Wednesday, October 31, 2007


According to the University of Delaware's Office of Residental Life

A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….'
(emphasis, mine)
I suppose bustin' a cap in my face doesn't count?

I don't know. I always thought that racist meant someone who discriminated against or for people based upon their race. I'm pretty sure a history of the word will back me up on this.

Which makes that re-definition of the word "racist" .... well, racist.

Quick comment on the debate

I didn't watch it. But every clip I saw of Hillary... she looked like an Animatronics robot. Eerie.

That being said, I have to say if I had to chose from the "top 3" Dems for president -- which I thankfully don't because the republicans will put up someone better qualified and I'll vote for that person -- I'd [holding nose and closing eyes] have to pick ...

I can't say her name in this context.


Obama isn't an American, I don't care where he was born. And My Little Pony I think is a closet Europhile but I think, at least, he kinda-sorta likes America in a way. Clinton is a socialist (which is the main reason she'll never get my vote), but objectively speaking she'd probably turn up more charred terrorist bodies than the other two. Combined. Dead terrorists is too important to ignore.

I don't care what color your skin is or how bumpy your chest is, I'm voting for the person who walks and talks most like an American.

Friday, October 26, 2007

favorite musician whose politics you disagree with the most

Slate asked Huckabee this question at the end of an interview.
Slate: Who is your favorite musician whose politics you disagree with the most?

Huckabee: I love John Mellencamp's music. I think he may be on a different page politically. There are a lot of musicians whose politics I don't agree with. But there's no crying in baseball, and no politics in music.
This has been a problem I've struggled with since I'm a huge music fan, and as far as Rock goes it's the late 1960's - early 1970's that figure most prominently. I'm a Grateful Dead fan. Crosby, Stills, & Nash are freaking awesome. And Bonnie Raitt breaks my heart. Her first two albums were primo, and then Nick of Time and Fundamental were also great albums (not that there wasn't a lot of good stuff in between).

So it does bug me a little that she believes ... so much differently than I do. At least Crosby and I have the Second Amendment in common. Well for all I know Bonnie might, too. But I don't know.

Unfortunately, there is politics in music, and sometimes I don't agree with those politics. It seems more often than not. On the other hand I really want to like Ted Nugent's music and I just can't get in to it.

Still, I like a lot of his politics.

So I guess I'll just listen on. But for some reason I still can't bring myself to listen to the Dixie Chicks anymore. And I was really starting to like them.

Bill Whittle Essay Index

NOTE (08/10/2009) Since Bill hasn't had time to catalog, I took the time to go find them. The only one I haven't found yet is "History". I have linked them all to their new locations at PajamasMedia. Since I get consistent hits on this blog looking for just such an index, I thought I'd do the deed. These are important essays for our time.

NOTE (5/19/2009) .... Bill says he will re-catalog these. He moved his blog to PajamasMedia, and the cataloging is lost. The essays are out there, but you have to know which archive to look in to find any particular one.

Here they are, the essays from Silent America - essays from a democracy at war (explanation below) - (Bill Whittle's main site is here)

FREEDOM I have the full version archived here.

TRINITY (part 1)
TRINITY (part 2)
STRENGTH (part 1)
STRENGTH (part 2)
SANCTUARY (part 1)
SANCTUARY (part 2)
TRIBES (I just found a copy of the whole thing over here.)


I've been meaning to do this for a couple of months. Bill Whittle has a special talent for doing what most of the conservative movement -- politicians and regular folks alike, are unable to do, and that is to lay out eloquently yet in plain language what is good about America, and about what the idea of America even is. He ought to be someone's speech writer.

His site, -- is taking a bit of a change in direction (which is all well and good), and the important works linked here have become sidebared and are a little lost on his site. I like to refer people to his work, and I don't want them to get distracted right off the bat and miss them. I believe they are indexed here in the order he wrote them. I reccomend reading them in order for a couple of reasons, but each of them stands out on its own as well so if one looks particularly interesting to you there's nothing wrong with starting there.

These are also in his book "Silent America" which is a nice thing to have on your coffee table or next to your favorite reading chair. I've bought a couple in paperback for friends & family, and now have a hardback for myself. That's how moving, how important I think what he has to say... is. Lots of people are saying it. He just says it better than most.


To paraphrase Bill Whittle, which way are the boats headin', man?

I keep hearing about the terrible spread of American Hegemony. I was reading a relatively thoughtful article on mistakes America has made in the past few years... some parts I agree with, some parts I cut America some slack. But I ran across this in it:

... the fundamental problem remains the lopsided distribution of power in the international system. Any country in the same position as the US, even a democracy, would be tempted to exercise its hegemonic power with less and less restraint.
(emphasis, mine) And assertion has always bugged me. I don't buy it. The old "so might makes right?" argument against using might, and the idea that if you have might you will nessesarily use it to unjustly impose your will on others. There are all kinds of very strong people, bulky, muscular people, and people who own a lot of firepower who choose, not out of fear but because they are basically good people -- only to use their strength to help others and themselves -- as a positive force.

Might does not make right. But for the kinder, gentler world we all would like to have to survive, right had better have might, or might will make "right" and everyone will suffer for it save the few at the top of the heap.

I think where people get confused comes from the tendency in recent decades to get everyone to believe that nobody is wrong, that there basically is no right or wrong -- and you're wrong to believe otherwise. See the irony?

If nobody's right and everybody's wrong, then what difference does it make what any of us do, and who are you to criticize? Perhaps it's the mentality of the critic. If I can point out what's wrong with you, then the focus is on your wrongness, not mine. And so for the moment, I feel a sense of self-"right"eousness.

But that argument just doesn't scale over time.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Beauchamp is Back

And not in the way you might think.

Apparently the dude chose to stay with his unit and is currently fighting in Iraq. I wouldn't doubt Michael Yon.

Good for him.

The Politics of Selfishness

This is why I'm out here reading blogs. Because somebody, somewhere can put in to words what I already think but can't quite find the right way to say -- and I will find it, and I will be able to express my thoughts better the next time some self-important progressive starts shouting me down on the rare occasions where I actually stand up for my opinions in public.

I don't do it very often because of the shouting down by the "tolerant" left. Yes, I am intimidated, I'm sorry to say. Which is also why I blog. Mostly it's not for other people to read, but rather for me to write and work things out in my head, remember things I thought of, and bookmark things I've read. Yeah, it's great if other people read it. But that's not the primary purpose. It's to help me overcome my timidity in the face of the intolerant Left.

Anyway, this is good. Very good.

Confusing Political Economy with Personal Virtue

Liberals accuse conservatives of being selfish because they want lower taxes... and then they can't understand why generally lower and lower middle class people in flyover country tend to vote conservative, they wonder why. Might it have something to do with principle?

It is common to hear Democrats/progressives complain that Republicans/conservatives/libertarians are selfish because they want to cut taxes instead of spending that money on national health insurance or expanded welfare benefits or some other social program.

But this makes absolutely no sense. Democrats are not advocating spending their own money on the poor; they're advocating spending the money of a very small group of voters who lean Republican. One might argue that this very small group of voters is selfish, but they are not the majority, or even a plurality, of Republicans staunchly opposed to taxes. Or other people opposed to taxes. Of all of the libertarian bloggers out there advocating lower taxes and social spending, I'm hard pressed to think of one who wouldn't personally benefit more from the increased social spending than from the lower taxes.

The majority of people opposed to purchasing the higher-taxes/lower-social-spending combo pack may be wrong on some utilitarian basis, but whatever their sins, they are not the sin of selfishness.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Jena Six - A local newspaper editor speaks out

It should be easy enough to check out his story. And he knows that.

Media myths about the Jena 6
Let's see if anyone challenges what he has to say. The man sounds like his head is screwed on straight. It also sounds like the Liberal Hate-Stoking Machine manufactured a lot more even than we've heard.

Be sure to listen to the interview with the guy on the same page.

Consider, Journalists, when you became a journalist "to make a difference"

"The town itself, however ... um ... there was some division that occurred as a result of all this. There is some uneasiness and I wrote about that in an essay a few weeks ago ... or in an editorial, and there is a little bit of uneasiness among our black and white residents at this point because there has been so much controversy surrounding this case. It's an uneasiness that wasn't here prior to all of the media coverage." - Craig Franklin, asst. editor Jena Times
So yeah, you made a difference all right. Many of you assumed the worst, and the rest were led by the likes of Jackson and Sharpton to believe a story that went along with the liberal narrative. And you made a difference, all right. Is this what you had in mind?

It's on Newsbusters, too.


This is hilarious and to the point. Hat Tip to Bob Parks. Too good not to post.

I think I need some cigars.

Morgan's New Word

It's a word we need. Morgan called for its creation a week or so ago, then he came up with one himself. (Hey, if you want a job done right...)

bullcuse /b@l ku:z'/ (v) 1. To accuse a second party, usually in a grandiose and theatrical way, of deeds or thoughts that are actually quite out of harmony with the truth or the speaker’s perception of it. The purpose is ostensibly to uncover one or several hidden agendas and lay them bare, but in reality the purpose is to gain a tactical advantage in front of third parties. 2. More broadly, any act of accusing someone, which is blessed by a substantially greater quantity of bluster than genuine confidence. 3. To accuse someone of something based on feeling rather than thinking. (n) bullcusation, (adj) bullcusitory, bullcusive

Recognizing that members of both parties have been known to bullcuse, we should call bullcusation wherever we see it. It is pretty clear to those of us around here that liberals have a much greater tendency to bullcuse than do conservatives. We should still demand that our conservative politicians refrain from bullcusation, and call out their counterparts when they bullcuse.

The Republican party should make anti-bullcusation a part of the party platform. Something like "We, the members of the Republican Party, vow to avoid engaging in bullcusation, to call others out when they do, and correct ourselves should we ever err and bullcuse."

I'd invite the Democrats to do the same.

Stark Apologizes

After a rant on the house floor where he basically said that the President was amused by our troops getting their heads blown off overseas instead of giving them medical care while they are groiwng up, after first refusing to apologize for it, and after a bill was introduced by the Republicans to censure him for it -- Stark said:

"I want to apologize first of all to my colleagues, many of whom I have offended, to the president. his family, to the troops that may have found (offense) in my remarks as were suggested in the motion that we just voted on, and I do apologize. ... With this apology I will become as insignificant as I should be and we can return to the issues that do divide us but that we can resolve..."
Well, that was a pretty well worded apology including an aparent display of humility that is rare these days, and it would be ungracious not to accept it if he doesn't procede to take it back through further words and actions in the future.

Must Read Steyn

This is a warning to American Culture and the multi-culti/nannies lurking within:

No Smoke Without Fire

This is a great illustration of Things I Know #5 --
Multiculturalism = No Culturalism


In Vancouver city council’s action, what was once dimly discerned is made explicit. An Englishman or Irishman has no culture. Indeed, Canada has no culture, save what others bring to it. Which is the logical reductio of multiculturalism: If coming to Canada causes “depression” among “newcomers”, it behooves us to bring Canada into line with “places like they have at home”. Instead of the immigrant assimilating with the host society, the host society assimilates with the immigrant. Which makes sense, given that he seems to value his inheritance more than Canada values its own.
As you start to think about the upcoming elections here in the US, ask yourself which party do people like this gravitate toward, and has been shown to pander to this part of their base?

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

The Audacity of Mope

If they're playing the national anthem, the hand should be up over the heart.

Especially if you expect to be elected president. But remember Obama said wearing the flag pin is a silly display of faux patriotism when he stopped wearing his. Which I and others actually gave him a pass for. The choosing not to wear one part, not the belittling of those who choose to wear one part. This is a further sign that it's not just about making a fashion statement.

Thanks for the tip from Morgan. Here are a couple of supporting links:

The original Time Magazine article

The Newsbusters commentary

Hillary has a lot more experience with these things and wouldn't likely make such a mistake. I actually have no problems believing it's reflexive for her anyway. Barack, not so much.

It will be interesting to see if at least Fox News picks up on this.

Update: Yup, they did. But Colmes showed a freeze frame of Bush allegedly during a national anthem performance where his hand was held a bit low -- over his stomach -- and made an counter-issue of that. Not sure if it was there the whole time, if it was on its way up or down -- but he was clearly standing at attention and with a posture of respect, not slouched with his hands relaxed in front of his crotch.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Quote of the Day

It takes a Village Family ....

It takes a family, not a villiage, to raise a child.

- Rudy Giuliani

Check out his impressive speech on Little Green Footballs (HT to the Bookworm room). He hasn't been my top man thus far, though I'd vote for him in a flash if is nominated. This makes me feel much better about that prospect.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Stark Raving Mad

Don't know if you've seen the video clip from the House floor late last week where Representative Stark (guess which party) found yet another opportunity and yet another way, to recite the Liberal Creed:

"The Republicans are worried that they can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war on children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people? If he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
Get the feeling the Dems are getting a little frustrated lately? Things just haven't been going the way they thought they would in Bush's "Lame Duck" period.

Anyway, you've got to love Mark Steyn's response:

I'm not sure I follow the argument here: President Bush wants to breed a generation of sickly uninsured children in order to send them to Iraq to stagger round the Sunni Triangle, weak and spindly and emaciated and rickets-stricken, to get their heads blown off? Is that the gist of it? No matter, Congressman Stark hit all the buzz words – "children," "illegal war," "$200 billion," "lies," etc. – and these days they're pretty much like modular furniture: You can say 'em in any order, and you'll still get a cheer from the crowd.

But then again, he ususally is.

Culture of Clueless Calculation

Tying in to the whole "Rush" thing and the Democrats' shameless behavior, I read this in Captain's Quarters. (Do go read, if you haven't already, Morgan's analysis of the Rush coup and how it fits into a certain pattern of behavior. This all ties in.)

Apparently there was an election in Louisiana yesterday, and conservative candidate (and son of Indian immigrants) Bobby Jindal will be the next governor of Louisiana.

That didn't keep the Democrats from trying some character assassination on their way out. They attempted to twist Jindal's Catholic apologetics as an attack on Protestants by taking sentences out of context, and in at least one instance misattributing a quote from John Calvin to Jindal. The Democratic Party tried raising a million dollars to stoke anti-Catholic bigotry in Louisiana to beat Jindal, but in the end only indicted themselves for desperation and intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
No. Shame. At. All. Especially since they're the ones drumbeating the well -worn narrative that conservatives are bigots.

And don't forget about "Betray Us" and the very suspicious timing of the senate comittee's Turk/Aremenian genocide resolution (which... did you notice how quickly they backed down on that one once word got out what the actual fallout would be?)

Friday, October 19, 2007


Senator Reid et. al. have been pwned!

And Reid's doing (attempting) damage control. It doesn't get any better than this.

Incidentally, that's $2.1 (plus Rush is matching it $ to $ making it $4.2 million) to a foundation for the childrien of Marines & Law Enforcement agents... well, read more here.

Rush Limbaugh smeared the troops my red American behind!!!

I may just have to start listening to him occasionally.

Update: Rush's take on it on his website.

Quote of the Day

From a commenter TheEJS on The Ace of Spades. I'm gonna bust a gut.

Always three sides to any truth: your side, your enemy's side, and the transgender lesbian nazi alien side.

Thursday, October 18, 2007


I had a little exchange which I did not persue with a very liberal acquaintance of mine. I said something about "Jackson" on the $20 bill I was paying him with.

He said something about how he was an Indian killer and used to eat the hearts of Indians he killed. (Ok, "native Americans" .... what. ever.)

Now I admit, I don't know much about Jackson and I won't argue from a position of ignorance. As a matter of fact when it comes to these things, I don't tend to argue even when I know better just out of politeness. He went on to say that it was hard to believe that a man as prejudiced and hateful as that could be president. I said "well, those were different times" and tried to leave it at that. (I don't think we should necessarily judge people in history by today's standards... we need to take into account the standards of the day -- and take wild-sounding assertations with a grain of salt.)

The next thing he said took me a little aback for a minute and I had to remind myself that he is infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome. He can't help himself.

He said that our current president was just as prejudiced but he relied on others to do his dirty work for him.

Wherever I have disagreed with the man, I have no doubt that George Bush is anything but prejudiced. (It could be argued he has had the most diverse cabinet in the history of the Presidency). I think he is a decent man with a difficult job in difficult times. We have differing opinions at times on what should be done and how, but as a human being I have no problems with George Bush. But these people really believe these things about him.

So I looked up Andrew Jackson and at first glance I can't find anything about him eating the hearts of indians -- although I have no doubts he fought against them and killed many.

But I did find out one interesting bit of trivia. Andrew Jackson was one of the founding members of the modern Democratic party.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Government Schools

This is about the best I've ever heard it put.

Not long ago I wouldn't have given it a second thought. But he makes a very compelling point. One that's difficult to argue with.

Unless you're a Progressive who wants his views imposed on others' children.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Another Quote of the Day

I know we already have one, but this one is too good. You can use it for tomorrow's if you like.
“A word to the wise ain’t necessary. It’s the stupid ones who need the advice.”
- Bill Cosby
Bill holds a special place in my heart from his outstanding comedic work in the 1960's and 1970's when I was growing up. My brothers and I could practically recite whole album sides, and still bust a gut every time.

It's nice to see him fighting valiantly for the heart of Black America in such a constructive way.

I just realized that this quote of the day came from an article related to the earlier quote of the day. So it's kind of appropriate, I think.

The Fifth Column

I've been convinced for some time now that the War in Iraq, and maybe the one in Afghanistan -- would be long over and would have ended decidedly in America's favor if it weren't for a strong fifth column in the U.S. (and the rest of the West -- but the worst part of the problem is here) -- and it's overwhelming representation in the media.

They have made the entire war about George Bush. They're still bitter over the 2000 election. Every little story is spun to show how Bush has failed, how his motives are selfish (accusations over oil, Halliburton), even evil (accusations over torture, abusive wiretapping).

It has led to me, on this blog, being very shy about criticizing the Administration over mistakes I think they did make precisely because the Administration is so overly criticized every day. I feel an almost reflexive need to defend it. It ain't that bad.

I ran across a couple of stories on the net about retired General Sanchez's speech being selectively quoted. When you read the whole speech, he didn't restrict his criticism to the Bush Administration. He also criticized Congress. And he ripped in to the press for its role in our woes in Iraq.

None of the ripping into the press ended up in the big CNN story on the speech.

Their headline "Sanchez: Iraq war 'a nightmare with no end in sight" only reflects a part of the message Sanchez had... the part that aligns with the agenda of the Democrats at CNN. The part that they wanted people to hear.

The story leaves the impression (by ommission and an invitation to read between the lines) that he thinks Congress should have slapped Bush down (Congress failed in its oversight), and that Democrats should have been listened to more ("At times, these partisan struggles have led us to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that political power had greater priority than our national security objectives.") ... but if you read the whole speech it is clear that he was addressing the fifth column elements in our government and in the press.

It looks like it did end up in Fox News' coverage. Their headline was "Sanchez: Media's Reporting of Iraq War Endangered Soldiers' Lives". Fox's article does include Sanchez's criticisms of the Bush Administration as well. Fair and Balanced in this case, Fox 1, CNN 0.

To the majority of journalists it has never been about reporting on the war. It has been about exposing its pre-supposed folly. It has been about politics. It has been about the 2000 election.

If WWII had been reported like this one, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese today.

Democrats and Ottoman-Armenian issue

Thomas Sowell agrees with me, too.

As an unrelated aside (relating to that last Quote of the Day post) speaking of people leading the Black American Renaissance, he should be on that list along with Bob Parks & Larry Elder.

Quote of the Day

From James P. Pinkerton
"The unyielding truth is that any group climbs into the middle class only by embracing middle-class values. This is a "conservative" fact of life that was once equally embraced by liberals, before they "progressed" on to "liberation" as a new goal."
Calling them "white" values and rejecting them only hurts you. And I like that little observation about liberals ideas shifting to an ultimately culture-destroying ideal.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Hate Will Not Be Tolerated

... except if it was done by someone we agree with even if it actually amounts to forgery and slander.

I can't put it any better than Scott at Powerline did.

But I'll add that since the ACLU isn't going to do it for them, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton won't be stepping in, perhaps they should think about a lawsuit on account of their treatment.

I'm not a fan of frivilous lawsuits, but the behavior of the University was reprehensible. This would not be "frivolous" IMHO. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then go read it.

See, I'm not the only one saying it

On the "rush to condemn" Turkey for the 1915 Armenian genocide.
Pelosi's Most Dangerous Ploy

More Gore

Mark Steyn's piece this morning, while rife with sarcasm, pointed me to a Vanity Fair article written last year by Yasser Arafat Al Gore (sorry, I get my Nobel Peace Prize winners mixed up sometimes) in which he said the following:

we have literally changed the relationship between the Earth and the Sun, altering the balance of energy between our planet and the rest of the universe
Wow! We are affecting the [booming echo effect on] Entire Universe! [booming echo effect off]

He also says:

Global warming, together with the cutting and burning of forests and the destruction of other critical habitats, is causing the loss of living species at a rate comparable to that of the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
Mmmhmmm, and drinking water, together with smoking seven packs of cigarettes a day can give you lung cancer.

Notice that clever little trick there? It can be used for anything. Global Warming, together with drought and overpopulation and cultural and ethnic divisions in Darfur, caused civil war in that country.

Where else can we go with this? Global Warming, together with consuming far more calories than he burns off, has cause Al Gore to gain a lot of weight. This is easy. And it's kind of fun. Now I get it!

All you have to do is presuppose Global Warming (anthropogenic, of course, because we are the only part of the [booming echo effect on] Entire Universe! [booming echo effect off] that can throw it out of balance. Wait, did I just say we're a part of the Universe? Sorry. Envirolgionists seem to believe that balance can only be achieved when humans are taken out of the equation, thus rendering us specifically not a part of the Universe.

Serious digression there. As I was saying -- all you have to do is presuppose Anthropogenic Global Warming, and it, together with whatever is actually causing something... is causing that thing! Evidence galore! No wonder it's so overwhelming.

Global Warming, together with a massvie blizzard in the northeast, caused 20 foot snow drifts. Man! This is sooooo cool! I can tie this to anything I don't like!

Global Warming, together with pride, ruthlessness, and an insatiable thirst for power, caused Saddam Hussein to forcibly annex Kuwait.

Look, you can string these conclusions together, too, by supporting one with another:

No wonder Arafat won the peace prize. Yasser Arafat, together with Al Gore's Global Warming crusade, can put an end to war!

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Things I Know #16

I was thinking about that last post and the article that inspired it -- especially the bit about Global Warming as a contributing cause of the war in Darfur. Many, even most people don't seem to know Things I Know #1 -- That Evidence and Proof are not synonymous, either. Which makes this next one worse.

There is a theory that increased CO2 will lead to a warmer atmosphere. But there isn't any credible evidence (hard data) to back it up. So far, the variation in temperature has been well within the natural, historical variation. And every year, the dire predictions get toned down for the near future. The promised big evidence is pushed to "just a few years off, you'll see. Then you'll really be sorry." So day after day we see people struggling to show us, "see, look! Over here! This isn't normal!" -- whether they know anything about what's "normal" or not... and then.... and then... the rationalization process kicks in. Well there must be some way that Global Warming can explain this... which gives us more evidence for Global Warming.

And that leads us to Things I Know #16. Another one I've known for a long time, but haven't thought about it at the same time I was thinking about posting.
16. When people look too hard for evidence of something, they usually find it whether it's there or not.

This is probably not the most succinct example of Things I Know #16, but it's good enough to get it on the books.

Friday, October 12, 2007

The Gore-y Details

I ran across a Gore Cheerleading article on his Nobel "Peace" Prize. You know, the one that Yasser Arafat was awarded years ago. Bryan Walsh apparently has a bad crush on Al Gore.

Gore's win was widely expected, but there may still be those who wonder how an environmentalist could be, as the Peace Prize's description goes, the person who has "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations." They shouldn't. Climate change is already a key instigator of conflict in areas like Darfur, where drought likely worsened by global warming helped trigger a civil war that has claimed over 200,000 lives.
That's quite a claim! According to whom? Supported by what evidence?

the IPCC has issued four assessments — the most recent this year — taking the current temperature of climate change. Reading the successive reports, which grow more and more confident about the reality and the danger of climate change, is like seeing an image fall into focus.
The reports don't grow more and more confident. The Summaries for Policy Makers, which ignore parts of the report that don't say what they want the summary to say -- do. The scientists don't actually do research like you'd think. They review papers from science journals. Journals that tend not to accept papers that don't have something to do withs arguments supporting the dire threat of global warming (of anthropogenic origin, preferably). They then write up a short summary on the few pages they were assinged and that gets run down the hall to the people writing the Summary for Policy Makers -- who then send those summaries back for revision if the scientist's summaries are not "consistent" with the summary that the upper-level summary writers are writing. These are produced by, and reviewed by, and influenced by ... governments and NGOs before the Summary For Policy Makers comes out. Then everybody's names get put on the report as a "supporting scientist" regardless of what they actually had to say about it. And then this last time, the Summary for Policy Makers came out months before the actual report came out.
Drawing on the work of so many scientists, which must then be approved by national representatives, the IPCC tends to the conservative — so its dire conclusions are all the more authoritative and chilling. It's that "approval by national representatives" that you have too much faith in. Those "national representatives" have an agenda, and that's to be relevant and important.
And what makes you think it tends toward the conservative seeing as how they keep having to revise their numbers downward with each iteration as the dire predictions fail to come to pass?

But global warming is global, and the very existence of an impartial IPCC,
Bwaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! "impartial IPPC". Indeed. People whose jobs and/or status would vanish if they discounted the very problem they've been appointed to worry over don't tend to be impartial. It is a self-justifying political organization, created by politicians -- that happens to hire scientists.

the message has sunk in for even the most recalcitrant listeners — witness President George W. Bush's White House summit on climate change last month. That success is a triumph for the rational scientific thinking that motivates both Gore and the IPCC. It's the idea that if we simply marshal enough facts, enough data, enough PowerPoint slides, and present them to the world, the will to solve the problem will follow as simple as 2+2=4.
Yes, Power Point slides will save the world. That's been the problem. They've marshalled enough (selective) facts and enough (selective) data that they can put them in nifty powerpoint slides and tell us how to interpret them. Which would be the way they would like them interpreted. Anyone who dares attempt an alternate interpretation or to insert additional data and context into the argument is a "denier".

That spirit was sufficient to diagnose climate change, but it won't be enough to solve it — and here's where Gore has fallen short in the past. The Jeremiah of global warming proved strangely restrained on the issue during the eight years he spent as Vice President of the U.S. — eight critical years when the groundwork for preventing climate change could have been laid.
That's because it would have been political suicide. Actually doing the things they say it would take to solve the problem would impact everyone's lives in dramatic and unpleasant ways that go far beyond carrying a canvas shopping bag or driving a Prius. It would've sent energy prices through the roof and taking everything which relies on energy ... which is just about everything ... along with it. Poor people would not be able to afford to heat their homes. Middle class people could afford to do little else if they could still afford to get to work. And do you think Bigfoot Al would be expected to give up his palace and his SUV convoy to live in a 1600 square foot house and drive a Prius? See it's only important if he can tell everyone else what to do, not to do it himself and take the blame for the consequences.

The scientists represented by the IPCC have spoken — what we need now are passionate, even partisan political soldiers to lead the way and push the final tipping point from awareness to action.

I can think of a pretty good general.
A pompus, self-serving, self-aggrandizing ass? This guy's going to be real disappointed when Santa Claus doesn't come this year.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

No We Don't

Need a new constitution.

When people start calling for a new constitution, look out. Remember the words of Abraham Lincoln:
Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
The odd thing is, half of this guy's article argues that we get back to the original constitution, and the rest of it just gets rid of some bits that he apparently finds inconvenient. One of which is how the senate represents the states.

* Creating a more representative Senate. Stunningly, just 17% of the current American population elects a majority of the U.S. Senate. This is because even though California has about 70 times the population of Wyoming, both states get two U.S. senators. The larger states may have 83% of the nation's people, but they get nothing without the approval of the lightly populated states. In the beginning of the republic, the population differential between the large and small states -- and thus the unfairness -- was far less.

But today, the structure of the upper chamber of Congress is completely outmoded. Let's build a fairer Senate by granting the 10 states with the greatest population two additional senators each, and the next 15 most populated states one additional senator each.

Dude, that is by design!!!! Look up "tyranny of the majority" and try to understand it. The House of Representatives works on the model you propose. The Senate was designed as a separate body to balance against this problem. Why don't you just propose we abolish the Senate? Pretty much the same effect. The Senate and the House are two checks and balances in our democratic republic and they are there precisely check each other. The House is basically our version of the House of Commons. It makes sure the people get represented. The Senate is basically the House of Lords. It makes sure the states get represented. This makes sure "big" states can't push "little" states around.

Too bad you only need a journalism degree to be authorized to instruct people on what to believe.

Do they not teach this stuff anymore? I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

The country was designed as a federation of states. Many parties over the years have chipped away at the autonomy of the states to further their agendas through the Federal Government, and they forget that this is not really, completely a democracy, and was never supposed to be. We use democracy as a tool, but we have to play by certain rules to be fair to everyone. Those rules are in the Constitution and are heavily discussed in the federal papers.

These people can't get what they want Constitutionally (yet). They've tried and been successful in the last 30 years with the Supreme Court to bypass the constitution by getting legislation from the bench, but now we have two new and more constructionalist judges.

So they want to change the Constitution instead of amending it.

Great. At that point, America isn't America anymore.

You say you want a revolution?

Be careful what you ask for. Ask the Russians.

The Armenian Genocide Thing

I don't know much about it, but apparently about 90 years ago there was a horrible slaughter of Armenians by Turks. The Turks are a bit sensitive about it... which means they're not proud of it. They themselves will call it things like "slaughter".

Well apparently there's been one of those oh-so-meaningful Congressional resolutions to condenm this 90 year old act as genocide, and it's been put on the shelf by the previous Republican majorities -- because it was 90 years ago and the Turks are helping us now. And like I said, it doesn't seem to me as if they're proud of that episode in their history.

The self-righteous just love to condemn. Anything they feel they can safely condemn and not be criticized for.

Kathleen Parker had a good article today on the subject of Obama's lapel pin, and I agree with her completely. But she went further, and I think this paragraph applies here:

Competitive caring is the new national sport in which the victor is judged not by acts of charity, but by the number of bracelets stacked on his wrists. We wear stickers after we vote or give blood -- and plaster yellow ribbons on our SUVs -- lest anyone doubt we support our troops.

By making symbols fashionable, we've ratified boasting as an act of redemption and elevated empathy to an existential conceit. I care, therefore I am. I care more than you do, therefore I am more than you are.

Or, say, who passed what non-binding resolution condenmning or praising what. Now when its our buisiness, like say a resolution on supporting our guys at war -- then it's our business. It's still a little petty but it does make people say where they stand.

But when it's something another country, a current important ally in the Iraq war and the War on Islamism in general.... what's going on here?

I'm just speculating here, but the Dems just failed miserably in ending the Iraq war via Congress -- due to a majority of Americans not supporting us pulling out prematurely. It was politically infeasable to get that agenda -- the defunding agenda, the timeline agenda, the condemn the war agenda -- passed. And so it did not, and they're smarting about it.

Now when France officially condemned the 90 year old genocide a couple of years ago, Turkey kicked them out. No soup for you!

Turkey's not (so far) involved in anything like that right now, as a matter of fact they're being quite helpful in letting us get supplies in to Iraq. If they say "no", things get a lot tougher for us strategically.

Which ... I'm suspcecting the Democrats would like to see.

(And they can blame the Turks ... and Bush. But they'll always blame Bush for every slight rash they get.)

Being "In Touch"

An editorial in the Philadelphia Enquirer tries to pontificate on embryonic stem cell research using the "advancment of science", "cures for terrible disease", and the "who is in touch" arguments.

The article, to its credit does bring up some of the dilemnas and couches it in languge that suggests an attempt to be fair.

But it's clear where the author's sensibilities lie in spite of the obfuscation.

Apparently, it's about what's hipper.

Meantime, the Nobel committee of the Karolinska Institute of Solna, Sweden, sees the discovery and manipulation of stem cells as a great moment in science history. Evans was one of those who made it possible. But if the U.S. government awarded the Nobels, would he have received one? Or would talk-show hosts and grandstanding pols denounce him, the science he did, and the men and women who followed in his footsteps?

Perhaps the Karolinska folks are trying to tell the United States something - they've been suspected of it. Talk-show hosts like to call the Nobel bunch "out of touch" - but who is really out of touch? If it's those pinko Europeans, then we should feel proud. Ditto if it's those dotty scientists, going where only God should go.

But if we in America are the ones out of touch, and deserving human beings needlessly suffer for it later, maybe this country's "principled stance" against federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research will seem a lot less than noble.
See, it's about being in touch, not about what's right or wrong. And note the careful sidestepping of the source of the stem cells being discussed. Proponents would like to lump all stem cell research into a single category. It's only embryonic ones that most objectors have a moral problem with. They want you to think objectors object to all stem cell research because they're just backward and "out of touch". And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that says the Federal Government has a duty to fund science of any kind.

I suppose if enough people decided that Mexicans should be slaves, then those who don't buy it would be "out of touch" so it would be ok to enslave them and we should just stop arguing about it?

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Things I Know #15

15. If you don't want people to think you're an ass, it is a heck of a lot easier to just not be one than it is to constantly hide the fact that you are.

Latest addition to "Things I Know". It's not new. I've known it for a long time. But it's new to the list.

Gonna Get on the Microphone Down at WalMart

"... and talk about some sh*t that's been on my mind
talk about the state of this great nation of ours
people look to your left, yeah look to your right"

- Ben Folds, "All U Can Eat"

I had a thought in the Wal-Mart parking lot. I'm always thinking about things, so this really isn't a big surprise, except that big revelations don't come to me every day, by any means. It started forming in my subconsiousness when I read a post on Bob Parks' blog (Black and Right) where he brough up Vincente Fox's quote when talking to the AP on his recent book tour (promoting El Presidente's new book). It bubbled up to the surface and popped into my consciousness when I parked the car, releasing itself as a fully matured thought.

What occurred to me that the whole bigotry thing has turned inside out on itself. It used to be about one thing. Now it is about its opposite.

I got to thinking ... why is it wrong to be prejudiced against certain groups of people? (which is basically what bigotry is). And of course there is a perfectly good answer to that question.

We all know there's an answer, and we even have a pretty good idea what it is. But I like to boil problems down to their simplest roots, getting rid of the clutter and then go exploring back upwards from there. It keeps you focused on the problem.

The answer (and this is my big revelation) that it robs the individual of his soveriegnty -- if, for the sake of argument, purple polka-dotted people (PPP) have a reputation for behavior "A", and a single PPP rejects behavior "A", he should not be punished for behavior "A". Bigotry takes this self-determining choice away from him. It is about individual freedom.

However, today's professional "sanctioned" anti-bigotry advocates are all about collectivism, not individualism. With straight faces they do everything they can to make sure that orange stripped people (OSP) are collectively punished for bigotry against PPP. They are about winning advantages for the group, not about freedom and justice for the individual.

"Racism" has come to mean "non-collectivist thought" (from the point of view of the "victimized" group.) No wonder today's socialists embrace it as a tool to further the ends of collectivism.

As a matter of fact, it is so bad that if a PPP rejects behavior "A" and especially if he embraces behavior "B", which is more associated with OSP, that soveriegn individual PPP is ostricized an thrown into the OSP group as a part of the group to be punished.

Happy Columbus Day

Ok, it's belated. But you've gotta read this:

Happy Columbus Day - Jules Crittenden
And there's more. Up for "Quote of the Day" (ok, he wins hands down, I think), is Ed Morrissey over at Captains Quarters:
Enjoy Columbus Day. It apparently annoys all the right people.

And Sister Toldjah has a bit to say about it as well.

All together now:

Columbus sailed the ocean blue
in Fourteen Hundred and Ninety Two...

Friday, October 05, 2007

One in Five

Saw a report on yet another survey this morning. This one asked the question "do you think America would be better off if we lost the war in Iraq?"

The answer....

1 in 5 said "yes".

That's 20%. Awfully close to 21%.

And you thought I was being silly?

Update: Well, apparently I spoke too soon. It's one in five democrats. One in twenty republicans, by the way. Here's the story.

Thursday, October 04, 2007

Stewart Dimmock Day

Ok, I'm in, thanks to OregonGuy.

British truck driver Stewart Dimmock saw "An Inconvenient Truth" and recognized it as propaganda. When he saw the British Government was distributing it to 3,500 schools, he realized something was rotten, and this time it wasn't in Denmark.

He's taken it to court.

And he's not alone.

Of course, the freaks on the left smell Corporate-Corporate-Halliburton, the religious chant response to anything that dares defy their beliefs.

What was that quote of the day yesterday?

"... They are simply shocked and appalled that anyone would dream of challenging what they believe to be the consensus of "qualified experts"

- David Warren

Well Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!

Headline to a story linked by RealClearPolitics:
NRA May Be Right About the Second Amendment

No sh*t?????!!!! You don't say!

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Quote of the Day

In an article entitled "Hitting a Nerve with 'Evolutionists'" speaking of, I assume, "science" and other correspondents in the press:

... most of these correspondents know precious little science, and haven't the stamina to engage in detailed argument. They are simply shocked and appalled that anyone would dream of challenging what they believe to be the consensus of "qualified experts"

- David Warren

I think he's spot on, there.

And I agree with him that panspermianism simply punts the question and never sounded too likely to me, either, due mainly to the temperatures involved.

I like David. I agree with him a lot of the time. Maybe even most of the time. He does get carried away a bit in this article, though, by saying things like:

We can now roughly date the origin of our universe, and 15 billion years more-or-less is proving much too short a time for random processes to produce a non-random result. Verily, 15 billion times 15 billion years is still not nearly enough time.
I'm going to have to pull the reins in here... 15 billion years is a very, very long time, and the whole bit about the amount of time it takes a random process to produce a non-random result really doesn't make any sense at all. It doesn't take a certain amount of time (for a number of iterations, I presume) for a random process to produce any of the results it produces. Otherwise, it wouldn't be random. Each result of a random process is a result, and the term "non-random" really makes no sense at all when speaking of an individual result of a random process. Unlikely, yes. Non-random? No.

I'd venture to say that 4.3 billion years is an unfathomably long time as well, and have no trouble buying the idea that life on earth may have started by random chemical reactions. Or it may not have. I can't imagine how it would have happened, but I can imagine that it could have happened. The problem here is that when you start going down paths like this (stating it wasn't long enough when we have no idea what long enough might be and it has been an incredibly long time), you're guilty of the same short-cutting of logic the "there ain't no God" correspondents make when they speculate about science.

So maybe it is true that there are multiple universes. What does that prove? Nothing at all, as far as God is concerned. All of this merely punts the question of God to another level.

I was watching "The Universe" the other night and was reminded that Gallileo himself was a devout Catholic, and learned that the big bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest (Georges Lemaître). Indeed some Catholic scholars acutally thought that it proved God does, in fact, exist -- that there was an "in the beginning".

And so if you go back in the big bang theory to the point of the bang itself, you are left with the question of what caused the bang, or what it even was that banged in the first place (if the word "place" even makes sense in that context). Proposing other universes likewise punts the question of origin to another universe. That road will never end. But you might find some interesting things along the way.

a footnote on how many "iterations of randomness" it would take to produce what we have here on this one planet... a simple question. How many Big Bangs have there been? If eternity goes forever into the future, there's no reason to believe it doesn't go forever into the past.

Peaceniks only care about Oil

James Lewis on American Thinker notes in "Where Have All the Peaceniks Gone"

As far as I can tell, Burma's fascist massacres of peaceful Buddhist monks has not yet led to a peep from our self-proclaimed peaceniks. Where are they?
Well, as noted again and again by the progressive left, see, when America choses to fight it's all about oil. The logic goes: if there weren't oil there, we wouldn't be fighting, ergo it's all about the oil.

[sarcasm on]
Well... I guess if there's no oil or gas there's no human shields. Peaceniks only care about oil, apparently. ;-)
[sarcasm off]

Now ironically, I read some comment from a lefty in the past week or so that Burma did actually have something to do with oil and that was the only reason Bush expressed concern over the situation there.
This smells like another color coded "democratic" revolution, along the lines of the Ukraine etc. When Bush talks about having concerns about the "humanitarian" situation in Burma, then look for the oil and gas :
Makes you wonder if these people ever had any marbles to lose.

Rush to Judgement

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.

He's got his place in the world and he fights for things I fight for -- but I've never had much use for talk radio... just as I don't have much use for your Hannity & Colmes, Chris Matthews, etc...

But here I am reading in the news that Rush owes our troops an apology for slandering them by calling them phony soldiers. And I don't live in a cave, I know who he is and a bit about him.

Woah, there, Nellie.

Show of hands from people who actually believe that is even remotely in line with what Rush is about -- that it would even cross the man's mind to do such a thing.

21%? That's what I thought.

In their latest performance of the Holy Rite of Moral Equivalence, it seems like the progressives are trying to equate a "slander" that wasn't even a slander to the MoveOn.Org "Betray Us" ad.

Of course, Rush was talking about Jesse MacBeth et al. There have been a few people who have claimed horrible things about our troops claiming to have the authority of being a soldier and deployed there themselves, eyewitnesses -- who turned out to be lying about whether they were there or, in the case of MacBeth, theat they were even soldiers.

It's a bit of a stretch -- it's a monumental stretch well past the breaking point, to say that Rush was calling our soldiers "phony". He was calling phony soldiers phony. The ones who lie about where they've been, what they've done, and what they've seen to score political points for the anti-war crowd.

Progressives are instructing us to believe that he meant things he didn't mean. Rush told us what he meant, and it's completely in line with what he said... no pretzel logic required.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

They don't go together

Driving by a gas station today I happened to notice cigarette ads on top of the gas pumps.

Is that really a good idea?

Think about it. ;-)

Just sayin', 'sall.

Stupid Bumperstickers

If Evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.

Oooo-kay. A supposedly clever play on "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Only it's only superficially clever. Which means it's clever only to the superficial :-)

The "if guns are outlawed" bumpersticker is literally true. It has the added benefit of leading you to ponder what the ramifications of such a world would be. But the Evolution one is nonsense.

Mind you, I'm not saying I don't believe Darwin in general. I actually do. That's not the point here.

I believe that there's a chance I'm wrong about Darwin. Small, but positive and finite.

First of all, nobody has ever proposed we "outlaw Evolution". Many have argued we should outlaw teaching it as fact. And they have a point. A subset of those believe that if you're going to teach it as a theory, creationism should be taught as an alternative theory. After all, it's a pretty popular one, and you can't prove it's not true at some level. At the very least, this group of people don't think the teaching of creationism, or even the mention of it, should be outlawed. Which is what their philosophical opponents believe.

If Creationism is outlawed, then only outlaws will be created.

See, I can be "clever", too.

The Entitlement Game

George Will has an excellent writeup on the battle over SCHIP, what it's about, and the big picture.

Monday, October 01, 2007

Cox & Forkum Hang it Up

The first Cox & Forkum cartoon I remember seeing was the classic Uncle Sam rising from the Twin Towers, fist clenched and looking determined. It was powerful and pretty much expressed my sentiments and those of many, many others. Eventually, I found the website through someone's link. It has been on my sidebar since the beginning of my own blog.

Update: Well this is kind of embarassing... the cartoon I remember wasn't Cox & Forkum at all. It was John Kurtz. But it doesn't change any of the rest of the post. It would fit well with John & Allen's work. The sentiment of that cartoon echoed well in John's illustration on the cover of Black & White World II. (right)

Many were the times when my blog reading started out with Cox & Forkum. Not only was I guaranteed a quality and timely cartoon dealing with an issue in a manner that typically reflected my own, but the commentary was a fantastic launch-pad to other stories and other sites. The links have lead me to some political commentators I may never have read, and provided background to Forkum's typically well-worded, well-thought-out, and well researched commentary.

It has been an indispensible site in the past few years of the culture war, and I feel almost like I'm losing a favorite neighborhood friend who is moving away.

Life does go on, though, and it changes for us all. I sympathize with John's need to focus somewhere else. Change is good and necessary for growth and sanity. He is absolutely right when he says that focusing on this stuff every day can be draining and utlimately unhealthy. I've had to step away from the keyboard on my meager blog several times in the past myself to clear my head and remember what life is really for to begin with -- and get back to it.

We will miss them greatly, but take comfort in the massive and quality contribution they have made and left behind, and for its role in rallying us together, united in keeping America ... well... America.

Political Positions

Call this my "mini-manifesto". It's a "what issues are important to me" and "where do I stand on them" post.

Presidential Candidates, are you listening?

  • The Islamist threat. We should relentlessly infiltrate, disrupt, chase, kill Al-Queda and related groups.

  • Iraq. Finish what we started. Two big criticisms of the U.S. are that we meddle where we "shouldn't" and we don't meddle where we "should". But a third and more embarassing criticism is that we start stuff and don't finish it, leaving a mess behind. AQ believes we are weak because of it. It is certainly a weakness they have been able to exploit in the past. 1) finish because we now owe it to Iraq. 2) finish to prove Al Queda wrong.

  • Personal Responsibility: We need to focus more on our expectations of the individual rather than what we should be doing collectively for the individual that fails. Our current society of victimhood rewards failure and punishes success. It's not difficult to imagine where that leads. Most of the rest of the following -- follow from this.

  • Second Amendment: What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do you not understand? I want the ability to protect myself when and where I feel I need protection. Gun control laws ultimately punish law-abiding citizens.

  • Federal Government: The Federal Government is too big, too powerful, too encompasing and it continues to grab more and more power from the states. We need to get back to the United States of America, not the United America of States. Moving away from Judicial activism in the Supreme Court is a very important step in that direction.

  • Energy Independence, exhibit A: One of the most stinging ways to deal with a desire to re-establish the Caliphate is to cut off the funding for it. This is somewhat of a pipe dream, to be sure since other countries will swoop in to buy what we don't -- but it will be at much lower prices (limiting their funds) and -- we won't literally be "over a barrel".

  • Energy Independence, exhibit B: This means drill in the Arctic, drill in the Gulf, drill all sorts of places Enviro-ligion doesn't want us to drill. It probably also means nuclear power. We should continue to research alternative energy sources, the cleaner the better.

  • Pollution & Environment: I do consider myself an envrionmentalist. It is not my religion, however. I'm more a la Patrick Moore. Clean water and clean air top my concerns. I love wild, open spaces probably more than most people do. We have the technology to do this right with minimal disturbance.

  • Immigration: We have immigration laws. Enforce them. If we don't like existing immigration laws, change them. By vote, not judicial fiat. And don't do it retroactively, especially if you've no intention of enforcing the new ones, either.

  • Health Care: Is not the business of the government.

  • Social Security: Personally, I'm not counting on it. I'd support privitization. At least then I would have some control over my "share" and politicians couldn't dip in to it to fund politically popular progams du jour to get them re-elected at my expense. One way to "fix" it would be to return the program to its orignal scope. This would require taking less money that I'll probably never see again out of my paycheck.

  • Taxes: We don't need more stinking taxes. Roughly 40% of my income goes to some form of government when all is said and done. That's enough. It should be more than plenty. Government needs to prioritize. It also needs to cut down on entitlements. See "Personal Responsibility".

  • Abortion: I'm personally against it in general (if there are serious issues involving the life or health of the mother, it should be up to the mother & her family. I realize there are complexities when there's more than one life on the line). At the very least I don't think it should be allowed through the entire 9 months of pregnancy. If we're talking about human rights and a baby can be removed from the womb and function, albiet sometimes with help -- that's a human, sorry -- inside or outside. You can pull the head out, poke a hole in it and suck its brain out, and that's apparently cool. But if you pull the whole thing out and throw it in a dumpster, you can be prosecuted for murder. If B is wrong, then A is wrong. The "Pro-Anything-Goes" folks don't want to quibble with the "birth" line. The pro-life folks don't want to quibble with the conception line. I find the latter more defensible than the former. If some compromise could be reached, at least fewer conscious babies might be killed. At any rate, the Supreme Court apparently trumped Congress on this in a piece of judicial activism. It was done wrong. It should be done right.

  • Gay "marriage": If people want to extend benefits that currently go to married couples to committed gay couples, I would not stand in the way. Do not, however, force the social agenda bit of making everyone officially call it the same thing -- down the people's throats. They can have the same rights. But don't make us call it marriage. They can even call it marriage if they like, that's their First Amendment right. But don't force people who don't believe it is marriage to call it marriage by encoding it into law. That's all I ask. I think that's what most people who are against it ultimately object to. Do that, and I expect a majority will vote for it. (Or at least not vote against it). If it's really about rights and not about social engineering, using a different word shouldn't be a problem.
  • Subsidies: In general, I am anti-subsidy.
I know, this, in the eyes of progressives, makes me a big, fat, callous meanie. I am not. There was a time when the poor and downtrodden were looked after by private charity, often religious-based, but often not. When government guarantees aid, demand for aid skyrockets. The expectations of the individual in the social contract erodes, and people tend to live up or down to their expectations. When we expect people to work, we expect people to save, and we expect people to take charge of their own lives, they win and society wins.

Yes, people fall through the cracks. But lower expectations make the cracks wider and deeper. 40% of my earnings go to government. Probably half of it, if not more, goes to programs sold to us to stop up those cracks. More and more is promised, and over the years, more and more is taken away from the productive. And over the years, the cracks remain, and people still fall through them.

Eventually, it won't be worth it for the productive to produce.

And then who are you going to tax?