Good, good. I like guns. I don't actually *own* one, and I've never fired anything heavier than a BB gun, but I like 'em. I intend to get a concealed weapons permit soon after I turn 21. That should give me plenty of time to research my options as weapons go.
It was also good to see the Assault Weapons Ban (aka the ban on scary rifles) go away.
And it's good to see people at the top of the government who take an "absolutist" position on the 2nd ammendment. I don't know a lot about Dr. Rice, but the more I've learned, the more I like about her positions.
Seriously, the British have the most absurd government I've ever heard of. Of course, we've got a few of our own. For example, did you know that in Charleston, the fire department is legally allowed to blow up your house? Or that it's illegal to dance in public in Lancaster? Or that in my own hometown, Spartanburg, it's illegal to eat watermelons in the Magnolia Street cemetary?
Of course, the same source as the above, DumbLaws.com, informs me that the British government requires that you allow someone who knocks at the door to come in and use your bathroom and that companies are allowed to vote in London elections. Oh, and that, it's legal to shoot Scotsmen with a bow and arrow in York, except on Sundays.
Maybe the problem is just government in general....
BTW I have yet to get an answer from any of my "we need a law" anti-abortion friends on why a black market in abortion services and abortion drugs would be a good thing.All I hear is "if there was a law there would be no abortion". Sure. Well I suppose it is nice to have faith.
So what have the cultural conservatives learned from alcohol prohibition? From drug prohibition?
I'd say aproximately nothing.
I actully had a commenter on the subject say that abortion was different. OK. So what happens to policing and criminal justice when 300,000 miscarriages a year are each turned into a murder investigations? Aren't 30 or 40 thousand murder investigations enough?
What will reality look like (as opposed to utopia) if you get your wish?
I call this whole exercise Republican socialism.
So, to boil it down, since people will kill their babies anyway, why not let doctors lend a hand?
Look, I have no doubt that if Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion is made illegal that there will be a black-market in abortion services. I have no doubt that, if we choose to prosecute abortions as murder, it will be expensive.
It doesn't matter.
Murder investigations are expensive; should we repeal the laws against murder? Rape investigations are expensive; should we make rape legal?
As far as the comparison with alcohol/drug prohibition goes: The way the libertarian philosophy of government works is that you are free to do whatever you want, to make any stupid decision, so long as you don't hurt anybody else. If you classify unborn babies as people, which I think you have to, then abortion, which harms the baby, should be illegal.
The common justifications for abortion are as follows:
1. The mother is in a situation where she cannot care for the baby, such as being too poor or too young.
Response: Give the baby up for adoption.
2. The mother is the victim of rape.
Response: So? How does that justify murder? Again, give the baby up for adoption if you don't want it.
3. The baby has a birth defect
Response: When you see a blind person or a crippled person on the street, do you shoot them to prevent them from living a life of misery? Why should you treat a baby any differently?
4. Giving birth to the baby will endanger the life of the mother
Response: This one I can understand. This, to me, can be justified the same way as killing someone in self-defense. Defense of oneself or another from death is the only acceptable justification for killing another human being that I can think of, and even then it's a terrible thought.
(Side note: This seems to be the logical basis for capital punishment as well. Capital punishment is a method of societal self-defense, preventing a known killer from ever committing his crime again. It's also a good justification for defensive war, and even pre-emptive war. If you know someone has the desire to kill you and is reaching for his gun, you don't need to wait until he fires a shot at you to defend yourself.)
Were there any other justifications for abortion that I missed?
Red Flag: The Barna Group might be just a little biased.
Back to the story:
On the other hand, Common Sense and Wonder quotes a Washington Post piece by Charles Krauthammer that says:
Look at the choices:
• Education, 4 percent.
• Taxes, 5 percent.
• Health Care, 8 percent.
• Iraq, 15 percent.
• Terrorism, 19 percent.
• Economy and Jobs, 20 percent.
• Moral Values, 22 percent.
"Moral values" encompass abortion, gay marriage, Hollywood's influence, the general coarsening of the culture and, for some, the morality of preemptive war. The way to logically pit this class of issues against the others would be to pit it against other classes: "war issues" or "foreign policy issues" (Iraq plus terrorism) and "economic issues" (jobs, taxes, health care, etc).
If you pit group against group, the moral values class comes in dead last: war issues at 34 percent, economic issues variously described at 33 percent and moral values at 22 percent -- i.e., they are at least a third less salient than the others.
The Value Voters phenomenon is a myth.
...
Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.
(Via InstaPundit)
Some of my fellow classmates seem to think that this hatred is caused by Bush's Christianity, on the basis of John 15:19-20 (which states "I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you....If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you"). However, I think this view is incomplete.
To be sure, one aspect of the Bush hatred is religious in nature. According to my teacher, Bush has publicly stated that he seeks guidance from God about policy issues. This no doubt annoys the athiest; to him, this is the equivalent of the President calling the Psychic Hotline for guidance. The athiest begins to question whether Bush is incompetent, at best, or mentally ill, at worst. He wonders why others don't see it this way, and it makes him angry.
Another source of hatred is the perceived loss of rights under Bush--some of which come from the President's religious views. Between the Patriot Act, the "ban" on embryonic stem cell research, and the Federal Marriage Ammendment, Bush sometimes comes off looking like a force against freedom here at home. Taking away peoples rights, or even just looking like you're taking away people's rights, makes the people angry.
The other thing to bear in mind is that after 9/11 there was a vast outpouring of emotional energy, and I think there's still a lot of unresolved emotions left over from that event. People have all this rage and anger bubbling just below the surface that they can't deal with, so they just put it on the guy in charge--Bush. Which is easy because they believe he's either incompetent or mentally ill and therefore probably screwing up the war at a great cost in money and in human lives.
That's my guess. Any other thoughts?
I will tell you why.
It's because of this:
Tell me, can you even look at a picture of Gore without thinking about the Florida election fiasco? Kerry doesn't want to tarnish his name the way Gore did.
Kerry did something commendable by not dragging the country through weeks of recounts and lawsuits. Good game, see you next election.
It took about an hour and a half to get through the line. Huge turnout. I like the touchscreen ballots. Very nice.
I don't plan to watch the post-election coverage tonight, as A) when you have only 8% of the precincts reporting, then you don't have any valuable information yet and B) I've got stats homework and a Doctrines test. Which is why this is such a terse post.
This is to make Republicans look like irrational followers of a cultic mastermind a la Jim Jones/David Koresh. While I do think there is a tendency, especially on the part of Christian fundamentalists, to overtrust the President because of his faith, that trust is not to the Kool-Aid-sipping degree that Drum's commenters seem to think Republicans operate on.
Furthermore, it doesn't fit with my observation of Republicans in general. The conservative talk-radio hosts have been sharply critical of the President, especially on the Medicare prescription drug program and campaign finance reform. Of course, you don't see a lot of criticism right now because we have an election coming up in the next couple of days.
Hitchen's offers as proof of his theory this quote from Slate:
I know the Bush-Cheney campaign occasionally requires the people who attend its events to sign loyalty oaths, but this was the first time I have ever seen an audience actually stand and utter one. Maybe they've replaced the written oath with a verbal one.
Pruitt's implication, of course, is that if you vote for Kerry, then you don't care about freedom, liberty, your family, or your country, which is total nonsense. It's just the stupid partisan politics that I expect from both sides of the aisle until November 2nd.
But as far as loyalty oaths go... sure, why not? If you believe that the Bush/Cheney ticket is the better choice, why be afraid to say so?
Do you care?
I don't.
"But they disappeared under Bush's watch!"
Debateable and obviously a partisan attack. Even Kevin Drum says that it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things.
"But it's 38 truckloads of powerful explosives!"
And? Like terrorists don't have ways of getting/making explosives? What's 380 tons, compared with the 600,000+ tons Saddam had before we invaded? Or compared with whatever stockpiles the House of Saud and the leadership of Iran, Syria, and North Korea have?
"They represent a combat liability to our troops in Iraq."
See above.
What really bothers me about this story is the way the media has jumped on this, and really every other negative story about the Iraq war. I don't pay much attention to the Iraq news, mainly because I believe that the people on the ground are A) trained in the ways of warfare and B) better informed than I am and therefore C) better qualified to assess the combat situation and formulate strategy than I am. I have nothing meaningful to contribute to that discussion, and I believe that our boys are the best in the world.
Now, let's consider what the media is reporting on Iraq: There are battles being fought. Roadside bombs and car bombs go off on nearly a daily basis. Occasionally someone's kidnapped under the threat of beheading.
So there's a war going on. I don't need to read my paper every morning to tell me that people who hate us are shooting at us in Iraq.
I get tired of hearing the stories that imply that our troop commanders in Iraq are so incompetent that they can't keep an eye on every gram of explosives that may or may not have been in Iraq. I'm sick of the expectation that no American will die in the war.
Is there a reason that we can't stop second-guessing our troops? Delegate the fighting to them and remember that no plan survives contact with the enemy.
That's Charlie Brooker, c/o The Guardian, 3-7 Ray Street, London EC1R 3DR, United Kingdom, Tel: 020-7278 2332. Or you could email at politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk.
(Via Baldilocks)
I love the expression of the girl on the left.
I'm almost hoping Kerry wins just for the entertainment value. These are fun!
(Via Baldilocks)
"If we do not know who the mother is, who the father is, without knowing all the brothers and sisters, incest becomes inevitable," Keyes told the Marquette Park rally held to oppose same-sex marriages.
"Whether they mean it or not, that is what will happen. If you are masked from your knowing your biological parents, you are in danger of encountering brothers and sisters you have no knowledge of."
I think that he's saying that because the child is adopted and doesn't know who his biological parents are, he might have sisters that he doesn't know about and might fall in love with one of them.
Never mind of course that this could happen to any child who's adopted and doesn't know the identity of his birth parents.
Keyes is starting to rival George W. Bush in his propensity to keep his foot in his mouth.
(Via Dean's World)
It's nice to see that we're rationally and fairly comparing the two parties. I'm glad the debate hasn't degraded into personal attacks, broad generalizations, and unfavorable comparisons to the mentally disabled.
(Via Michelle Malkin)
You can expect homeschooling to be eliminated if Kerry wins. You can expect the Bible to be declared a hate book if Kerry wins. You can expect the mandatory application of Ritalin to any child with spunk if Kerry wins. You can expect the complete and total elimination of border with Mexico if Kerry wins.
You can expect a rampant increase in partial-birth abortion and the sale of baby body parts if Kerry wins. You can expect an increase, not a decrease, in violence and pornography coming out of Hollywood if Kerry wins.
You can expect a completely socialized medical and dental world if Kerry wins. You can expect totally out-of-control lawyers -- the total loss of control of lawyers if Kerry wins. You can expect talk radio to come to an end because of a so-called Fairness Act that will be passed if Kerry wins.
You might see the end of the Electoral College to ensure that never again will the Democrats be threatened. You might see a movement to seize all guns if Kerry wins. And ultimately you might see the Constitution itself rewritten if Kerry wins.
IDIOT.
There's a verse that mentions people like him: "by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of."
(Source: Yahoo News)
He hasn't exactly had a good track record with football, has he?
You know, a part of winning a presidency is maintaining a good image, which is why Kerry is going to have trouble come November if these PR snafus keep coming.
On the other hand, if Kerry wins, just think about having four years of fun material to work with!
Last night, I was watching a video during the debates. I stopped it at some point... 9:30-ish, I guess, because my brother had come in to ask my dad to fix his little electronic MegaMan toy. The candidates were talking about Iraq. Restart the tape. After we finish, we stop the tape, and the debate is wrapping up. Still talking about Iraq.
And they were arguing about the same stinkin' things they've been arguing about for the whole campaign! I can't imagine how anyone who pays attention to politics would find this the least bit interesting.
And so, in the absence of anything new that the candidates would say, the press focuses on style. Bush's facial expressions, Kerry's Orange-Glo spray-on tan, whatever. Grrrrr.
Someone asked my Statistics teacher, Dr. Guthrie, what he thought of the debate. He said he played with his grandchildren, and had chosen that better part.
Anyways, my RSS reader's skip feature is going to get a lot of exercise today.
This is what immigration should look like. (Most) right-winger's aren't against immigration, contrary to how it may look; they're all for immigration, as long as it's legally done and the immigrants come planning to assimilate into American culture.
Go read the post; it's well worth your time.
Naturally, of course, Drum and I disagree with how to deal with the situation. He suggests dividing the states up into congressional districts by straight geographical lines rather than by counties. I like several of his commenter's ideas. One of my favorites: let a computer randomly assign everybody in a state a "virtual district." So, in my state, I could be assigned any one of the eight districts; my dad and my mom might be assigned another district. So long as it's done on a completely random basis, it should make the districts each be representative samples of the state.
Other ideas: setting up a non-partisan committee for each state to determine the districts (to keep the politicans hands off) and/or adding more house representatives. The disadvantage to the computer solution above is that you lose whatever small measure of local voice in national politics you had. To quote a commenter:
No one person can accurately represent the local concerns of 600,000 people, and the constitution doesn't limit us to only 435 house members. In the words of another commenter:
If I did my arithmetic correctly, that would mean each representative would represent 27,000 people, which is a lot easier to do than representing 600,000. If the districts are divided up on a local basis and not a random basis, it would also make it easier to campaign. And, of course, since there's more competition between candidates, it's harder to gerrymander your way into getting more votes.
And, of course, with nearly 10,000 house politicans, the political process should slow way down, which can only be good for our wallets.
The thing that interests me is that this story doesn't interest me. Maybe I've just become jaded and cynical to the media and to political dirty tricks, but this just seems like more of the same, except that this time a felony may have been committed instead of just spin. What does interest me is that CBS's (or, more accurately, television news media's) reputation is bad enough that a good number of people believed the documents were a forgeries as soon as the possibility was brought up. The mainstream media is so poorly thought of that it's achieved a status of total distrust (at least for a lot of conservatives/libertarians).
How did the media achieve this status? Probably by claiming they were totally unbiased. It's just like trying to be a referee at a little league game: Neither side is going to believe you are impartial, whether you genuinely are or not. Both the liberals and the conservatives accuse the media of being biased against them, and they can't both be correct.
In fact, it's debatable whether or not a truly unbiased news source can exist. The journalist faces the dilemma of what to put into a two-minute story or a quarter-page article. There's only so much data he can fit into that space, so he's forced to pick and choose which quotes to use, which camera angle to take, etc. These decisions will inevitably be influenced by his political bias and what's most important to him, so to say that his story will be unbiased is inaccurate.
That's why I'd like to see newspapers, TV news stations, etc. admit whichever bias they have. I'd like Fox News to quit saying it's "Fair and Balanced" and call itself conservative, and I want CNN to admit to a liberal bias. The system works well enough for the blogosphere, after all.
But since that's not likely to happen any time soon, perhaps someone with the time, interest, and resources could set up a website detailing the biases held by each of the major news outlets, along with evidence for that claim. The blogosphere does have some features focused on certain issues--Instapundit routinely links to a weekly roundup of anti-gun bias in the media--but there's nothing like that sorted by news outlet instead of by issue.
Unless there is, and I'm not aware of it. If that's the case, please leave a comment. I'd love to see it.
But now, I'm kind of glad he didn't win. Not only has he shown himself to be a hypocrite, but now he's saying dumb things like Jesus wouldn't vote for his rival in the Illinois senate race.
::sigh::
Relgion and politics don't mix well. For any future political leaders who might be reading: Please don't quote the Bible in making political arguments. Remember that we do have a diverse religious culture, full of Christians, yes, but also of athiests, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, etc., etc.. Quoting the Bible is just as ridiculous to them as quoting the Koran would be to Christians.
And don't put words in Christ's mouth or assume that he'd endorse you. To the athiest/agnostic/et al., saying "Christ wouldn't vote for my opponent" is just as silly as saying "Santa Claus would vote for me, because I'm nice and my opponent is naughty!" or "The coal in my opponent's stocking could power New York City for a year!"
Even worse, to the Christian, Keyes' statement is borderline blasphemy. How dare he say "Vote for me! Jesus would!"? With that one statement Keyes has probably alienated just about everyone.
::shakes head:: Next!
There are 2 reasons I didn't write about the conventions. First: I have nothing to contribute. Everything l could say has been said, and better, by other bloggers, some of which are actually there. Second: I couldn't care less about the conventions. This is the first time I've been more than dimly aware of them, and I don't think I missed much.
I think the problem is mainly that I don't care about partisanship. I don't care what tribe you're in so much as what you stand for. If a Democrat called for (and supported, as shown by his record) lower taxes, reduced discretionary spending, and more liberty of all kinds (ideally starting with a repeal of McCain-Feingold), then I'd vote for him. And since both the Democrats and the Republicans hold to essentially the same beliefs on most of the issues I care about (both of them standing on the wrong side all too often), then I'm not terribly enthusiastic about watching the two candidates/parties bash each other. "He lied about being in Vietnam!"/"He lied about the War on Terrorism!"; "He wasn't in Cambodia when he said he was!"/"He didn't show up for his National Guard Service!"; "He's a flip-flopper!" (as if this is, by necessity a bad thing--if you'r'e wrong, change your mind rather than hanging onto wrong opinions!) /"No, he is!" And on, and on, and on it goes. Goodness, I hate elections.
Look, the only issue that matters to this election is national security. On that issue, Kerry falls short, based on his record, not on personal attacks about where he was or wasn't in 'Nam or on his personal courage or lack thereof during his four months on the swift boats. On the other hand, Bush has supported our military as he's called them into battle, and the military knows it and is grateful. He's conducted the War on Terrorism pretty well, although there'll always be room for improvement. Bush has proven that can handle the War on Terror.
That's why I plan to vote for Bush. However, it's about the only reason. He and I disagree on most domestic issues. (McCain-Feingold Monstrosity again, spending, even gay marriage.) Frankly, if 9/11 hadn't happened, I'd vote for the Constitution Party candidate or something. But like I said, national security is the only thing that matters this election.
I don't care about the parties slinging mud at each other or cheerleading for themselves. I'd much prefer a rational discussion of individual issues to a frenzied crowd of true believers for either side. Hopefully thoughtful debate will come back after the election.
Government is evil. It’s a necessary evil, but it’s still evil. Its job is to be big and powerful and push people around. It’s sorry thing we need it, but, hey, them’s the breaks. So, the idea is to be as careful as possible when applying it. You should be as hesitant to use the government to achieve something as you would be burning down an orphanage to achieve something. But people don’t get it, always whining to government to fix every problem instead of getting off their own duffs even though government can often make things worse. Look at this way, the government is like Godzilla: it’s most adept as smashing and breaking things, but if it tries to help an individual person, it’s more likely to crush him accidentally than anything else. So that’s why I’m ‘gainst big government.
The group, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, said that children who didn't attend a pre-kindergarten program were more likely to get behind when they started school. The same children also tended to disrupt the classroom and distract other children.
The group said those behaviors can lead to a life of crime and encouraged states to budget money for early education programs.
If your kid doesn't go to pre-kindergarten, he'll likely wind up in jail. Of course, I didn't go to pre-kindergarten. So, I guess I'm doomed to a life of crime.
Oh, there's no self-serving motive there.
As if the teenagers couldn't eat more without the government's permission.
Hentges said the government would use its nutrition agencies, such as the food stamp programs, to get out the word. The government also has hired communications consultants to make sure consumers understand the messages.
Only 5% of people follow the rules! Oh no!
I wonder how long until someone decides to take legal action against people who don't follow the national food guidelines, on the basis of fat people costing the nation health care dollars. You laugh, but they're already fining people in Pittsburgh for not recycling. It's not much of a stretch to see that mindset transferred to eating habits.
It is worn directly over the wound in question, and, after use, it is rolled up and thrown over the nearest fence.
Hee!
Ravenwood's Universe: Police steal 500-1000 guns from a man in Jamestown, New York. Why? Because he had a lot of guns, and didn't have permission to own... 8 of them.
My own home town: A friend from church was telling my dad and I about his trouble getting the home inspector to let him live in his own house. Apparently he wanted him to put up a hand-rail on the steps to the front porch. Never mind that there was already a brick wall on either side that you could steady your hand on. No, that's not sufficiently "grippable." Also: there was a door that the inspector wasn't happy with. The homeowner's solutions: Slap a piece of plywood up over the door and a discarded 2x4 onto the brick wall until the inspector leaves.
Question: Why does the state get to say that you can't live in the home you just built on your own property? Never forget the meaning of real estate: The word "real" is of Spanish origin, pronounced with two syllables, "re-al," meaning royal. It's "royal estate," owned by the government, not by you. You are at best renting the land from the government, in their eyes. And they'll take it from you if they want it. (See also: Eminent Domain)
More than just owning your land, they own you. They demand that you be educated by their standards, pay whatever portion of your income they deem fit, confine your non-approved speech to Free Speech Zones, give up your non-approved property to the police (whether guns or drugs), and hide your religious beliefs when at their schools. And so on.
And that's just during peacetime. Watch out if we ever get into a deep, entrenched war and we have to call up a draft, wherein you'll be called to (potentially) give up your life for a cause you may or may not believe in.
So, where is this "land of the free"?
(First example via: the Carnival of the Vanities, #99 )
Wow. I need to move to Michigan. Their courts get it. Let me state this dogmatically: Eminent domain is immoral, especially when it's used to take land from one private citizen to give it to another. Eminent domain is theft, pure and simple, and makes no difference if a majority of any council, court, or congress votes for it, or even if it would serve the "greater good" of society to force a landowner to sell his land. It's even worse you consider what you're taking: Not just land, but whatever they've built on the land: A hundred-year-old house, a small business, or even a bird sanctuary. There's not only economic value, but also sentimental value for these landowners.
A google news search turns up a number of battles, such as that of Western Seafood Company vs. the perhaps ironically named Freeport City Council. The city wants to build a marina on the Old Brazos River, but there's a tiny problem: The Western Seafood Company owns 330 feet of land that the city would need for that project.
“That would stop us from being able to take in shrimp from boat owners, as we have for over 50 years,” Gore said.
“We’re fighting for survival to do business.”
...
Councilman Jim Phillips said the marina would be for the public good.
“In other words, what is the best use of the property?” Phillips said. “We have determined that the best possible use would be for a marina.”
And therein lies the the debate: Who's the best person to decide what's "best" for your land? You, or the government?
I think the answer is obvious.
So, not only has the economy had to face the high-level corporate corruption (a la Enron) that came to a head in Bush's presidency, but we also suffered the 9/11 attacks. Even worse than the physical damage to the economy from that attack (to the World Trade Center) was the psychological damage: For example, people were afraid to fly, damaging the tourism and airline industries. More importantly, since we didn't have any idea of if or when we'd be attacked again, businesses were afraid to expand. And so on.
Our economic woes are not caused by incompetency at the presidential level; they're caused by two economic disasters that struck at the same time, and we're doing pretty well considering.
If he does this, it will be the most brilliant thing he's ever done. I was planning on voting for him on the basis of the Iraq war, but there are not a lot of domestic issues I agreed with him about. (See Also: free prescription drugs for old people.)
Have you ever seen our tax code? My accounting teacher brought a copy into class once. It's a huge book, thousands of pages of legalese. It needs to be scrapped and replaced. I'd prefer a flat tax on income, but a national sales tax would do OK as well.
I'm really stunned at this. Praise God if it's true.
Via (Little Green Footballs)
Etc.
I used to think Coulter was probably pretty good, but I hadn't read much of her material. One of my favorite teachers was a big fan, and Rush Limbaugh endorsed her, right? So she must be good. But after reading that column, I can say with the editors of USA Today, "Good riddance."
I've discovered a growing distaste for Rush Limbaugh too, although I once loved his show. I even got the "Rush 24/7" subscription to his website. But now... I think that discovering blogs has really changed how I look at political issues and debate. At one point Rush and Coulter appealed to me because I was more interested in the fight between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans = Good, Democrats = Evil. Now I've become much more focused on issues rather than on parties; I'm more open-minded. And the equations are different now: Democrats still = evil, but now Republicans = Evil too. (Walter Williams explains why. Short version: It's wrong to take other people's stuff.)
Limbaugh and Coulter also have a biting, insulting tone that more often than not becomes namecalling. While that can be a lot of fun, it's not going to change people's minds. That's is why my favorite talk show host is Hugh Hewitt. Obviously Hewitt prefers similar ground to Limbaugh and Coulter, but he's interested in debate and getting both sides of the issue, which is why he regularly has guests from both sides of the aisle. He's also a lot less arrogant than Limbaugh, which I appreciate.
I'm glad to hear that Jonah Goldberg is replacing Coulter in the USA Today. Reading his article from USA Today, it does call Kerry a flip-flopper--although much more colorfully--but that's definitely a reputation Kerry's earned. Calling someone a flip-flopper isn't an insult so much as an accusation of dishonestly changing positions to get votes. That's important, because that dishonesty affects his job performance as an elected leader. On the other hand, calling someone a Kool-aid drinking spawn of Satan has no merit in debate.
So, good riddance to Ann Coulter, the Right's Michael Moore, and may Jonah Goldberg do a better job than she did.
(Many of today's links were brought to you by Joe Gandelman at Dean's World.)
Clarification: My lone commenter has pointed out that my comparison of Coulter to Michael Moore is unfair, because Coulter doesn't lie every other time she speaks. And that's true. What I intended to say was that both Moore and Coulter are (or at least should be) embarrassments to their respective parties.
Via: Whomping Willow
Because heaven forbid that people in the TV talk the way people in the real world talk.
Was anyone really expecting deep insights from either convention? Both the DNC and the RNC are groups of politicians and celebrities talking up their beliefs to their true believers. It's not about insight; it's a pep rally. Democrats cheer, republicans and independents make fun of them.
♫That's what it's all about!♫
Now that example has backfired. A man in the Florida panhandle, Scott Teston, wanted to rezone his land from agriculture to business; his neighbors complained to the zoning board, and the change was rejected. So he decided to put 17 pigs in his yard, which the neighbors are, of course, complaining about. This time the county can't stop him, because he's in an agricultural zone. He's resubmitted his zoning request and has warned his neighbors that if it's rejected again, the number of pigs will go up to 500.
Good for him! The government doesn't need to be telling you what you can and can't do with your land.
My favorite point that Hugh and Tim Blair made: Moore is probably the biggest war profiteer of them all and he needs to be praying for Bush's reelection. If Kerry's elected, Moore disappears--"Quite a trick" according to Blair.
Moore's a liar, and that's been proven again and again by people paying much more attention than I do, so I won't bother going over that again. I do like hearing that a number of Polish people recognize Moore's film as propaganda--This from people who know propaganda.
Her speech is entitled "Standing Up To the 'Girls Gone Wild' Culture" and it calls for a return to modest dress and lifestyles. It's worth reading, if only for the story of Ella Gunderson, an 11-year-old girl who got Nordstrom's attention then organized a "Pure Fashion" modest clothing fashion show.
I think the pendulum is about to swing towards more modest fashions. Fashions can't keep getting more immodest forever, if only because the clothing industry would cease to exist as we'd all become nudists.
She's posted the transcript of her speech on her website; definitely worth your time.
Boileryard Clarke has a great post about the immorality of "wealth redistribution." Slam dunk.
I do think that there's a good case for requiring prescriptions for drugs, because the doctor is should be better trained on the potentially dangerous side effects of drugs than the average consumer. (My libertarian/free market side says there's probably a better way to handle this than regulation, but the systems works pretty well for the most part.) But why should medical equipment, such as a defribrillator, require a prescription?
But that's not why I originally brought up this article. I'm more interested in how this issue is presented in the AP story.
Or, they could pick up the phone, call 911, and look for the defibrillator... at the same time! Besides the 911 operator is just going to send an ambulance carrying a team of a paramedics and--a difibrillator!
What really bugs me about this story is the quote from Dr. Thomas H. Lee: "People would be better off spending the money on a health club membership."
That's just stupid and irrelevant. There are people who will always, always be at risk for heart disease no matter what sort of health they're in. The former pastor at my church is an example; he stepped down to an assistant pastor position at another church because of his heart trouble. The doctors told him he was a victim of bad genetics. He could eat right and exercise, but he'd always be at risk for a heart attack. The at-home defribrillator would do him much more good than a health club membership.
The problem with both of the above statements is that it assumes that the average consumer is too stupid to know what's best for him. Individuals are generally the best at deciding what they need for themselves--if only the FDA would figure that out.
I'll admit that I haven't read the whole article, but the fourth paragraph tells me all I need to know.
I guess I'll have to vote for Bush.
(Via The Boileryard
In general, I like it. Lot's of good information on the progress we've made as a society (reductions in poverty, pollution, increasing morality in general, etc.), especially in the first couple of chapters. After that, Easterbrook gets into why, despite all the progress we've made, that we don't feel happier. (Among the factors: "anticipation induced anxiety," or worrying about the future; the inability to buy the things that produce happiness, e.g. "love, friendship, respect, family, standing, [and] fun," which ties into what he calls the "nice-hotel-room factor:" "For an increasing number of Americans and Europeans, life is like being in a really nice hotel room, but not having a good time because no one else came along on the trip"; and several more factors which I will not summarize here. Get your own book. :-)). Then he instructs us how to become happier (here's a hint, from one of the chapter titles: "Selfish Reasons to Become a Better Person"). One of the big issues with American society, he believes, is that we (in general) have a lack of purpose. We work, and work, and work, attain a pile o' possessions, then lay our heads on our pillows and ask ourselves, "Isn't there more to life than this?"
Then he attempts to give us a purpose, by describing what he believes to be three "deep structural faults" in our society: The lack of universal health insurance, a minimum wage that is too low for someone to live off of, and the greed of those at the top (specifically, CEO's and other corporate execs). Of course, he appeals to his audience's sense of morality: "Higher wages for the struggling, in return for a clear conscience for the successful, represents an attractive bargain: both a moral necessity and in the self-interest of anyone who is not coldhearted." It was nice of him to couch his argument in language that backhandedly calls anyone who disagrees with him immoral. Leaving that aside, let's address his issues, shall we?
Issue #1: Universal health insurance: Great idea, except for one tiny detail: Who's going to pay for it? Should companies be forced to give all their employees, full and part time, from the burger flipper to the CEO, health insurance? What about the small start-up business that can barely make ends meet at the end of the month? Should they be forced to pay? Pretend that your small business faces this legislation, and that you can find health insurance for $100 a month per person, and that you have 5 employees. Can you afford a new $6,000 expense? Is that going to cost the employees their next raise?
Or will the government provide health insurance itself, in it's typically wasteful and corrupt fashion? Will we start a brand-new, incredibly expensive entitlement program to give the poor free health insurance? And will it stop at universal health care? After all, the poor need transportation too! Let's give the poor free cars while we're giving things away!
But if you can find a way to pay for universal health insurance without robbing American individuals through tax dollars and without robbing American companies through federal requirements, be my guest, it's a great idea. Otherwise, let the poor find jobs that offer health insurance. (You know, even Wendy's provides health insurance to its workers)
Issue #2: Raise the minimum wage: This really bugs me, because Easterbrook even mentions the problem with this idea, but doesn't recognize it. Allow me to quote the book for a moment: "Suppose the minimum wage went to $10 and health insurance became universal. Pizzas, sandwiches, house-cleaning, and everything at the Gap and Target would cost slightly more." This matters very little to the more affluent american, but to the poor person, that "slightly more" makes a huge difference. Essentially you run in a circle: The poorest get paid more, but it raises the prices of what the poor need to buy, so they need to be paid more. You achieve little to no real increase in income.
The other major problem with raising minimum wage is outsourcing. Business are already outsourcing a number of jobs to India and other foreign countries because American employees are too expensive. How much more then, if you doubled minimum wage? Is a $10/hour minimum wage going to be of any value if there are no jobs to put the workers in?
The minimum wage is a price floor like any other, and basic economics teaches us that a price floor will always cause a surplus--in this case, unemployment. Bad, bad idea.
Issue #3: The "greed at the top." We're dealing with this one right now, as Ken Lay, mentioned as an example in the book, is under trial for his actions.
The last main chapter describes how we as a country can help the people who are starving in foreign countries who live on a dollar a day. While noting that things are getting significantly better, Easterbrook calls the West to take it upon itself the goal of ending global poverty once and for all. This I'm all in favor of. Easterbrook says, "But as regards to resources at least, it seems possible that eventually everyone will live like Americans and Europeans, with the world containing billions of passenger cars and detached homes, huge numbers of big-box retails stores, and truly, utterly frightening numbers of fast-food restaurants." Let it be so!
He also credits the (largely unexpected) improvements in poor countries to three factors: "The actions of developing-world citizens themselves," free-market economies, and aid from the West. I cringe at the last one; I approve of aiding those countries less developed than ours, but must this aid be through the government? Let private citizens give to these countries, and let companies start businesses in them and raise them out of poverty! As Easterbrook recommends elsewhere, drop the trade barriers to our country from these poorer nations, and let the free-market really start off for them. Companies are always looking for causes to help (it's both good PR and good stewardship, especially with the tax advantages they get), let them donate food, medicine, housing, fertilizer, clean water systems, etc, etc, to countries in need. Foreign aid doesn't have to be a massive, wasteful government program.
...
All in all though, it's a pretty good book, especially the first couple of chapters, which are a breath of fresh air in the age of panic. There's still work to be done to improve both our and global society, but it's nice to know that we are making progress.
Does anyone even care about the "food pyramid" or maintaining a doubleplusgood, government approved diet? I'll eat whatever I jolly well please, thank you.
Sounds to me like they're already making individual choices.
There are two problems here. First off, it's none of the government's business what I eat. If I eat nothing but quarter pounders w/ cheese for the rest of my life, and I die of a heart attack at 35, then it's my problem. Problem two: Even if I thought that the government should dictate guidelines on what I should eat, people are overpublicizing healthy eating. Shelf after shelf of health food, dieting books, exercise equipment, constant drumming from the media about the "obesity crisis," etc, etc, etc. When a message of any kind is preached over and over and over again to a person who does not care in the first place, that person will probably rebell against that message. Case in point: Now we have Hungry Man dinners with 1 and a half pounds of food (the chicken and mashed potatoes dinner has 1010 calories) and cookbooks like Eat What You Want and Die Like A Man.
So, seriously, to the government, health food critics, and doctors who want us to eat healthy: You've made your point, now shut up. Thanks!
As a general rule of thumb, monopolies are bad for the consumer, who in the case of government is the citizen. This is because the monopoly--the government--has no profit motive, no incentive, to improve services or reduce costs. Even worse, in the case of government, you are required to purchase the service they offer, or you will be tracked down and thrown in prison, or forced to pay at gunpoint. Wilde puts it this way in the comments:
His alternative offers the economist's solution to the problem of monopoly: Competition. This would prevent many of the problems listed above. If a private defense agency, which he abbreviates PDA, tried to charge 50% of a customer's income, the customer would switch to another agency. If the PDA told the customer that his toilets could only use 1.6 gallons of water, then the customer could cancel his "subscription" and go to another provider. And so on.
Note, however, that this does not apply to territorial defense (i.e. armies), only to "law enforcement," which in the case of an anarchy would mean defense of life and property from criminals--which is all I wanted from my government in the first place.
Bonus!: Read the article for details on how this system would improve gun rights!
OK, so... what's the alternative? Israel bombs Palestinian terrorist leaders (as they have been doing), at the cost of inevitable civilian casualties, to the outrage of those who are safe from the bulk of Palestinian aggression.
Either that, or Israel rolls over, surrenders to the the terrorists and are driven out of their homes (again) or killed. OOooohhhhhhh. Now I get it.... The World Court, the "principal judicial organ of the United Nations", which is widely known as an anti-semitic organization, couldn't possibly have any conflict of interest, could they?
Personally, I think it's time that the Israelis cut themselves loose from world opinion and just unilaterally took care of their terrorism problems, just as we are doing. How much longer are the Israelis going to tolerate this, I wonder?
The thing I have to wonder about is what more we can do. The problem is that their method is simple and easy to execute. Kidnap someone--it doesn't really matter who--videotape them, threaten to behead them unless their demands are met, wait, then kill them. Anyone can do this; I mean, if I wanted to, I could pull off something like this. You don't need a huge army; you just need a couple of big guys, a big knife, and a videocamera. And the address to Al-Jazeera.
The only thing I've heard that might be effective is my dad's solution: Bomb al-Jazeera. If the terrorists have no one to publish their videos, then they'll quit making them.
All I can say right now is: Thanks be to God that I was born into this era.
Now it's off to mail a postcard to my brother (who's working in a camp across the country, which he reached by airplane) and to get my car's oil changed. What a country!
Roy Gibson, 70, said he spent an hour waiting for help to arrive as he tried to save one of the women. Paramedics were prevented from entering until Thames Valley Police had completed a one-hour assessment of any further risk to life.
...
He [a neighbor, Mr. Roy Gibson] said: "Vicky took her last breath as we tried to comfort her. There was no ambulance and no police officer with us, despite my repeated reassurances to officers that the gunman had long since fled. I think there is a very real chance that Vicky and Emma could have been saved if the paramedics had been allowed to the scene."
(My emphasis)
Ya know, I don't think this would happen on ER. There's a certain amount of risk involved with being either a police officer or a paramedic. That's why the entertainers make so many doctor/police dramas. It seems that, in attempting to avoid the risks of its profession and in preventing others from taking those risks themselves, the British police force has managed to fail in its duty and kill two of the citizens it was supposed to protect.
(Via Samizdata.net)
Of all the incurable diseases known to man, I think that Alzheimer's is the worst. What other disease invades the sanctum sanctorum of the mind and steals the memories of its host? I can only hope and pray that researchers will find the cure to the disease by the time that I've grown old enough to be susceptible. (Wait, I lied; I can also donate.)
Grace and glory to Reagan and his family, and let us hope that God sends us more presidents like him.
While I know that the "personal reasons" excuse may tend to be overused, particularly in movies, to cover up the real reasons for quitting a political office, this time I think it's his genuine reason. Think about it: What word appeared three times in the opening sentence of this entry? Failure. Day in and and day out he has to hear about intelligence failures, which is really saying that he's a failure. After months--years--of working the long hours that it takes to head any government agency, and being told at every turn what a failure he is, I think he decided it just wasn't worth it anymore. Why put so much time and effort into the job when every time something bad happens to the country, people are going to blame him? I can definitely understand why he'd rather spend time with his family.
That's not to say I don't love my country; it's the best country that I know of. I guess I should be more specific: I'm as loyal to my government as I am to Wal-Mart. What I really want is freedom from most of what the government does.
To illustrate my point, I link to a couple of blog entries from Small Town Country Girl, a blog I discovered today through this week's Carnival of the Vanities. The first post, "We're at war, but with whom?," (henceforth, SMTC) quotes John Stossel's book Give Me A Break:
That's the government I want. That's all that it needs to do. I don't see in that list social security, medicare, medicaid, a war on drugs, a war on obesity, free health care, free housing, protection of utility monopolies, protection of the envrionment, public education, space travel, building codes, anti-discrimination laws (on any basis), welfare, and so on. I wouldn't even mind these so much except that I have to pay for them with a laundry list of new taxes, from the Federal Income Tax to the Cigarette Tax to the Trailer Registration Tax, that you can find here, also on SMTC. John Stossel points out
Every dollar that goes to government is a dollar that isn't buying houses, investing in companies, or paying for any useful service. Imagine how much more prosperous we could be if we didn't have these taxes! Take, for example, gasoline tax. Here in SC, it's 35.2 cents a gallon. In New York, it's as high as 51 cents a gallon. When I'm commuting from school, I refill my car about once a week, and have to put in 14 gallons or so. This tax adds up to $4.93 per week, or $256.36 a year.
That's what I want freedom from.
I also want the freedoms promised to me in the Constitution, like freedom of speech. Laws like the McCain-Feingold Act make me sick. Laws that prevent children and teachers from exercising their freedom of religion in schools are a disgrace to the country.
All I want is what I am told by the very founding documents of my country that I am supposed to have. I want what the founding fathers thought worthy enough to fight for.
This is why I'm a proponent of free market sponsored space travel. When that technology matures, we, like our founding fathers before us, will have a place to go to get away from an oppressive government.
That's a good idea.
I've posted before about my thoughts on the gay marriage issue. In short, I think that (a) the government has no valid reason to know my marital status (b) marriage is a church rather than a state issue, so the government shouldn't be handing out marriage licenses at all.
I like Sensing's idea, in part because it clearly draws the line between the state and the church. His plan still leaves some government involvement in marriage, which I don't like, but we can take things one step at a time.
(As a side note, I wonder how the government got involved in marriage in the first place. Are there any countries in which the government is not involved in sanctioning marriage?)
While we're on the subject, one thing that is really ticking me off right now is the fact that the media is ignoring the execution of one of our civilians and is instead focusing on some naked photos from Iraq.
Before someone gets in a hissy fit, as we say in South Carolina, of course the abuse of prisoners is wrong. Of course those responsible should be found and punished appropriately. But these pictures are nothing compared to the beheading of an innocent American civilian, or even compared to what the Iraqi's were used to under Saddam Hussein.
But I suppose, that's the point: America has taken the moral high ground. We say, emphatically at times, that our system of government is more righteous than theirs. That's why we should expect more criticism over our comparatively minor offenses than the tyrannical Islamic governments in the majority of the Middle East receive for their atrocities. Because we are better, and people are always watching for the righteous to fall.
Because stem cells comes from aborted babies. The conservative position (as I understand it) is that we don't want to use the stem cells because it would be a de facto endorsement of abortion, which is better called murder. (What else can you call taking a helpless life?)
But...
I have three problems with this traditional position. First, there are other sources of stem cells, for example a mother's "cord blood." There's absolutely no reason to ban *all* research on stem cells even if you accept the proposition that you shouldn't use aborted babies as sources of stem cells.
Secondly, the babies are already dead. Obviously I believe that abortion is wrong, but if the baby is dead, why shouldn't you be allowed to use its body for something that could help people? It's like saying a person who's been murdered shouldn't be allowed to donate a heart or a liver.
Lastly, it can help people! How can it be more moral, more righteous, to throw away a dead embryo and condemn someone to memory loss and eventual death than to use the embryo to cure the person!?! What about people who have been paralyzed by Multiple Sclerosis? Should they be forced to spend the rest of their shortened lives in a wheelchair because we took the "moral high ground" and refused to let the scientists develop a treatment that would heal them?
I'm with Nancy Reagan on this one.
Let me start by saying the only legitimate Christian position is that homosexuality is wrong. How else can you interpret verses like 1Cor 6:9-10?
(6:10) thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Tell me, what else could that passage mean other than that homosexuality is immoral?
But look again: it also says the greedy and the verbally abusive will not inh
