We constantly hear that only moderate centrist Republicans can win in some places. And that is true. But what kind of moderate? What kind of centrist? I think that it has to be a moderate with strong principles. A strange beast to be sure. At least in this day and age.

The last time the Republican Party was truly centrist and wildly attractive was when it was a libertarian Party under Ronald Reagan. Socially moderate, fiscally conservative, strong on national defense. Does that mean that social conservatives were unwelcome? Of course not. It just means that moral socialism was not the political center of the party. It means that government stays out of your business and you are free to live your life as you chose.

What too many of our elite mean by centrist is socially moderate, not too fiscally conservative, and don't scare people with heavy weapons. i.e. RINO. I prefer a little absolutism.

Now moderation may be a good thing. But you have to have principles so at least you will know when you are deviating from them. So you don't go too far. RINOs have no discernible principles. And thus they can never tell when they have gone too far. The evidence of that was the drubbing the Republicans took in 2006 and 2008 when the Party stood only for a strong national defense. Everything else was negotiable.

Are the kind of Republicans I'm describing going to be popular every where? Not at this time. Social conservatives are going to dominate in some areas of the country. But what about other places like Wisconsin, California, and Illinois? In places like that social conservatives do not do well, at least State wide and in many districts. In those places it is good to have a more socially liberal candidate. But not a RINO. Because without principles you are just drifting with the wind.

I'd like to close with one of my favorite and often repeated Reagan quotes:

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Reagan

and how about another that describes the improper relation of government to the people:

"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Cross Posted at Power and Control

No, really.

If you haven't heard, someone has posted a whole bunch of correspondence between AGW "scientists." The mask has slipped, fallen, and shattered:

This is part of a letter send from Michael E. Mann to Phil Jones:

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board...
What do others think?
mike

The best part: AGWers have long rolled their eyes and claimed loony skeptics were positing some sort of conspiracy to suppress the truth... claims that are now retroactively hilarious.

You couldn't write a fictional scenario like this. It would be tossed back as not believable.

UPDATE: I just wanted to add, whoever released this deserves a Nobel Prize.

Preferably Al Gore's.

In an earlier email to M. Simon, I remarked,

If a woman has a right to an abortion, all people have a right to medicate pain.

Redefine liberty to exclusively represent rightwing talking points.

I am absolutely serious. That is exactly how noted Village Voice columnist Roy Edroso described my thoughts about legal abortion vis-a-vis illegal drugs. Writing in his blog, here's his attempt to show how I redefined liberty:

This Classical Values post attacks the government's environmental policy ("This time, it's a real war. I say it's time to get the government out of all of our emissions, for good. Emissions are a human right!"), and muses:

Sometimes I wonder whether "getting the government out of our bedrooms" (supposedly accomplished by Lawrence v. Texas) wasn't just a ruse so people could imagine they were more free.

Yeah, I know that women are free to destroy their fetuses too. Getting the government out of wombs is also marketed as another ultimate form of freedom (based on "privacy"), but what I've never been able to understand is this: if "privacy" gives the woman a right to have a scalpel inserted into her body to cut out her fetus, then why doesn't "privacy" also allow that same woman to put whatever drugs she wants into that same body?

To put it another way: why worry about control over one's own body, however constantly threatened, when the government is forcing cars to get 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016? Forbid it, almighty God!

As for the drug reference, don't worry if you find it confusing -- you haven't missed any recent change in Republican or mainstream conservative policy. The idea is to for conservatives to associate themselves with as many libertarian ideas as they can possibly get away with (reproductive rights, as we have seen, doesn't make it), and to associate liberals with their suppression.

But even though he didn't like my analogy, I guess I should be flattered that Roy Edroso thinks that my musings reflect "Republican or mainstream conservative policy."

It's news to me, and it's a shame this fact isn't more widely known.

I should point out that Roy Edroso and I go back. Waaay back, to the summer of 2003 when I had only been blogging for a few months, and Edroso hadn't moved up in the world to writing a column for the Village Voice. While I probably shouldn't voice my inner feelings like this, I'm actually like sort of really jealous over the fact that only certified ideologues -- the sort whose politics can be considered "reliable" to party boss types -- get paid to write by official mainstream organs like the Voice. Like it or not, the ideological world is still divided into left and right, liberals and conservatives, but because the world of paid journalism is overwhelmingly liberal, if you want to be a paid writer, you pretty much have to be on the left. True, there is an occasional token conservative or moderate here and there, but with a few exceptions, libertarian writers tend to starve. Besides, they're a dime a dozen thousand.

Edroso is, I think, a more loyal servant of the left than I am of the right, and this may explain his desire to characterize my libertarian views as reflecting mainstream conservative policy. If only that were the case! But I think he knows that it isn't the case, and he does not want it to be. I don't think his goal is so much to conflate libertarians with conservatives, as it is to insult both conservatives and libertarians at every opportunity, while singling out the latter for special scorn and contempt. Guys like Edroso (and his admirer James Wolcott) tend to see conservatives for what they are even though they don't like them, but libertarians are seen as inherently dishonest -- as conservatives in leftish drag.

By painting libertarians as stealth conservatives, the net effect is to make even their libertarianism somehow suspect. Edroso bestowing on Megan McArdle the title of "lipstick libertarian" is a perfect example of this. And I say this as a libertarian who does not wear lipstick! (Er, except maybe on an occasional Halloween....)

Really, it's as if they think that "we" are basically a bunch of weaselly right-wing hedonists -- trying to snooker young people into the evil right wing tent by offering them the candy of sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll before handing them over to James Dobson for religious brainwashing sessions. (As a form of projection, this is quite understandable, because to the left, personal freedom is a tactic in a grab bag of tricks, with conditions attached.)

As to how Edroso got his job with the Voice, I can only speculate. The well-connected and passionately left-wing James Wolcott used to praise his writing to the skies, so I don't think it's out of the question that the Wolcott connection is what ultimately paid off. And why not? They are both talented writers, and vituperative snark loves vituperative snark.

The problem with me is that I sometimes feel overdosed on opinions. There is too much out there to keep track of, and it tires me out. I even find myself feeling overdosed on my own opinions. I freely admit, this is probably a symptom of burnout, and maybe I should seek professional help, because it has been six and a half years, and I'm not getting any younger. So, when I say I'm "like sort of really jealous" of the talented Mr. Edroso, I sort of like really mean it, but only in the sarcastic senses of "like," and "sort of," and "really." (No, really!) While it might be flattering to be hired by a large established outfit, OTOH I'm not sure I would like being a paid snarkist, as I would have to insult people for a living. Sure, I can insult people, but the daily grind would get to me, and being paid to write would interfere with my ability to write. (As things stand now, sometimes I can barely crank out posts.)

For these reasons I try to minimize my reading of the more insulting blogs, whether on the left or the right. For example, when a blog war between the two bloggers I will not name erupted, I stopped reading both of them, because each one radiated such boundless contempt and hatred for the other that I had the feeling it extended to other bloggers and even readers who were insufficiently on one side of the fence or the other. That sort of monumental egotism annoys me, but it also goes to why I won't name them, and why I will not disclose what I think about the merits of their respective positions.

As Edroso falls into the insulting blogger category, I have not kept up with him as I perhaps should. I didn't even know he had moved up from the insulting blogger category to the insulting "journalist" category.

Had it not been for Glenn Reynolds, I wouldn't have known about Edroso's new Village Voice life at all.

Hmmm... I don't know whether to thank Glenn or file an official complaint.

Anyway, I would have totally missed out on Edroso's unfounded attack on Don Surber (for not writing about what he had in fact written about). And while I read Ann Althouse (and thus saw her refutation of Edroso's trollish attempt to link her to fundamentalist Christianity by resort her commenters), when I saw Glenn's link to that, I actually started to feel sorry for myself. I know it's irrational, because I don't like being insulted, but really! Put yourself in my position. A burnout I may be, but I still have pride, and I was one of Edroso's earliest targets!

And now that he's moved up in the world, giddy with success and basking in his new paradise, has he forgotten about all the little people he used as stepping stones along the way? To use the Christianist vernacular of which he's so fond, I felt that Edroso had been Raptured up, while I had been left behind.

But no! Imagine my joy when I learned that notwithstanding his new place in the heavens, he had not forgotten to look down on little me :

As sometimes happens with these things, the Galt-Goers have encountered some mockery. Classical Values found this a good sign: "I'd say that once comedians start working a topic into their routines, that's a sign that its time has come," he asserts, though if that were true, Joey Buttafuoco would have been elected President of the United States.

Even though neither of them landed a spot at the Village Voice, it all seems quite unfair.

But I hate to sound like such an ingrate. I mean, if I can redefine liberty as rightwing talking points, surely I ought to be able to turn my self pity into gratitude!

Rand Simberg linked a post I wrote last month about the federal criminalization of wood, and I thought I should thank him here rather than in the post itself -- which Glenn Reynolds linked yesterday, but which is so old that regular readers might miss updates on it. Simberg added a great point which I think should be noted, and renoted -- by the Powers That Shouldn't Be:

Throw all the bastards out. One of the elements in the Republicans' new contract with America has to address these outrageously long, unread bills.

The feds raided Gibson looking for undocumented wood.

Not aliens.

Wood.

Just think about it. Look around you. How many things in the spaces surrounding you are made of wood? How many objects? Think of what a malicious prosecutor like Mike Nifong in a federal roid rage could do with such a "law." I don't think it is any exaggeration to say that this may be the greatest law enforcement harassment tool ever devised.

"Is that a gun in your pocket or are you concealing illegal handles made from undocumented wood?"

What I can't figure out is whether the greater crime is the passage of this monstrosity or the fact that its existence was so cleverly concealed -- as a small part of yet another humongous "act" -- that it went unreported.

We are not represented, we are ruled.

I have posted Climate Files Hacked about the release by anonymous ftp of the contents of hundreds of files and thousands of e-mails. Some have questioned their authenticity. I have partial verification from Real or Fake.

Steve McIntyre (Comment#23773) November 19th, 2009 at 6:08 pm

I'm having trouble getting into CA right now.

I made up a pdf of the emails to help browse through them and it's over 2000 pages. Every email that I've examined so far looks genuine. There are a few emails of mine that are 100% genuine.

It is really quite breathtaking.

Update: 20 November 2009 1009z

TBR.cc reports that the Hadley Center admits that the files are real.

The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."

"Have you alerted police"

"Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken."

Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.

TBR.cc recommends Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming

You might want to give it a look.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

I just got a tip from Jccarlton at Talk Polywell that some one has hacked a lot of Hadley CRU files on Climate Science. You can get what details that are currently available at Watts Up With That. What has been released so far is full of bombshells. Like this e-mail.

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Is this what it sounds like when magical gov't healthcare ponies die?

Quinnipiac 36-51.

PPP 42-50.

The claims that America spends more for worse health care are crumbling under closer examination; people aren't being fooled anymore by misleading comparisons of things that don't measure health care outcomes. The poll numbers are dropping like a rock as more people figure out the difference between propaganda and reality.

Let's hope these poll numbers kill this thing before it starts killing Americans.

UPDATE: Obama is sinking as well, and for the same reason: reality is setting in. He campaigned on competence, transparency, post-partisanship, pragmatism and accountability but has turned out to be a bumbling deceptive hyperpartisan ideologue who blames everything on Bush and/or Fox News

I'm getting more than a little tired over the fact that some people on the left -- aided, naturally, by some people on the right (with the help of agents provocateurs and trolls) -- seem hell-bent on fomenting an American Civil War.

I think people need to remember how much civil wars suck.

Take it from George Orwell, who fought alongside the Communists against Franco's Falangists.

To be marching up the street behind red flags inscribed with elevating slogans, and then to be bumped off from an upper window by some total stranger with a sub-machine-gun-- that is not my idea of a useful way to die.

Later, after detailing what it was like to be shot through the neck and narrowly survive (all the while being suspected by one leftist faction of belonging to a competing leftist faction), Orwell said this:

however it ends the Spanish war will turn out to have been an appalling disaster

Sigh.

Dalí's "Cannibalism in Autumn" is probably in order:

And so is one of my lifelong favorites -- "Soft Construction with Boiled Beans: Premonition of Civil War":

Not only do tastes differ, but they change over time. Orwell absolutely hated Dalí, and I can understand why. Artistic tastes aside, Orwell was a highly principled idealist, and Dali was a deranged and corrupt Monarchist. But such things are nothing to start a war over.

Despite the fact that I hate repeating myself, I have complained about government health care and unconstitutional laws till I'm blue in the face. All to no avail, it often seems. Those government bastards will do what they want, no matter what I think or say.

Still, no matter how tired I get of complaining, I'm always glad when I see that there are other people who can see government tyranny for what it is -- especially when they have seen it from the inside -- as Judge Andrew Napolitano clearly has.

In "Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes," he looks at the government and sees a monster.

Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights. If this health care bill becomes law, America, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, and privacy as you have enjoyed it will cease to be.

Government is the negation of freedom. Freedom is your power and ability to follow your own free will and your own conscience. The government wants you to follow the will of some faceless bureaucrat.

When I recently asked Congressman James Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House, to tell me "Where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to regulate everyone's healthcare," he replied that most of what Congress does is not authorized by the Constitution, but they do it anyway. There you have it. Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights, it doesn't care about the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it doesn't even read the laws it writes.

America, this is not an academic issue. If this health care bill becomes law, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, privacy as you have enjoyed it, will cease to be.

It was not supposed to be this way. We elect the government. It works for us. How did it get so removed, so unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal lives? Evil rarely comes upon us all at once, and liberty is rarely lost in one stroke. It happens gradually, over the years and decades and even centuries. A little stretch here, a cave in there, powers are slowly taken from the states and the people and before you know it, we have one big monster government that recognizes no restraint on its ability to tell us how to live. It claims the power to regulate any activity, tax any behavior, and demand conformity to any standard it chooses.

The Founders did not give us a government like the one we have today....

The one we have today was imposed on us piecemeal, one little chunk of freedom lost at a time, typically as a result of emotional reactions to events -- like the Depression, World War II, the Cold War, the battle to end segregation, the "wars" to "end" poverty or drugs, and most recently the terrorist attack of 9/11. The idealistic and well-meaning American people have always been willing accepted a restriction on freedom here, a stretching of the Constitution there, if that is necessary to win whatever war or awful event we face. The loss of freedom that results is as permanent the proverbial bridge toll that was supposed to go away once the new bridge was paid for. And so without our having had a chance to think through the longterm consequences, each time this happens, we lose freedom permanently. Not because of any one thing, but because of a series of national emotional accidents.

At this point in time, I think that if the terrorists did manage to nuke New York, it would probably spell the end of American freedom. Already, those who think the government is out of control are routinely labeled "anti-government extremists" and targeted for surveillance by those who want the government to grow ever more malignant, and ever more monstrous. In the event of a nuke (or a major domestic terror event), the only thing left to do would be to round them up.

Sometimes I worry that freedom that is lost can never be regained. What if there is only so much freedom to take away before it's all gone?

Is it a zero sum game?

That there is a double standard between the "right" and the "left" where it comes to sexuality is not news. In general, people perceived as being on the left are allowed sexual freedom -- including the right to be gay, to be promiscuous, to engage in sex for money, and to pose in pornography -- only so long as they kowtow to the requirement that they be on the left. Conservatives -- especially religious conservatives -- are held to the highest possible sexual standards, and when they are caught failing to live up to them, BOTH the right and the left join together in a veritable lynch mob of collusion.

Libertarians tend to be in a special category, but I think this is not only because it's tough to accuse them of "hypocrisy" but also because few people care whether libertarians have sex, or what kind of sex they have.

While I've long been fascinated by this double standard, I'm more fascinated by its enforcement, and I thought I'd look at two recent examples. The first (via Glenn Reynolds) is the Ph.D. researcher who worked as a prostitute:

Six years ago, while she completed the final stages of her PhD, she ran out of money and turned to prostitution charging £300 an hour. She used her experience as a science blogger to let the world know what she was up to - but not, until now, who she was.

Her experiences were documented in a blog that was later adapted into books and a television drama starring Billie Piper.

Dr Magnanti, 34, said she decided to reveal her secret because it was making her paranoid, and she feared that an ex-boyfriend might reveal Belle's true identity.

She works as part of a team researching the potential effects on babies of their mothers' exposure to toxic chemicals, and said her colleagues - all female - had been "amazingly kind and supportive" when she revealed her past.

The scientist, who studied anthropology and maths in Florida, was writing a thesis at Sheffield University's department of forensic pathology when she became a call girl.

She moved to London to find work while completing the course and preparing for her viva voce, the oral examination on her research.

She spent her savings quicker than expected and found that working as a call girl allowed her to make money and have enough spare time to complete her work.

Dr Magnanti said her decision to go public was also prompted by comments last month by Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York.

He said the "fiction" of stories like Belle de Jour's created a "myth" that sex workers were independent women, empowered by the hold they had over men, who treated it like any other job.

Dr Magnanti said she was annoyed by the accusation that her stories were fiction: "You can't say I'm not real, and that my experience isn't real, because here I am."

Which leads to the other example, the suddenly sexually "shocking" Carrie Prejean.

It's the most shocking turn yet in a scandal that has continued to follow the woman whose anti-gay marriage stance led to a national controversy and pitted her against pageant organizers.

Stripped of her crown, Prejean sued the Miss California USA pageant but reportedly settled after the sex tape surfaced. She called the sex tape the biggest mistake of her life.

Now a RadarOnline.com investigation has uncovered that there are SEVEN more "biggest mistakes" of her life - all of them solo performances, just like the one sex tape that the religious beauty queen has admitted to. And there are 30 photos of Carrie, most topless, some showing everything, and most taken by Carrie using her reflection in a mirror.

Like I'm supposed to be shocked. Not by sexy pictures or videos, mind you. But by the fact that a conservative beauty queen did that sort of thing. Or maybe I'm supposed to gloat.

Why would I? I have no philosophical problems with people engaging in sex for money or with making sex videos, so what either of these women did or are alleged to have done does not bother me in the least. Nor does it bother me that Carrie Prejean is ashamed of what she did, while Dr. Mangani is not.

Isn't that their business?

Or does the left now own exclusive rights to sexual shame?

I think that there is as much right to be ashamed of one's sexual conduct as there is to not be ashamed of it. But the sexual "left" (if that is in fact the right expression) believes very strongly in sexual shame -- but only for conservatives. The San Francisco Chronicle's Mark Morford is a perfect example. In this long, rambing (and IMO nearly psychotic) diatribe, he heaps a mountain of vicious sexual invective on Carrie Prejean, and demonstrates that he is truly obsessed with the poor girl's genital conduct.

unless you're screaming out the lord's name in vain or begging your imaginary partner to perform some kinky French fetish thing on you with a ball-gag and 15 feet of garden hose, keep your sounds restricted to moans, gasps, sighs, cute little hiccups, dirty curse words and maybe the occasional, "Ooh baby, I know you like it when I use this vibrator on the Pooh bear like that, don't you lover?" Like the saying goes, brevity is the soul of, uh, somethingorother. I know, right?

Let's talk equipment. No, not those, silly! Although God knows those come in handy too! Ha ha! God bless silicone!

I mean video equipment. I say, why not skip the iPhone or lame P&S camera, and make a real investment in your trashy, Gawker-ready, 15-minutes-of-fame future by buying yourself a dedicated digital video camera and a little tripod. Add in about three free iMovie classes at the Apple store, and it's whammo, here I come, reality TV show!

People always ask me, Carrie, when you make a sex tape, does it help to actually be a Christian? I mean, like, not a very good one, more like a pseudo-moralistic, fundamentalist homophobe ex-beauty queen with as many brain cells as you have limbs? Someone who wouldn't understand true Christianity if Jesus himself came down and tickled your feet and called you Lilith?

My answer is always the same: Jesus was a foot fetishist? That is so awesome!

But to answer the other question: heck yes, it helps! I find that mock Christianity only cranks up the irony factor, the sexy hypocrisy of what you're doing -- and massive moralistic hypocrisy is a total turn on! Just ask all those Catholic priests! And Republican senators! And televangelists! And gay televangelists who have sex with Republican senator priests!

The only reason I can see for this is that she is a social conservative, and she has expressed remorse about her past sexy videos. I can think of no other occupation which would be shamed in this way, and Mark Morford is by no means the only leftie who has engaged in it.

Sexual shame is alive and thriving on the left as well as on the right. (If Morford's rant is typical, it's probably worse on the left, as I can't imagine any conservative getting quite that exercised about anyone's sex life.) The message sent over and over again is that the only sexual freedom to be found is to be found on the left. What a lot of people miss is they're relying on the social conservatives (especially those who practice zero tolerance) to oblige them by joining in the fray. In the case of Mark Sanford, the right was more than willing to oblige.

Already (and notwithstanding the remorse she expressed for her past) Carrie Prejean seems to be getting the cold shoulder from social conservatives. As Townhall's Jillian Bandes notes, her appearances are being canceled:

Prejean cancelled her keynote speech at the New Jersey Family Policy Council's Defenders of the Family fundraiser, an appearance at an invitation-only event at the National Republican Club of Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., and numerous other radio segments.

It's too soon to say whether or not folks on the right have totally abandoned Prejean, but I'm starting to feel a little sorry for her.

But sympathy for Carrie Prejean is not the point here. I see the larger issue as being sexual freedom, in which the left does not truly believe. "Sexual freedom for me but not for thee" is not sexual freedom, and it just fries me that the left is routinely seen as being champions of a right they only champion selectively.

Like any other kind of freedom, sexual freedom by its nature includes the right to do or not do whatever the thing is. As in the case of free speech where there is as much right to be silent as there is to be outspoken, or to worship God or reject religion, there is also as much right to be an uptight prude as a profligate slut. Those who oppose sexual freedom have as much right to engage in sex as those who believe in it.

And while hypocrisy consists of not practicing what you preach, I think a good case can be made that the leftists who condemn Carrie Prejean for having made sexy videos are more hypocritical than she is.

They seem to think that she is a hypocrite for the following reasons:

a) she is against gay marriage even though she had made a sexy video; and

b) she condemns what she did in the past.

But neither of the above constitutes hypocrisy. Hypocrisy does not consist of condemning something you once did, nor is it necessarily condemning what you do now. A junkie, an overeater, an alcoholic, or a cigarette smoker could easily condemn his own practices without being a hypocrite. Similarly, a woman who has had an abortion can be against abortions, and someone with a DUI conviction could nevertheless oppose drunk driving.

Hypocrisy is pretending to be what one is not. If Carrie Prejean had said that she was morally pure and had never made sexy videos, that would be one thing. But as far as I know, she never pretended to be morally pure. She said she was against gay marriage, and I have no doubt that she believes in the general social conservative philosophy. Past actions that are regretted do not constitute pretending to be what one is not.

However, the left pretends to believe in sexual freedom, but actually does not. To me, that is hypocrisy. But they get away with it because they are not held to the same standards to which they hold the right. Yet another double standard.

A double standard for hypocrisy.

(I'd call it a hypocritical double standard but that sounds redundant.)

The Boyz and Girlz at HillBuzz are on a mission.

Please offer your thoughts here, because our mission going forward includes but is not limited to:

(1) Dismantling and destroying ACORN, the SEIU, and all of their affiliates

(2) Taking down the Al Sharpton/Henry Gates/Jesse Jackson/Eric Holder Race Industry

(3) Reforming the nominating contests to make the primaries fraud-proof...while eliminating caucuses completely (as they are the easiest to game)

(4) Making sure Democrats do not pick the Republican candidate they want to run against in 2012

(5) Doing whatever we can to put the MSM out of business as payback for their rampant sexism and misogyny

2012 will be here before any of us know it. There is an awful lot of work to do. All of the above is so important to us personally that we're willing to skip days off, willing to postpone vacations, willing to literally give all of our free time to this.

As the Buzzers might say: We must take back the country from Dr. Utopia and his minions. Starting the job in 2010 and completing the work in 2012.

And do read the comment section. Lots of good ideas so far. Maybe it will trigger off more ideas.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

The above video is to introduce you to Joss Stone who is creating quite a furor in the UK by saying the same thing this book says:

Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?

Joss says marijuana is safer than alcohol.

Singer Joss Stone has been condemned for glamourising drugs after an astonishing diatribe in which she claimed cannabis is less harmful than alcohol.

She also trivialised the dangers of harder 'more horrible' drugs, which she described as 'fun'.

The 22-year-old has enraged anti-drug campaigners after it was suggested she made the comments in a desperate attempt to drum up publicity for her new album.

Some people are not happy though.

Her comments, which come just weeks after she released the album, brought a furious response from David Raynes, head of the National Drugs Prevention Alliance.

He said: 'She should consider the effects that her comments have on other people, especially young fans who look up to her.

'People like Joss Stone should keep their mouths shut about things like this.

It is terribly damaging and she clearly hasn't considered the wider effects of the drug, although she clearly didn't get to become a pop star because she is a student of social sciences.

'We already have a drug culture in the UK and she is simply adding to that.'

Her comments also come weeks after Professor David Nutt was sacked as the government's drugs advisor for controversially claiming that cannabis, Ecstasy and LSD are less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes.

The Government is facing mass resignations from the official advisory body on drugs after the sacking of its chairman, The Times has learnt.

Two members of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs quit yesterday in protest at Alan Johnson's dismissal of David Nutt in a row over the relative harm caused by drugs and alcohol.

Les King, an expert chemist, was the first to resign. He said that the Home Secretary had denied Professor Nutt his right to free speech and called for the council to become truly independent of politicians. He was swiftly followed by Marion Walker, a pharmacist and clinical director with the substance misuse service at the Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust.

The affair has led scientists to question the Government's wider commitment to the independence of external scientific advisers, and raised fears that experts will become reluctant to sit on advisory panels.

Scientists on the council are preparing a letter to ministers seeking assurances that they will remain free to set their agenda and to speak freely about their research and findings. It is possible the 28 remaining members will quit if their concerns are not addressed before a council meeting next week.

One of the country's leading experts on drug dependence said that, without such assurances, it would be difficult for any scientist to succeed Professor Nutt as council chairman while retaining the respect of their peers.

Professor Nutt was sacked after criticisms he had made of the Government's drugs policy were published in a paper by the Centre for Crime and Justice at King's College London. The comments were made in a lecture he delivered in July, in which he said that Ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes. He also criticised the decision to upgrade cannabis to class B.

Mr Johnson insisted that he was right to force Professor Nutt to stand down months after he took over as council chairman. "You cannot have a chief adviser at the same time stepping into the public field and campaigning against government decisions," he said.

The clashes of science with political science are nothing new. It has been going on at least since the dust up between Galileo and the Catholic Church. In the end it always makes the political scientist look stupid and reduces their credibility.

If the Earth rotates around the sun and other planets besides Earth have moons you can only accept that fact. If marijuana is safer than alcohol there is nothing you can do but accept the fact. Political science always loses to facts. In the long run.

In theory we are smarter than the the Catholic Church was in the 1600s. In fact we have not come so far baby.

H/T Drug Policy Forum of Texas

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Via Glenn Reynolds, James Taranto makes a very important point I think is being missed in the debate over the trial of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in New York:

one man's technicality is another's violation of due process; and the corollary of treating KSM like ordinary criminals is treating ordinary criminals like KSM. This column approves of aggressive interrogation to gather intelligence from terrorists, but there is little doubt that some of the methods that were used would have been abusive had they been applied by law-enforcement agents to domestic criminal suspects.

When appellate courts decide questions of law, they set precedents for future cases. If they make allowances for the exigencies of the war on terror in order to uphold convictions of KSM and his associates, it could end up diminishing the rights of ordinary criminal defendants. That's why the smart civil-libertarian position is to oppose trying terrorists as civilians.

Not unless we really do return to 9/10 and roll back the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and the extraordinary powers that the government has accumulated since 9/11. It's easy for Barack Obama to pose as an opponent of the war on terror, but does anyone actually expect him to relinquish federal executive power? I don't.

And that is why it makes me very nervous to see him bringing the war home.

Say what you want about Bush, but one of the things I most liked about him was that to a large extent, he externalized the war on terror. He kept it OVER THERE -- where it belonged, and I think that's one of the reasons people liked him. (At least, it may explain why they preferred his war strategy to John Kerry's police strategy.)

Bringing the war home is an old 1960s anti-war slogan, and as we close down Guantanamo and bring the worst terrorists in the world right here, as we disengage from and mismanage Iraq and Afghanistan, we literally bring the enemy to this country, where we propose to treat them as domestic criminals. And if terrorists are treated as domestic criminals, why shouldn't domestic criminals be treated as terrorists?

In this and in so many ways, the war on terror is being conflated with the war on crime. And we know how well the war on crime has gone, don't we? Crime is considered just one of those things that we just have to live with. Except that more and more things are being made crimes, and more and more crimes are being equated with terrorism. The Homeland Security and Patriot Act provisions are now routinely invoked against all kinds of regular criminals. Gangs and terrorists are being linked together as national security threats. (I guess "West Side Story" morphed into "West Bank Story" in some bureaucrat's utopian scheme.) No doubt the War on Drugs won't be far behind -- no doubt rebadged as the "War on NarcoTerrorism" or some equally conflationary Orwellianism.

Glenn also links Shannon Love, who is thinking along similar lines:

The greatest danger posed in the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) isn't that he will go free. The greatest danger is that he will be convicted and that during his appeals the courts will ratify all of the extraordinary measures used to capture and convict him. The great danger is that the courts will ratify the rough, inaccurate and ambiguous norms of martial law as applying to all civil criminal trials.

After a couple of decades of these court decisions reverberating throughout the legal system, we could end up living under de facto martial law.

I wish we still had a president who kept them -- and the war -- where they belonged.

Over there.

A Palin detractor in the comments at Althouse has this to say:

But I don't know how a book can be the number one best seller before a single reader has his hands on one.

The left will NEVER understand business.

They will always be failures in America. Which is why they need government.

I wonder why more businesses don't cater to that market though. There is obviously a need for TP with instructions written on every sheet. Perhaps Sheryl Crow could be induced to write them. For a fee.

It could be a best seller.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

A forensic scientist I am not. However, the following comment to M. Simon's post about the suicide of Michael Scott intrigued me:

Was Scott left-handed?

I found a fascinating three-part YouTube video showing Michael Scott (with Congressman Danny Davis, our current Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, and State Senator Rickey Hendon) at an allegedly illegal meeting held at Edna's Restaurant in Chicago, and he does seem to favor his left hand. In Parts 1 and 2, he holds his coffee cup mostly with his left hand (even though there is someone sitting to his left), and in Part 3 he drives away after pausing to insult and scold the photographer -- at whom he repeatedly points remonstratively and shakes the index finger of his left hand. (Scott is sitting all the way at the back of the table, wearing a white baseball cap.)

By the way, these videos provide an interesting behind-the-scenes look not only at Michael Scott, but at the inside world of Chicago politics -- especially as it pertains to education. A more detailed explanation of the nature of the secret meeting is provided here.

Considering who some of the participants are, they arguably provide a behind-the-scenes look at the inside world of the people who are now governing the country.

A few brief Wiki excerpts about the "Breakfast at Edna's" participants.

An October 9, 2008 story in The Washington Post told of substantial tension between Hendon and then colleague Barack Obama, culminating in a physical confrontation in June 2008. Nonetheless, Hendon supported Obama in the 2008 presidential election.

Although Davis was fully promoted as a Democratic candidate, he also ran as a New Party candidate.[16][17][18] Supporting this was New Party's celebration of him as the "first New Party member elected to the U.S. Congress."[19] Although the State of Illinois did not permit fusion voting, New Party advocated fusion voting as a means to promote their party and party agenda and to particularly project New Party ideology into the mainstream Democratic Party.[20] Candidates were referred to as "N[ew]P[arty] Democrats"[20] and were required to sign a contract mandating a "visible and active relationship" with New Party.[21] During this timeframe, New Party was experiencing substantial growth[22] and included in its ranks a young Barack Obama.[16][17][21][23]

[...]

Davis expressed interest in being President Barack Obama's replacement in the U.S. Senate, and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was expected to appoint Obama's successor in late 2008 before his own major scandal erupted, stated that Davis would "make a great senator."[31] In a December 31, 2008 article published on the website of The New York Times, Davis said that he turned down an offer from representatives of Blagojevich to appoint him to the Senate.[32] Instead, Blagojevich appointed Roland W. Burris.[33]

Duncan has extensive experience in educational policy and management, and he was a teacher from 1990 to 1992. In 1992, Duncan became director of the Ariel Education Initiative, a program to enhance educational opportunities for children on Chicago's South Side that was started by John W. Rogers, Jr.. In 1996, along with Rogers, he was part of a network that funded and supported Ariel Community Academy.[13] In 1999, he became Deputy Chief of Staff for former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas.[14] Mayor Richard M. Daley appointed Duncan to serve as CEO of Chicago Public Schools on June 26, 2001.[15]

Duncan was a fellow in the Leadership Greater Chicago's class of 1995[16], and a member of the Aspen Institute's Henry Crown Fellowship Program, Class of 2002. In May 2003, he received an Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Lake Forest College.

On December 16, 2008, President-elect Barack Obama nominated Duncan for Secretary of Education. Duncan had known Obama for over a decade and played recreational basketball with him, including the day Obama was elected president[17]. Duncan was confirmed by the full Senate on January 20.[18][19]

Here is a backroom meeting on the westside of Chicago with some major players..A tip was given regarding this meeting to discuss the closing of Collins High School to turn them into Daley ran Charter Schools public schools on the Westside. We don't know what WAS being discussed but it sure looks shady

"Selling out the community Danny Davis, Ricky Hendon, Michael Scott and Arne Duncan Part 1of 3"

"Selling Out the Community Danny Davis, Rickey Hendon, Arne Duncan and Michael Scott Part 2"

"
Selling out the community Danny Davis, Ricky Hendon, Arne Duncan and Michael Scott Part 3"

So, while I know it's not conclusive, based on the above videos I think a strong case can be made for Michael Scott being left-handed.

Beyond that, the videos speak for themselves. I think they provide a fascinating inside glimpse at Chicago politics, although I hope they do not represent a behind-the-scenes look at some of the people who are now governing the country.

Far be it from me to help shed unwanted light on larger issues.

In a refreshing reminder of how pleasantly "out-of-it" some people are, when I told a South Park fan about a recent episode which spoofs Glenn Beck, an immediate question arose.

"Who is Glenn Beck?"

I don't watch him (on the few occasions I tried, the commercials thwarted me), but I tried to stick to the facts consisting of tidbits I have read and overheard. He's an entertainer whose politics are to the right, who describes himself as a libertarian, and who seems to enjoy regaling listeners with conspiracy theories.

Actually, Glenn Beck hardly seem to have been terribly upset by the South Park episode. His reaction is to laugh at himself (which I think is in his favor):

At the end he expresses the wish that someone would "get the facts right," but I think that's asking the impossible. We live in world where there are too many facts to be gotten, much less gotten right. Besides, today's facts are not tomorrow's. What is important is that Beck is getting is free advertising with an audience that otherwise might never turn him on. (But for South Park, I would never have bothered with the YouTube link nor written this post.)

From Chris Yogerst's "Generation South Park" series:

South Park is indeed a largely libertarian show. Yet Gen Y Conservatism has a solid foot standing in the libertarian movement. This sense of neutrality allows both South Park and Gen Y Conservatives alike to raise questions about ideas and people in any political movement, including their own. It allows ideas of freedom to be considered by those who aren't listening to talk radio and Fox News.

[...]

...in true South Park fashion the end gives us a drastic spin that shows the brilliance of the show. Cartman is no longer Beck when Wendy is no longer a stand in for Obama which occurs when Wendy turns into a comically socialist Sarah Palin figure.

This type of political commentary allows South Park's true views to fly under the radar in order to engage both the Left and Right. Gen Y Conservatism does the same thing.

Damned if I know.

The head of the Chicago Board Of Education, Michael Scott, is dead.

Sources told the Chicago Sun-Times that Scott had a gunshot wound to his left temple and police discovered a .380-caliber gun underneath his body, which was found 30 feet from his blue Cadillac.

Scott reportedly disappeared from his Chicago home Sunday.

Emergency responders pulled the body out of the river at 4:30 a.m. local time Monday, after receiving a tip, Chicago Fire Department spokesman Joe Roccasalva told MyFoxChicago.com.

Why was Scott "despondent"?

Scott had been Mayor Daley's go-to guy for a long time. Over the summer he told the Chicago Sun-Times that he had been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury investigating how students were selected for the system's elite selective-enrollment high schools, MyFoxChicago.com reported.

Scott said he had done nothing wrong, the Web site reported.

Chicago residents grew angry when Daley appointed Scott to serve a second stint as school board president. Scott had recommended that sports agent Rufus Williams succeed him, but Williams resigned under pressure and Daley re-appointed Scott to head the school board and oversee the city's public schools -- a top Daley priority, MyFoxChicago.com reported.

"My wife and I would like to extend our heartfelt condolences to the family of Michael Scott," Cook County Board President Todd H. Stroger said in an e-mail statement released Monday.

As far as I know Mr. Stroger is nothing like Alexi Giannoulias who is running for Obama's old Senate seat if he can win the Democrat nomination.

Before he promised to raise funds for Obama, Giannoulias bankrolled Michael "Jaws" Giorango, a Chicagoan twice convicted of bookmaking and promoting prostitution.

Giannoulias is so tainted by reputed mob links that several top Illinois Dems, including the state's speaker of the House and party chairman, refused to endorse him even after he won the Democratic nomination with Obama's help.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Hill Buzz has an interesting rumor about personal information that could be used against Mark Kirk in his run for Obama's old Senate seat.

Since Burris is not seeking election, we hope Republicans win Dr. Utopia's old seat, because that would sure be a wonderful victory for Michael Steele and the RNC's Senate team. And it would infuriate the White House. The trouble is, Republicans are running a fatally flawed candidate in Mark Kirk, who will be outed spectacularly by Democrats during the general election -- using ammunition Kirk's estranged wife has been feeding Dem operatives during their messy divorce. It's deja vu to the Jack Ryan for Senate campaign all over again (remember, that's how Dr. Utopia won his Senate seat...by releasing the pervy sex details actress Jeri Ryan used against Kirk in their divorce). Kirk does not respond well on his feet: instead, he starts telling military stories from his time in Afghanistan and seems to think you won't notice that he's not addressing whatever it is you want to talk about. A lot of politicians do this, but Kirk's not good at it. Too clumsy and obvious. When he's outed next year, he will probably do more of this, and fumble and bumble his way to a Jack Ryan-Alan Keyes debacle.

Keyes was so bad (he disowned his own daughter when she came out as a lesbian) that I had to vote for the Communist over the Theocon. As did a lot of others who voted in that race. I would hate to see a repeat of that debacle.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

I have found an incipient Health Care Nazi.

"Well, for one, I know nobody wants to pay taxes for anybody else to go to the doctor -- I don't," said Kate Kuhn, 20, of Acworth, Ga. "I don't want to pay for somebody to use my money that I could be using for myself."

Cross Posted at Power and Control

I have to say that I admire M. Simon's patience in writing this post, which was occasioned by a link I sent him discussing the following question:

Are you a Christian first and an American second?

Or an American first and a Christian second?

But debating this? What sense is there in debating opinions on the unknowable? I'm just glad that we have the freedom to hold these opinions -- that the thing we call "freedom of religion" is within the rubric of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

As to the idea of being "a Christian first, and an American second," that strikes me as bordering on identity politics, and makes about as much sense as being "black first, American second." Plenty of people think that way, and many more believe in memes like "the environment first, America second." So why not "atheist first, American second"? I'm sure there are some atheists who think of themselves that way, and while self-defining identitarianism is certainly part of the American birthright, it seems awfully tedious. And how far do we go with having our interests relegate that American birthright to secondary importance? Scientist first, American second? Gay first, American second? Pro-choice first, American second? Pro-life first, American second? Conservative first, American second?

Easy for me to be so dismissive. But the truth is, saying "libertarian Pagan Christian pantheist blogger first, American second" is just too much of a mouthful.

Senior Adviser To The President David Axelrod says he wants to bring abortion back into the health care bill. Well it is already in the bill. The Stupack Amendment forbidding the government from funding abortions.

The amendment, authored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., went beyond preventing the proposed government-run plan from covering abortion to restrict federal subsidies from going toward private plans that offer abortion coverage. David Axelrod says the amendment changes the 'status quo,' something the president cannot abide.

White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod suggested Sunday that President Obama will intervene to make sure a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion coverage is stripped from final health care reform legislation.

In doing so, the president would be heeding the call of abortion rights supporters like Planned Parenthood that have called the White House their "strongest weapon" in keeping such restrictions out of the bill.

The abortion amendment was tacked on to the House health care bill and was a key factor in securing the votes of moderate Democrats before the bill was approved by a narrow margin last weekend.

Aside from wanting to keep their NRLC 100% ratings why would they do such a thing? My guess is that it is theater. This is all a show. What comes out of it? The Health Destruction Bill gets killed at the last minute by abortion foes. Politically sound. The Lefties in Congress can tell their supporters they tried really hard to pass the bill but those nasty fundie abortion foes (some of whom are Democrats) blocked it because they are against a Woman's Right To Choose. If it wasn't for them it would have passed.

Obama can stand by his promise that no one's health care plan is going to change (immediately). And the Congress critters get all kinds of cover. From, "I voted against it", to "I had to vote against it because of...". Everybody wins and the bill no one wants gets flushed.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Ann Althouse is taking flak from her commenters for writing a post about football, even though all she did was point out that her team (the Wisconsin Badgers) beat Michigan's Wolverines - which happens to be "my" team -- 45-24. That game was a major rout - and in a comment I thanked her for not gloating, which it was certainly her right to do.

I've never been a football fan, but I now live in a major football zone (so close to Michigan Stadium that I could make hundreds of dollars selling parking in my yard), and I have enjoyed going to some of the games. In a most uncharacteristic post, I discussed the Wolverines' narrow defeat of the Badgers in an exciting upset game I attended last year.

No such luck this year. The once-legendary Wolverines are routinely being described as "mediocre," or worse yet, as a team that loses to mediocre teams.

The Detroit Free Press said that they "can't imagine a lower bottom, but each week brings unimaginable pain."

There have been innumerable calls for the head of coach Rich Rodriguez, and there's a web site dedicated to getting him fired.

And you don't have to follow football -- or the Rich Rodriguez quagmire -- to get a kick out of the following video -- although I have to say that I never thought I'd live to see Hitler going ballistic over my town's football team.

The Hitler video touches on the general theme reflected in a comment that "Flexo" left to Ann Althouse's post:

As a long time Michigan fan --

GOOD!

They need to get their asses whupped each and every week that they play a real college team. Rich Rod is the biggest bum to have ever coached in the entire Big Ten. He is totally lacking in class or honor. Until he slinks away, Michigan needs to get pounded in the dust.

Sheesh.

No wonder the Fuhrer was upset. Considering the totality of the circumstances, Ann Althouse showed remarkable restraint.

Besides, this is all supposed to be fun and games, right? Pure entertainment. It's not as if we were discussing politics. College athletics provides young people with wholesome lessons in life.

A perfect example would be Michigan's former linebacker, the gargantuan Justin Boren. Not long after Rodriguez took over, he was so upset that he quit the team, and transferred to its arch-rival, Ohio State. This has caused him to be regarded as a traitor -- as "college football's Benedict Arnold." Strong words, but this week is being called "Boren week" because he's coming back to Ann Arbor with The Enemy.

I can't help being fascinated with the treason phenomenon, and I'm glad the Boren "treason" has nothing to do with politics. As I'm emotionally detached about football, it provides an almost laboratory setting in which to examine the whole concept of treason.

When the alleged "traitor" Boren quit, here's what he said:

"I regret leaving behind my friends and teammates, but I need to stand up for what I know is right," Boren said in a statement released Wednesday afternoon. "I wore the winged helmet with pride, whether we won or lost, whether things were going well or times were tough.

"Michigan football was a family, built on mutual respect and support for each other from (former) Coach (Lloyd) Carr on down. We knew it took the entire family, a team effort, and we all worked together. I have great trouble accepting that those family values have eroded in just a few months. That same helmet, that I was raised on and proudly claimed for the last two years, now brings a completely different emotion to me, one that interferes with practicing and playing my best and mentally preparing for what is required."

The lesson, of course is that Rodriguez is the new commander. The head honcho. He gets to redefine everything, scrap Michigan's vaunted old traditions that made the team a consistent winner, and flush the past by virtue of his power to push the reset button. Those who are disloyal to him and switch sides are the traitors, and no matter how loyal they might think they are to the "real" Michigan, that "reality" is now in the reactionary past.

Bear in mind that a primary reason for bringing Rodriguez in was that the old system had been criticized as being stodgy and set in its "country club" ways. Rodriguez was "trying to change a culture that had grown stale and predictable" and "shook up the country club atmosphere at U-M."

So, what won out was change for the sake of change, only it isn't working.

As I say, I'm glad this has nothing to do with politics. But just before the election last year, a Michigan student argued against change for change's sake using Rodriguez to illustrate what I think is an astute political analogy:

Since my world is dominated by politics and sports, I can't help but draw a comparison: Carr's tenure reminds me in a lot of ways of the current Bush administration. Of course, the parallels between politics and sports are tenuous at best.

But hear me out. When I think of the Bush administration, a few words come to mind: unsatisfying, frustrating, disappointing. Those were the same words I used to describe Carr's years. In a way, I've been down this road before. I have plenty of issues with the Bush administration: its fondness for budget deficits, its failure to use overwhelming force in the first year of the war in Iraq, its unnecessary, massive bailout of banks.

Contrary to the alarmists, though, we aren't in a depression. We haven't been attacked by terrorists in seven years. And we certainly are still the most powerful nation in the world, both economically and militarily. In short, just as was true with Carr's Wolverines, it could be worse.

In both situations an inspirational leader stepped in, promising sweeping change. For Michigan football it was Rich Rodriguez, who claimed the only way to continue the tradition of winning was to ditch the preceding system. Three yards and a cloud of dust was yesterday's paradigm, and, therefore, it can't work today. Sweeping and fundamental change is necessary to move Michigan from four to zero losses a year, Rodriguez said. Though the jury is still out on Rodriguez's tenure, it doesn't look like fundamental and sweeping change was prudent.

BTW, author Alex Prasad concluded by hoping the country wouldn't repeat Michigan's mistake:

Perhaps radical change is necessary, but that is rarely the case. If the current mindset is producing a consistently winning (if admittedly underachieving) program, why re-invent the wheel? Tweak it. Four years from now, we will have a similar vantage point on the next presidency as we currently have on the Rodriguez tenure. I just hope we don't end up in the same boat twice.

No wonder people prefer sports to politics.

I was talking with a green lefty with the typical punish business mentality and was commiserating with him about his recent job loss.

Sorry about your job loss. Maybe you will get on the lower taxes and less regulation bandwagon to give American companies a better environment to compete. And dude - be careful about that union thing. Think about Government Motors and Crisis Motors.

Or you could figure out more ways to raise company expenses and drive more jobs offshore. I'm aways amused at folks who work hard to cut their own throats and then complain that getting your personal throat cut hurts. It was supposed to be the other guy who got his throat cut. The fat cats.

But think of it positively. You did your part for the Greening of America.

Reminds me of a Russian Joke.

Genie: I will give you one request; anything you want. I will give your neighbor twice what I give you.
Peasant: Poke one of my eyes out.

Me? I would ask for a pile of gold and enjoy my neighbors good fortune.

So what would be the equivalent for you? Do everything in your power to increase corporate profit. Including stumping for lower corporate taxes. Less regulation. Simpler rules for hiring and firing.

Your punish business attitude is only punishing yourself.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

In what I think is a blatant restriction of private property rights (as well as grotesque government micromanagement of people's lives), the City of San Francisco is considering requiring landlords to accept pets:

Right now, it's up to property owners to decide if they'll allow pets. But a city commission is looking at forcing landlords to accept them with one member even calling it, essentially, a civil rights issue.

Apparently not in San Francisco:

San Francisco is a city where dogs are said to outnumber children, where those who have pets are officially called guardians not owners.

It is also a city where Charlene Premyodhin found it incredibly hard to find a landlord who was OK with her Rottweiler-German Shepherd mix.

"The place we're living at now, the only reason we're allowed to have a dog is because our cousin is the landlord. But at every other place, we haven't been able to have a dog," she said.

Noni Richen is listing some of the damage from pets that even a hefty security deposit doesn't necessarily cover. She's the president of the Small Property Owners of San Francisco, whose members are going nuts over a proposal that could force landlords to accept tenants with pets.

"We've had more responses on this than to any other question. It's the loss of control over our property that seems to have people up in arms," said Richen.

The proposal being debated is designed to reduce the number of animals turned over to shelters or even euthanized because those who want them can't find housing.

Besides, who will compensate landlords for the damage the pet might do to the premises? Who will compensate the landlord if he is sued when a tenant's pet bites someone, or annoys other tenants or neighbors? What if the landlord lives in the building, and is allergic? What about allergic tenants?

This is typical left-wing insanity. It's easy to laugh it off because it's in San Francisco, but these ideas spread.

AFTERTHOUGHT: FWIW, if I had a litter of puppies for sale, I'm not at all sure I would sell one to a person who lived in an apartment building. Large active dogs are not designed for apartment life, and I don't think it is appropriate to make landlords accept them.

In yet another example of how government censorship tends to creep from country to country, a German law firm is demanding that Wikipedia remove all references to a man convicted in the brutal 1990 murder of filmmaker Walter Sedlmayr:

At issue is an apparent conflict between the U.S. First Amendment -- which protects truthful speech -- and German law -- which seeks to protect the name and likenesses of private persons from unwanted publicity. Sedlmayr's murderer became a public figure when he and his accomplice were tried for brutally killing the well-known actor, and contemporary newspapers published his identity at that time. Fifteen years later, according to his attorneys, German law views the killer as a private citizen again. So, his lawyers have sued the German language Wikipedia, and threatened the English language version with the same, if they fail to censor the Sedlmayr article. They've also gone after an Austrian ISP that had published the names, and it looks like that case may head to the European Court of Justice. Perhaps Germany wants to make it easier for defendants to reintegrate into society, and publicizing a man's past crimes interferes with the effort. After all, "he who controls the past, controls the future". But this slogan from Orwell's Ministry of Truth is anathema under U.S. law, which takes it as an article of faith that people must be allowed to publish truthful information about historical events.

A foreign power should not be able to censor publications in the United States, regardless of whether doing so suits the country's domestic law. The current dispute is reminiscent of LICRA v. Yahoo!, in which a French court ordered the American company to prevent access to its Nazi memorabilia auctions by French residents, then fined the company for failing to do so. Yahoo! sought and obtained a ruling in the U.S. that imposing the French law on the company would violate the First Amendment. (The opinion was subsequently overturned for lack of personal jurisdiction over the French entities).

At stake is the integrity of history itself.

And imagine if we had a similar standard here. People would not be allowed to discuss the crimes of such charming people as Michael Vick. Or Squeaky Fromme. Or Bernardine Dohrn (who according to a recent report, may yet actually face murder charges).

I'm glad that so far, Wikipedia is sticking to its guns. Here's an excerpt from the entry on the Sedlmayr murder (and please forgive the html garbling that will occur to the German characters):

In July 1990, Sedlmayr was found dead and mutilated in his bedroom. He had been tied up and killed with a knife and a hammer. Through lurid reports in the Munich tabloid press, his homosexuality became a matter of public knowledge for the first time. In 1993, half-brothers Manfred Lauber and Wolfgang Werlé,[1][2][3][4] former business associates of Sedlmayr, were sentenced to life in prison for his murder. They were released on parole in 2007 and 2008.[5]

Sedlmayr's life and murder were the subject of the 2001 biopic Wambo by Jo Baier, where he was played by Jürgen Tarrach, and of an episode of the ARD TV series Die großen Kriminalfälle.

In October 2009, lawyers for Wolfgang Werlé sent Wikimedia Foundation a cease and desist letter requesting that Werlé's name be removed from the English language Wikipedia article Walter Sedlmayr.[6][7][8] The U.S. First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press, although German law seeks to protect the name and likenesses of private persons from unwanted publicity. The German language version of the Wikipedia article about the Sedlmayr case removed the names of the murderers.[9][10]

As it is now, I could probably get sued in Germany just for quoting Wikipedia's true statements in this post.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Thomas Barnett gave this talk in 2005 when Iraq was falling apart. If you listen closely he discusses the mistake President Present is about to make in Afghanistan.

The video is quite funny and full of salty language. It is also about a half hour and worth every minute.

The bottom line: we need a procedure for fixing failed states. So far the effort has been ad hoc. It needs to be formalized.

You can get more Thomas Barnett at Thomas Barnett.

H/T glemieux at Talk Polywell

Cross Posted at Power and Control

While a story about an abused child might not be as interesting to the readers, the Philadelphia Inquirer has a long article about a severely abused dog named Oreo. Described as a "pit bull mix," she had been severely beaten (badly enough that a fellow project resident called the cops) and finally thrown from the roof by her lovely 19 year old owner -- who will probably be barred from owning animals when he is paroled, but who will of course always be allowed to father as many children as biology permits.

NEW YORK - Oreo was called a miracle dog when she was thrown off the roof of a six-story Brooklyn building this summer and survived.

But nearly four months later, the 1-year-old brown-and-white pit bull mix growled and lunged at people gathered in a playroom to see her, then turned and lunged at a female handler who had pulled back furiously on the 62-pound dog's heavy leash.

After months of working to rehabilitate Oreo, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said it had determined she is too dangerous to ever be placed in a home or even to live among other dogs.

The organization said it plans to euthanize her Friday.

"Everything we've tried to do for her has not worked," said Ed Sayres, the president and CEO of ASPCA. "And she has gotten more aggressive."

Sayres, a longtime proponent of "no-kill" shelters, said it's rare for the organization to euthanize an animal. He said 94 percent of the nearly 4,000 animals the organization takes in each year are placed in adoptive homes and the rest are euthanized because of medical or behavioral reasons.

"The measure of our success around here is lives saved," he said.

Indeed, it was anybody's guess whether Oreo could be saved when she arrived at the ASPCA's Bergh Memorial Animal Hospital.

The organization said it received a complaint on June 18 that a dog had been beaten on the third floor of a housing project on West Ninth Street in Brooklyn, and then a second call saying that the same dog had been thrown from a roof. She was found with two broken legs and a fractured rib.

Fabian Henderson, a 19-year-old who lived at the complex in the borough's Red Hook section, was arrested in July on felony charges, according to the ASPCA.

He pleaded guilty Oct. 20 to aggravated cruelty to animals and was released on his own recognizance pending sentencing on Dec. 1, court records show.

There was no phone listing for Henderson at the Brooklyn building. His lawyer could not immediately be reached for comment.

After Oreo was brought to the ASPCA, surgeons reassembled the dog's front legs and she recuperated well enough to walk. But during a behavioral evaluation in July, she began to display aggression "with little provocation and little warning."

"The staff should not lean over her or make direct, sustained eye contact," the evaluator's report said.

In further tests, she growled at strangers and bit an evaluation tool called an Assess-A-Hand , which looks like a mannequin's arm on a stick , multiple times. She barked and lunged at another dog at a 5-foot distance.

I will never forget a conversation with an animal control officer in Berkeley who told me about an incident in which a pit bull (pre-screened for its gentle disposition) was adopted by a family they didn't know had a budding young psychopath of a son who proceeded to beat the dog with a baseball bat. Eventually, the dog turned on him, inflicting severe injuries on the boy. Naturally, the dog had to be put to sleep, the family got a lawyer, and sued the city. As the basic operating principle of society is that nothing is anyone's fault but all injuries must be handsomely compensated, the vicious kid's family got a nice settlement.

Abused kids also grow up to be vicious, but it's not as interesting to the public. (Check out the number of stories about Oreo, the dog thrown from the Brooklyn roof. The story was covered repeatedly in the New York Post, the New York Daily News, and eventually made MSNBC, the New York Times, the Huffington Post, and now Classical Values!)

Now, while I hate to be judgmental except as a form of satire, I must admit to a strong suspicion that the mother of the guy who threw the dog off the roof did not do the greatest job of supervising what was going on in the family home:

Henderson's mother, Samantha Henderson, 41, told the Daily News Friday she's never seen the dog before and doesn't believe her son did it.

"I was surprised that he got arrested for that," she said, noting the family has a pit bull mix named Diamond. "He's basically a quiet person, good with animals."

But an ASPCA investigation revealed numerous witnesses saw Henderson toss Oreo off the roof, Pentangelo said.

After Henderson was arrested, he admitted he'd done it but refused to explain why, sources said. Henderson later changed his story and said the dog jumped, sources said.

Henderson's mother's claim that she has never seen Oreo before conflicts with a June 6 incident in which Henderson was arrested. A city housing cop spotted him walking an unleashed dog fitting Oreo's description, law enforcement sources said.

The officer collared Henderson after learning there was an unspecified warrant out for his arrest, the sources said.

Interestingly, at the New York Times blog, commenters are trying to politicize the issue by insisting that young Mr. Henderson has to be a Republican. With all respect to their keen powers of insight, I'll stick my neck out again and express my doubts about that too.

But hey, if he does turn out to be a Republican, I'll still feel the same way about him. Whether they are Republicans or Democrats, people who abuse dogs and throw them off buildings are psychopaths who will probably do the same thing to people sooner or later. And if they have children, in all likelihood their children will be vicious too.

But they will be less interesting to society than vicious dogs.

The Charlotte Observer has a story about a new way to herd junkies. Interesting in and of itself. But this bit really caught my eye:

When officers knocked on Ross' door Thursday afternoon, dogs started barking before the door opened.

"Are you a heroin user, sir?" an officer asked.

"I used to be," said Ross.

Ross, 30, who didn't want his last name published to protect his identity, said a girlfriend introduced him to the drug. He was already on painkillers, but heroin was cheaper and easier to find.

Pot is easier for kids to get than beer. How is that possible? In theory pot is impossible to get and beer is only restricted.

America is a nation of law breakers. It puts limits on what government can actually accomplish. I like that. Politicians and crusaders need to keep in mind that without 99%+ voluntary compliance laws are in effect unenforceable. And in some cases not even 99%+ is enough.

I do find the faith in government guns as a viable solution to social problems interesting. It always starts out with turn the guns on the other guy and then goes bad from there. And always the refrain "This time it will be different." Yeah. Right.

H/T Drug Policy Forum of Texas

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Jews get accused a LOT of dual-loyalties. America AND Israel. Eric of Classical Values sent me a link to this url which shows it is Worse Than We Thought for some Christians.

Are you a Christian first and an American second?

Or an American first and a Christian second?

Do you take your marching orders from God or the constitution?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
I am a Christian American. I love my county but my God is more important. If the constitution contridits the Bible i guess i will have to break the law. please to not think that i hate my country...i am very patriotic! I JUST LOVE JESUS MORE. :]

I'll take the patriots. Even if they have dual loyalties.

Cross Posted at Power and Control