because you believe in him, but simply because "he can win", then you might as well stop paying attention to the campaign and go cheer for the Yankees this summer. This is not principle, it is simply bandwagon-hopping. And, as I have previously demonstrated, political pragmatism is nothing more than long-term self-immolation.

Things I wish I'd thought of first

Mark Steyn helpfully points out that Palestinian official Saeb Erekat is of course, "democratically elected", being presently in the ninth year of a five-year term. And in like manner, if Yasser Arafat was elected President of the Palestinian Authority in 1996, shouldn't there have been another election by now?

Or is this just the sort of complicated subject that we can't expect the mainstream media to address? After all, it does have more pressing matters of interest to cover, such as the soda preferences of the Democratic presidential candidates.

Mailvox: the gorilla can read Nietzsche...

RB writes:

America is dead. If it is, what a lively corpse it is! The old bad old Abraham is asserted again- The good Framers and the clear and understandable language of the Constituion is asserted again- Instead of rehashing all of this, let;s just remind you of one small thing, to set the assertions you made into the ground-as in six feet under!

Thomas Jefferson, who is held up by you and yours as the American philosopher of small republics and limited goernemt, went and did what he, Jefferson, called an illegal act, and destroyed the Constituion-his words, not mine. What was that act? Why the Louisiana Purchase! First off, the national government had no powers to purchase the land, and Jefferson himself pointed that out! Yet he defended the action saying that if left to the States, the opportunity to expand the nation, which was necessary, according to him, would have slipped away! Oh yes, you'll want a source-see Jefferson's letter to Beveridge, in late 1803. It's in the collections of Jefferson's papers, which you can read at any library- To continue-Who got the money from the purchase? Why Napoleon Bonaparte, who used the money to finance his military conquest of Europe! and you and the rest have accused Clinton of selling out to China, of Bush's deals with the bin Laden family(see Moore's film) or Reagan's arms for hostages etc etc ad nauseum. Again, What was the effect of the Purchase? to increase the size of the nation by double, and that Purchase area was Federal terriroty, not States, not in 1803! So the national government had increased its own land size to be larger than the combuned States!

What does this prove, except that the founding fathers knew whereof they spoke with regards to the temptations of State power? The fact that Jefferson was tempted and gave into corruption says nothing about the fact that today's government is neither small nor limited as it was conceived to be. And every act of illicit government expansion is defended as being necessary. The public is not generally known to welcome dictatorship, after all, unless they have been sufficiently alarmed by the presumed alternatives.

And here's the next problem. the French thinker Montesque, argued that the bigger a nation becomes the more the power is centralized and the more tyrannical it becomes--gee, what if he was right? Then Jefferson went from the small republic limiited government man to the Hamiltonian tyrant in one fell swoop- According to Lew Rockwell, when I pointed this out, Jefferson was a good political thinker but a bad President-so what else is new? And Jefferons was one of the Framers, one of the Founders, indeed, he was at least the assistant head coash after Washington, he was the main architect, with Madison of the Founding documents-If he can go wrong, then it is all up! and was all up then- But what if he was right, and what if the Framers, ressurected today, would nod approvingly at what has happened? I am quite sure that Hamilton would!

So am I. So is L. Neil Smith, the libertarian, which is why his sci-fi villains are called "Hamiltonians". But the rest would almost certainly not. The fact that it is difficult to keep a Republic is why Franklin famously said: "if you can keep it." Any sober analysis will suffice to demonstrate that we have not.

Among Libertarians and libertarians, I have found, after all of the rhe rhetoric about the Constituion and Declaration has died down, they will admit that they prefer the Articles of Confederation, that the Articles have the provisions for that "voluntary association" which the Constituion doesn't. that the Articles say that States are sovereign, which the Constituion doesn't and that the many word and phrases, such as "absoltelu" in the Articles "elastic clause" do not appear in the Contituion-which gives the new independnent executive, judiciary and Vongress great latitutes for expansion of powers. recall that there was no independent executive in the Articles! So, in your column, you have again, failed American histroy, American Constitional law, and American politics. and America isn't anywhere near dead-you sound like the Carter administration people when they campaigned against Reagan!

Sure, many libertarians would prefer the Articles to the Constitution. But they would also prefer Constitutional government to what we have now. The Constitution certainly allows some latitude, but nowhere near so much as is being claimed by the three branches of the federal government. RB may have failed to understand the difference between America the nation-state and America the concept, he has clearly failed to disprove my assertions, as well, one is forced to assume, fifth-grade spelling, but at least he has succeeded in proving that one can read American history without being burdened by the heavy weight of understanding it.

Mailvox: it's different now

DVH writes:

America is very different now than it was in the days of the founding fathers; such has to be taken into account when thinking about what is ideal government in the US today. In the old days you had lots of small independent farmers; nowadays you have huge numbers of people all working for corporations owned by a few people. Need I list all the technological changes since the days of the founding fathers?

I think Count Tolstoy already addressed this argument: "- mentioning "our days" as people of limited intelligence are fond of doing, imagining that they have discovered and appraised the peculiarities of "our days" and that human characteristics change with the times -"

Apparently DVH doesn't see that most of the significant changes have nothing to do with technological change. What technology was involved in the creation of the corporation and granting it legal personhood? What technological imperative required a shift from Congressionally-issued metal money to privately-issued paper notes? The founding fathers understood that while the world will change, human nature doesn't. Their vision was conceived to limit the depredations of the latter, and is every bit as relevant today as it was 230 years ago.

A one-time mistake

Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place. Justice was specifically asked to review a recent letter to Ridge from DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Soaries noted that, while a primary election in New York on September 11, 2001, was quickly suspended by that state's Board of Elections after the attacks that morning, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Soaries, a Bush appointee who two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to make such a call.

There haven't been any major terrorist attacks in the USA since 9/11. That cynical voice inside my head says that providing this "statutory authority" to the federal government will all but assure that we'll have one soon after it is provided.

Culture and hope

Adam Gopnik writes in Paris to the Moon

The performance of Les Trois Petits Cochons, for instance, uses, with slight variations, many of the devices, not to mention the music of the Disney version of the story from the thirties. There are French touches, though. The catastrophe, or climax, comes when the wolf pretends to be a minor official comes to read the water meter. The pigs have to let him into the one remaining house; the French little pigs have to open the door to administration, even when it has an immense jaw and sixty white paper-mache teeth.

This is why there will never be a European Waco or Ruby Ridge. Perhaps in Switzerland, or New Europe, where decades of totalitarian rule have hardened the population's attitudes about government. But certainly not in France.

America is rather different. We have no long tradition of obedience. We are born rebellious, with the unruly expectation that individual liberty is our natural birthright. We must be educated, confused, fooled and propagandized non-stop in order to even become manageable. Rage Against the Machine is a good example of this significant cultural difference; despite being left-wing pop icons, ideologically pledged to the expansion of central government power, they once notably preached: "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me," and, just in case one happened to somehow escape the message, repeated it 26 times before punctuating it with one last exclamatory "motherfucker!"

This is not exactly the ideal open-the-door-to-the-government-wolf spirit.

America the idea may be dead, for now. But the recalcitrant individuality that gave her birth still lives, and we can hope that as long as this stubborn fire still burns in American hearts, we may find her again.

Mogambo on debt

Imagine my surprise when I find it is Bill Buckler calling me! And he tells me that my wife says that I would love it, just love it, if he would call me up and finish talking about the increase in debt. I look at the doctor. I think about what he said. I look at the phone. And then I say to Bill, "Sure! I'd love to hear about it!" And so he goes on to say, "Since the beginning of 1998, total US borrowings have climbed from about 255% of US GDP to 302%!"

302% of GDP! My puny little brain is kicked into action, as I think to myself "This is a new record!" Amazingly, I think I know why he ended the sentence with an exclamation point! And look! I'm doing it, too!

And since there must be some reason why those exclamation points are suddenly everywhere, I will remark that this is higher than the 260% of GDP recorded at the height of the market in 1929, and we all know how well THAT turned out!

It's probably worth pointing out that cumulative US mortgage debt is now $9.618 trillion, which represents 99.298 percent of cumulative US personal income, at $9.686 trillion. I don't know if the banks can manage to push this number up beyond 100 percent, but considering that the government is deeply underwater itself, it's pretty clear that the nation is essentially bankrupt.

"But we owe it to ourselves!" some might protest. Except that we don't. We owe it to China, Japan, and the private bank that is the Federal Reserve. The question is this: who is worse off when the debt gets can no longer be sustained by continued borrowing or quiet inflation, the foreign investors, the bank or the indebted public?

It's hard to disagree with Buckler's conclusion:

As I am too busy wailing and cramming boxes of ammunition into a backpack to continue right now, I will leave it to the clever Mr. Buckley to come up with a simile to beautifully sum it all up. Rising to the challenge, he writes, "There is no 'solution' to this dilemma, just as there is no 'solution' for a man who finds himself in a barrel on the lip of Niagara Falls."

Enjoy the silence....

M3 inflation

Percent change at seasonally adjusted annual rates
03 Months from Feb 2004 TO May 2004: 11.3
06 Months from Nov 2003 TO May 2004: 08.2
12 Months from May 2003 TO May 2004: 05.4

Considering that the stock market is basically flat for the year with this sort of monetary stimulus, the picture is not a pretty one.

UPDATE - had two copy and paste errors in the original post. We apologize to anyone alarmed at the thought that perhaps Mr. Stross's transdimensional mathematics had seized control of this blog. M3's pace continues to further increase, by the way, according to the latest reports:

M-3 was up a whopping 31.7 billion for the latest reporting week on a seasonally adjusted basis. It is now up 61.2 billion over the past 3 weeks, and $204 billion over the past ten weeks, rising at an annualized clip of 11.7 percent.

Hijacking comment threads

Look, I don't mind if a thread is hijacked by what turns out to be a more interesting conversation for those involved. But please do not intrude on other threads because you think something unrelated is particularly exciting or important - barring a stock market collapse or another 9/11, in either of those cases, please interrupt away. There's enough nonsense and spam floating around via email; we don't need to add to it here, at least not unfiltered.

Had the latest offender, (who shall go unnamed since it was done in innocence), bothered to email me first, I could have told him that he was getting worked up about an old Internet hoax. This was quite obvious in the early versions as they cited bills that did not exist.

Mailvox: seeing no evil

Bill writes of the so-called "smart" missiles:

Yeah, what we should have done was say "Hey Saddam, we have a few hundred special ops folks hiding in Baghdad and other major cities, hide-and-seek starts.... Now!"

It seems to escape Bill that this is an admission on his part that a) the government does lie; and b) uses the mainstream media to disseminate its propaganda. The point is not that the government should have endangered its troops by telling the truth about how it was bombing Baghdad - of course they shouldn't have, although I don't see why any explanation was required in the first place - but that the US government is perfectly willing to lie and use the media to propagate its lies when it sees fit to do so.

This logically should logically lead Bill to the next two questions: (1) What else are they lying about? (2) What is their justification for doing so?

Finally, I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe that Saddam didn't know perfectly well that our special ops were crawling all over Iraq both the first and second time around, smart missiles or no smart missiles. The frightening thing about special ops is that the target knows they're out there, he just doesn't know where, or how to find them.