A Johnny Reb in a Yankee World

The Ten Best Modern Films

2012-01-17T08:46:00.000-08:00

Nile Gardiner posted his list of the top ten conservative films of the modern era. He defines "modern" as "within the last fifty years."

I've got mote than ten from the last fifty years on my list of the 25 best films ever. So I don't want to just repeat that list.

But to me, saying that a film is "conservative" is like saying that a particular dish is healthy. You can either talk about how tasty a dish is or how healthy it is. Like food, art should be enjoyable and should promote good values. While I've recognized good liberal films, I compare that to recognizing the tastiest fast food.

"Best" by itself recognizes the balance of enjoyability and the promotion of good values. So I think "best conservative films" is like "best healthy dishes". Like with food, you can get so obsessed with healthiness that you drive all enjoyability out of it. Or you can get so obsessed with taste that you lose sight of the need for healthy eating. But this is not "the healthiest dishes," this is the best conservative films. It shouldn't be a surprise that there's some overlap, but there's an extra emphasis on the promotion of good values in my list of top ten conservative films of the last fifty years. But first I want to discuss Nile Gardiner's list.

10. The Pursuit of Happiness

I really enjoyed this film. Will Smith is a real star who devotes himself to his craft. Loosely based on an autobiography which is probably itself only loosely based on reality, the story is highly enjoyable.

9. The Lord of the Rings trilogy

While this is in my "top 25 films of all time" list, I can't say that this film is more conservative than it is enjoyable, even though it is undoubtedly both. So I didn't include it in my list below, but it is an incredible achievement by a fantastically talented crew.

8. Black Hawk Down

Absolutely great film, and its absence on my list is only because my list could not be long enough to include it.

7. The Killing Fields

Brutal and intense, but the rewatchability factor is extremely low. And, of course, it winds up excusing the communists, blaming the genocide on a reaction to "millions of dollars worth of bombing" by America. And ending with John Lennon's "Imagine" takes even more points away.

6. The Deer Hunter

Poignant, tragic, and way too long. This film seems to me to be a bit too meandering and unplotted.

5. Rocky

Sylvester Stallone is a godsend to conservatives. A better artist and more reliable conservative than Clint Eastwood ever was. This is a great film because of him.

4. Master and Commander

This is where I disagree with many other conservatives. This may be a conservative film, but I found it so boring and tedious that I couldn't watch it all.

3. Saving Private Ryan

A good movie. Not a great film.

2. Zulu

This seems to be Gardiner's version of The Sands of Iwo Jima. Both of these are great war films that promote honor and duty while refusing to shy away from the horror of war. I just prefer the one with John Wayne.

1. Chariots of Fire

As Gardiner notes, this is a great film backed by incredible talents. The artistic greatness of the film is undeniable. I actually just managed to watch this the other day on Gardiner's recommendation, and I'm still reflecting on it.

Now my list:

10. Courageous

Ultra-conservative promotion of fatherhood, responsibility, duty, honor, etc. And very well-made.

9. The Exorcist

It's a fight with the devil himself.

8. The End of the Spear

Civilization is better than barbarism.

7. Cinderella Man

This is an overlap with Gardiner's honorable mentions.

6. Why Did I Get Married?

Brilliantly funny, yet unafraid to confront sensitive issues.

5. Lean on Me

Good things happen not by accident, but because good men make them happen.

4. Sands of Iwo Jima

My version of Gardiner's #2 Zulu.(Fine. So this was made in 1948. I'm not changing it now.)

3. The Dark Knight

A second overlap with Gardiner's honorable mentions.

2. Fireproof

Sherwood Pictures' finest.

1. The Passion of the Christ

The film that made a pariah of Mel Gibson, while Hollywood still celebrates child rapist Roman Polanski.

Martin Luther King Jr. Debates Malcolm X

2012-01-16T21:48:00.000-08:00

Ricky Gervais At The 2012 Golden Globes

2012-01-16T11:00:00.000-08:00

Content warning:

Doonby Trailer

2012-01-15T21:20:00.000-08:00

An Exception To The Rule

2012-01-14T12:37:00.000-08:00

Normally I boycott The Daily Show, but I'm willing to make an exception in this case:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

An Evolutionary Stumblingblock

2012-01-11T09:19:00.000-08:00

Researchers from the Australian National University have discovered that the Y chromosome is shrinking as it loses genetic material but Paul Waters said men were not at risk of becoming extinct...

Dr Waters said the genetic material retained on the marsupials' Y chromosome had been lost in placental mammals such as humans, indicating different rates of gene loss across species.

''That was completely unexpected,'' he said.

The thrust of the article is on what this means to men. I think this overlooks the more important point, which is that our genes are shrinking as they lose genetic material. This occurs across species, so it's not just a human thing. What this means, though, is that genetic loss is more rapid than the gaining of new genetic information.

This is the opposite of evolution.

And it necessitates the question: if genetic loss is more rapid than the gaining of new genes, how do we have so many genes in the first place?

Carol Burnett & Tim Conway

2012-01-09T11:24:00.001-08:00

Classics:

The Best Films Of 2011 (That I've Seen)

2012-01-03T09:01:00.000-08:00

While I haven't seen most of the films in Libertas' Top 10, I've still managed to see quite a few films this year. With the exception of Zookeeper and Paul (both of which I decided simply weren't worth seeing), I manged to see all the movies I had planned to, as well as several others. There have been some great surprises, as well as some big disappointments. So here's a list of my top ten favorite films of the year:

10. Battle: Los Angeles - When Hollywood repeatedly shows military soldiers as depraved maniacs or victims of evil, wealthy, white guys, it's enjoyable to see our soldiers portrayed with the love of country that drives most of us to work hard and take the risks we do. The Transformers movies have also been good about this, but, honestly, I didn't think Transformers 3 was as good as Battle: LA (though it was certainly better than the second Transformers).

9. Atlas Shrugged: Part One - A controversial movie hated by people who hate Ayn Rand and people who love her, the film succeeded in many important ways. I feel that the movie's strong points overcome its weaknesses. If you haven't seen it yet, it's worth seeing.

8. The Grace Card - Given the utter crap that Hollywood put out this year, this was an excellent opportunity for independent filmmakers. GraceWorks Pictures made the most of their chance, and produced an excellent film.

7. Scream 4 - I'm a fan of the entire Scream franchise, and this film is a worthy addition. These are just great horror films that show Wes Craven still has it.

6. The Devil's Double - "The Devil’s Double tells the true story of Saddam Hussein’s villainous son Uday and his reluctant body double, Latif Yahia. Stylishly filmed by former James Bond director Lee Tamahori (Die Another Day), The Devil’s Double depicts the full tyranny of the Hussein family’s mafia-like reign in the ’80s and ’90s, dramatizing the plight of average Iraqis under their cruel and arbitrary rule."

5. Soul Surfer - An unexpected surprise. This movie is based on the true story of a surfer who was attacked by a shark, but never gave up her dream of surfing. With Dennis Quaid, Helen Hunt, and Kevin Sorbo.

4. Unknown - Liam Neeson awakens from a coma to find that his identity, his wife, and his entire life have been stolen.

3. Sucker Punch - Beautiful and surreal, filmmaker Zack Snyder shows why he's one of Hollywood's few remaining talents. This film is about a girl who creates a fantasy world in her head to escape the reality of her imprisonment in a mental hospital.

2. The Thing - This prequel to the 1982 film of the same name is incredible given that they were working within the confines of creating a story that would not interfere with everything that happened in the original. Fans of the original with Kurt Russel will not be disappointed.

And the number one film of 2011 was...

1. Courageous - Sherwood Pictures creates another hit. These police officers have to find the courage to be the men their families need. Expertly combines the drama, action, and humor you've come to expect.

Most disappointing movie of the year: Sherlock Holmes 2. I finally watched this one yesterday, and I was just amazed at the absence of structure. It's like the movie was made by a manic-depressive during a manic episode. Not entirely bad, but certainly not nearly as good as the first one.

2012 promises a lot more to look forward to. But I hope the independent filmmakers keep surprising us and challenging Hollywood.

Here's the best movies of 2010.

Rick Perry's Big Gay Ad

2012-01-01T22:05:00.000-08:00

Republican candidate for President Rick Perry released a new ad recently, and it's getting tons of attention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

The key line is this: "there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school."

Contrasting military service by openly homosexual individuals with the (false) statement that, essentially, kids can't openly be Christian (which is what he's implying), certainly indicates that he thinks there's something wrong with being homosexual.

Once you're done being outraged, we take a deeper look at what's going on here.

If politics were swimming, Rick Perry would be the guy thrashing about at the deep end of the pool, desperate for someone to toss him a life preserver. As political propaganda, this ad is very effective, but mostly for a reason you haven't considered.

These ads as released get almost no publicity. Politicians, especially, when they're losing, are desperate to get their name in the media. The video is getting a lot of criticism, and that's normally not the kind of attention that politicians want.

But this is an ad for a primary campaign. And the target audience isn't Christians. The target audience is exactly those people who are now expressing their outrage over this ad.

Here's how it works: The vast majority of Republican primary voters would probably never see this ad. However, there is a large group of people who are seeing it: center-left internet junkies. People who spend more time on the internet tend to be more polarized and partisan. It's not moderates complaining; it's people on the far left. This ad gets the "right" people to criticize Rick Perry. The Republican primary voter is going to hear her boyfriend's hippie stepsister complaining virulently about this ad, and she's going to remember that since they disagree about everything politically, this must mean that Rick Perry is doing something good. Because the people who are criticizing the ad are already, in the minds of Republican primary voters, associated with "bad" things (socialism, secularism, etc.), the criticism is translated into praise for the ad, in the same way that an endorsement from someone you dislike makes you like the endorsed less.

Critics of the ad are doing Rick Perry's work for him, just like he planned.

And the ad is just vague enough to allow someone so inclined to rationalize it as not being an attack on homosexuals, but a defense of Christianity.

If you're watching it, it's for you, one way or another.

Liberalism in a Nutshell: Intolerance

2011-12-29T18:17:00.000-08:00

"[D]iscrimination against anyone is discrimination against everyone." Michael Bloomberg

Does that mean that discrimination against people with criminal records should be illegal?

Liberals believe that judgment itself is intolerant. And so rather than have us all be equal before the government, liberals seek to use the government to force us all into nonjudgmentalism. Rather than trying to teach others how to judge properly, liberals seek to condemn the act of judgment altogether. And so racism is condemned, not for being inaccurate, but for being an act of judgment. Sexism is condemned for being an act of judgment, not for being inaccurate.

Tolerance is praised, not for being accurate, but for being the absence of judgment.

Beaver Borough bans non-residents from sledding. Essentially, the city's insurance company has a problem insuring the city against lawsuits by nonresidents who get injured when sledding on a particular hill.

“We are keeping the taxpayers dollars in the community by asking that only taxpayers sled ride in the community.”

Oh, by the way... the Catholic Church in Illinois is giving up the adoption business due to Illinois' requirement to adopt a nondiscrimination policy towards homosexuals.

Remember how Occupy Wall Street tried to stir up mob hatred against an identifiable minority? How can there be so much intolerance... in the name of tolerance?

Collectivist economics is based on the principle that you can take a dollar from a rich man and give it to a poor man and "society" will be richer in the aggregate because the dollar is of a higher value to the poor man than the rich one. Simply stating the idea out loud is usually enough to expose its utter absurdity. Any economic system based on this principle will destroy any incentive for the poor to help themselves. This poses no problem for liberals because the elite will decide exactly how much incentive each individual needs to do what is in society's best interest. However, the more goodies that the government hands out, the less fair and more corrupt it is. And when the government is responsible for insuring sledders, then the government has to exclude illegitimate sledders. When the government hands out free health care, it must either exclude illegitimate people or mandate that everyone buy insurance. Too many laws are based on the necessity of the government excluding people from unfairly taking advantage of government largesse. Give the government less power, and the government will discriminate against fewer people.

But this isn't about liberal economic fallacies. This is about why liberals are intolerant in the name of tolerance.

As I noted before, liberals learned the wrong lesson from slavery and the holocaust. They believe those things were caused by racial discrimination (as if enslaving or killing an equal proportion of all races would be any better).

See, the enslaving and killing were caused by discrimination.

They don't realize that the discrimination was caused by the enslaving and killing. The enslaving and killing were going to happen. The justification of race was an afterthought. There's all kinds of cause and effect issues that liberals get backwards. (Women's rights causes prosperity; prosperity causes tolerance; inequality causes greed; etc.)

Since racism is a failure of judgment, the argument is that all discrimination is a failure of judgment. The reasoning is bad, but it's consistent with the goal: delegitimizing the individual.

The purpose of the policy of nondiscrimination is to convince people to lose faith in their own ability to reason.

Obviously we should discriminate against murderers and thieves. Obviously we should have different rules for children than for adults. Though some will deny it, men and women are biologically different. What does this mean?

What it means is that this is a complex world, and if we want to achieve real progress, we should become better at judging by practicing it more.

It also means that, instead of advocating "tolerance" as an unmitigated good, it's better to lead by example than to attempt regulating thought. In the real world, some things should be tolerated, and some things shouldn't. The hard part is discovering whether our beliefs conform to reality. I believe it's obvious that murderers and thieves should be discriminated against, but what if I'm wrong?

The beauty of federalism is that it can allow all of our deepest-held beliefs to be tested in the safest possible way. Should homosexuals be discriminated against? Everyone has their own opinion, but Illinois is going to help us find out whether the real answer is what we want to hear or not.

Wrath of the Titans Trailer

2011-12-22T08:00:00.000-08:00

The Clash of the Titans sequel:

Is it just me, or is that "Sweet Dreams" music being used in a lot of movies lately (along with "Where is My Mind")?

The Hobbit Trailer

2011-12-21T09:11:00.000-08:00

The Dark Knight Rises Trailer

2011-12-19T10:55:00.000-08:00

The new one!

Looks like Batman takes on class warfare!

The Expendables 2 Trailer

2011-12-17T00:23:00.001-08:00

Music Video Monday; An American Christmas

2011-12-12T08:00:00.000-08:00

2012 Movies I'm Looking Forward To

2011-12-09T07:52:00.001-08:00

I didn't get a chance to watch as many films this year, due to a great many transitions. 2012 promises to be full of sequels and remakes, but that's okay. It'll be better for movies than this year was. So, without further ado, (okay, just one more ado. Now I'm done.) here are the films I'm looking forward to in 2012:

January 27 - The Grey. Starring Liam Neeson as the leader of a group of airplane crash survivors who are being hunted by a pack of wolves.

February 3 - Harry Potter and The Woman in Black. Wait, this isn't a Harry Potter movie. That's why I'm looking forward to it.

February 10 - Safe House. Denzel Washington is a highly-trained rogue CIA agent.

February 17 - Act of Valor. real Navy SEALs make a movie about Navy SEALs.

Then all the way to...

March 30 - Clash of the Titans 2. Ya, "Wrath of the Titans". I actually liked the recent remake, so I'm looking forward to this.

April 6 - The Cold Light of Day. Bruce Willis and Sigourney Weaver are parents apparently abducted in Spain, causing their son to begin a search for them.

April 13 - The Cabin in the Woods. From the writer of Cloverfield, this could be good!

May 4 - The Avengers!

May 11 - The Dictator. I'm cautiously optimistic about this one.

June 8 - Madagascar 3. My daughter got me hooked, so I hope she wants to see this one too.

July 3 - The Amazing Spider-Man. Please, let this one be good. It looks like a complete reboot.

July 20 - The Dark Knight Rises! This is THE movie I'm most looking forward to!

August 17 - The Expendables 2! I'm looking forward to this one almost as much!

September 28 - Looper. Sci-fi with Bruce Willis.

October 5 - Taken 2. The storyline is a bit of a reach, but the first one was absolutely great.

November 12 - Red Dawn. I hear good things about it.

December 14 - The Hobbit. This'll be good.

Several great movies in the mix there, I think. It'll be a good year.

Epidemic Of Rape Gangs Kidnapping Girls In Britain

2011-12-07T11:03:00.001-08:00

BBC3's Exposed investigates "Groomed for Sex":

via Kitman TV

Condi Rice Explains Everything

2011-11-22T10:42:00.000-08:00

She discusses Iran, Israel, her job, and what she's looking for in a President:

Music Video Monday: Community Season 2 Remix

2011-11-07T08:00:00.000-08:00

The Great Philosopher

2011-11-06T16:23:00.000-08:00

Will Durant:

Many of his books can be found on Google Books.

Musc Video Monday; Roll With The Flow

2011-10-17T08:00:00.000-07:00

When Marriage Is Just A Contract

2011-10-01T20:46:00.000-07:00

"Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat… But, if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it? … NO." A Man for All Seasons

Why not let two people make whatever contract between themselves they want?

Mexico City lawmakers want to help newlyweds avoid the hassle of divorce by giving them an easy exit strategy: temporary marriage licenses.

Leftists in the city's assembly — who have already riled conservatives by legalizing gay marriage — proposed a reform to the civil code this week that would allow couples to decide on the length of their commitment, opting out of a lifetime.

The minimum marriage contract would be for two years and could be renewed if the couple stays happy. The contracts would include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits.

Why not arrange for one-hour marriages? Does this undermine the argument that whatever other people want to do with their marriage is no business of mine? Not to people who already think that way. The ability of people to rationalize whatever they want never ceases to amaze me. But when people are told that reality often doesn't work the way they want it to work, they often respond by getting very angry. In this politically-correct age, people think their beliefs are as valid as anyone else's by virtue of the idea that all beliefs are supposedly equal.

Marriage simply doesn't work that way. The contractual basis for marriage stems from a consenting act between two people that can result in a new life. The terms of this contract are not negotiable because the contract is between the adults and the potential new life. It's no good to say that too few people live up to this contract, because people violate all kinds of other contracts all the time too.

Of course, if you're opposed to short-term marriages, it could only be because you're a bigot and a hater and probably a self-loathing hypocrite. That line of reasoning is how people have learned to get what they want.

But it's not about pretending that reality is whatever we want it to be. It should be about finding out what the true nature of reality is. That's why we should allow people to try new ideas. I'm all for allowing various communities to adopt the rules they think they need. But when my community starts trying to redefine a contract to mean something I know it doesn't mean, then I know it's time to leave that community.

People can and will disagree about exactly what a marriage is. People will disagree about whether certain acts are murder. But some people are right and some people are wrong. The first step is establishing that these words don't apply to just whatever we want them to apply to. The trick is to discover whether the definition we're using is the right one. Thinking that we can redefine it however we please won't work. The way a a community defines "murder" will have an effect on that community. Likewise with "marriage".

Reality is what it is. It's up to us to try to perceive it correctly, rather than thinking that however we want to perceive it is the right way.

Christie's Speech

2011-09-28T16:50:00.000-07:00

He says all the right words. This is a great speech, in fact. But it is still just words. Christie has been governor of New Jersey for less than two years.

All politicians lie. Their actions speak louder. By their results, you shall know them.

Take Control Of Your Child's Education

2011-09-18T18:34:00.001-07:00

If you really care about your child's education, make it a priority. No one else will care about your children more than you do.

WaPo's Journalistic Bias Shows

2011-09-18T16:49:00.001-07:00

The Washington Post published this with a straight face:

Even the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, while infamous for providing disproportionate benefits to the rich, showered far more money in absolute terms on the middle class.

If it "showered far more money in absolute terms on the middle class," it's absurd to describe them as "providing disproportionate benefits to the rich". What is wrong with these people?

Liberalism In A Nutshell: Part 3

2011-09-17T08:47:00.000-07:00

Your policy has been one which I fully understand – I’m not second-guessing – of one child per family. Joe Biden at Sichuan University in China.

The belief that there is no objective reality leads inexorably to the belief that there is no objective right and wrong. For this discussion, I want to distinguish relativism from subjectivism, with the understanding that these terms are often used interchangeably. And, I believe, wrongly.

The idea that everything is relative necessarily requires a belief in objective reality. Subjectivism does not. (For example, it's often said that taste is highly subjective, meaning that there is no right answer.) Speed is perhaps the best example. The speed of an object can only be relative to another object (higher physics excluded for this demonstration). We tend to measure speed relative to the ground, because the ground is a common, shared experience. Relative to the ground, the car may be going 60 mph, but relative to another car going the same speed in the same direction, the car will not change distance. Understanding this was important for sailors, and especially astronauts. The further you get from the ground, the more important it is to measure your speed relative to something else.

The relative nature of speed is an objective truth, but subjectivists do not believe in objective truth at all. Subjectivists believe that reality is whatever it is perceived to be. If I perceive a rabbit, then it is a rabbit unless and until my perception of it changes. If I perceive something going at a certain speed, then it is going that speed unless and until my perception changes. Because objective reality does not exist, my perception of reality is the only thing of importance.

Now let's apply these concepts to morality. People who believe in objective morality, in my opinion, do their cause a great disservice by rejecting moral relativism. Moral relativism is not moral subjectivism, yet it is often treated as though it were, by moral subjectivists as well as moral relativists. Moral relativism means that something may be more right or less right than something else, but it does not, as moral subjectivism would mean, necessarily mean that there is no objective right and wrong. Moral subjectivism leads to moral equivalence, because to do otherwise would mean that one person's perception of reality is more valid or legitimate than someone else's, which undermines the entire framework of subjectivism.

Christians especially should understand moral relativism, because the Bible discusses greater sins and more important commandments in several places. (Genesis 38:26, Matthew 22:37-40, John 19:11.) Moral relativism would not be controversial except that so many believe that it leads to moral equivalence. It does not. However, it is important to remember that people often do not use these terms in the particular way I'm using them here. The concepts I'm expressing are more important than the particular words.

Removing the shield of relativism from the grasp of subjectivists exposes the hollowness of this philosophy. And it is the philosophy of liberalism. They loudly proclaim that everything is in shades of grey as though that proves their belief that all shades of grey are the same.

Hence Vice-President Biden's statement that he would not second-guess China's brutal one-child policy. And we see the results:

Liberals learned the wrong lesson from the horror of slavery. Liberals believe that slavery was wrong solely because it was racist. While it's important to humanize the victims of horrid policies, as the video above tries to do, inequality in victimization is not the evil that we should be concerned about. But that's what liberals do in order to justify their beliefs. Even for liberals, at some point it sinks through the cognitive dissonance that slavery and genocide are bad. Blaming inequality is how they rationalize their way through. As if the equal spreading of misery would be better. As if it would be okay if only an equal proportion of all races were enslaved. As if it would be okay if only as many boys were killed as girls.

(And thus any act of racism, however minor, is treated as though it were the resurrection of slavery itself. Namecalling may be childish, but it is not slavery.)

This is because liberalism cannot abide the use of judgment. Liberals believe that judgment itself is intolerant. And so rather than have us all be equal before the government, liberals seek to use the government to force us all into nonjudgmentalism. Rather than trying to teach others how to judge properly, liberals seek to condemn the act of judgment altogether. And so racism is condemned, not for being inaccurate, but for being an act of judgment. Sexism is condemned for being an act of judgment, not for being inaccurate.

Tolerance is praised, not for being accurate, but for being the absence of judgment.

As Plato said, "Neither does he [meaning a democracy] receive or let pass into the fortress any true words of advice; if anyone says to him that some pleasures are the satisfaction of good and noble desires and others of evil desires, and that he ought to use and honor some and chastise and master the others - whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another."

As Ayn Rand said,

Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.

It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?

The goal here seems to be to convince people that the use of moral judgment itself is immoral. Plato predicted that this is how a democracy would end.

Previously.

Music Video Monday: Amazing Grace

2011-09-12T13:30:00.000-07:00

Via Tenor Anthony Kearns:

Sarah McLachlan: Angel

2011-09-11T16:49:00.000-07:00

Ten Years Later: Allen West

2011-09-11T15:20:00.000-07:00

10 Years Later: Condoleezza Rice

2011-09-11T09:32:00.000-07:00

Lee Greenwood: God Bless America

2011-09-11T08:34:00.000-07:00

10 Years Later: Rudy Giuliani

2011-09-10T22:03:00.000-07:00

"We must rediscover our unity. We must never forget what we witnessed on that day, both the incomprehensible face of pure evil and the depth of love and compassion. Today, ten years later, the fight continues and the memories remain etched into our national character."

Remember When Obama Was In Favor Of Civility?

2011-09-07T07:34:00.000-07:00

Obama now:

In an interview with WMAL's Morning Majority program Wednesday, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said the Obama Administration is not going to be drawn into the "gotcha game" of reacting to comments made by Teamsters President James Hoffa, Jr. At a Labor Day rally in Detroit, Hoffa urged the President to use unions as his army to fight back against the Tea Party and "take these son-of-a-bitches out."

Pfeiffer told WMAL that President Obama is not going to "serve as the speech police for the democratic party."

Obama in 2006: "[T]he leadership [of changing the tone] has to begin not just with the President but with his surrogates... The question is whether the president is willing to reign in those on his staff or in his control."

Hat tip: HotAir

Previously.

Music Video Monday: Revolution

2011-09-05T08:07:00.000-07:00

The under-appreciated Beatles' classic:

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out?
Don't you know it's gonna be
All right
All right
All right?

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're all doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is, brother, you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be
All right?
All right
All right

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You'd better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be
All right?
All right
All right (etc).

Al Gore: Win By Shutting Down Conversation

2011-08-28T11:08:00.000-07:00

There's a lot of harping that Al Gore compared the climate change debate to the civil rights debate. Well, he did compare the two, but he got an important fact wrong. Here's what he said (via Slate):

“There came a time when people said, ‘Hey man, why do you talk that way? That’s wrong, I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations, and slowly the conversation was won. And we still have racism, God knows, but it’s so different now and so much better. And we have to win the conversation on climate.”

In point of fact, racism was fought by saying "Hey, let's talk about it." The activists struggled to begin the conversation, not to shut it down. Telling people to shut up is bad strategy, in addition to being authoritarian. The President himself even said we should have a conversation about race. But it seems like only some people want to talk about it, because President Obama sure doesn't.

Hat tip: Hot Air

I Totally Called It

2011-08-16T21:06:00.000-07:00

Headline today:

White House denounces Perry as Republicans target Fed

Me, yesterday:

Tomorrow the media will take something out of context to claim that Perry just made a serious mistake.

This is so predictable.

Did Rick Perry Execute An Innocent Man?

2011-08-14T11:14:00.000-07:00

Rick Perry's announcement has brought out the most ridiculous fearmongering from Obama supporters. Here is a list of items that liberals define as extremist:

Perry gathers 30,000 people to a controversial Christian prayer rally.

Perry told The Daily Beast's Andrew Romano that Social Security is “a Ponzi scheme,” and that both it and Medicare are unconstitutional.

Perry has already flirted with secession.

Perry will claim that Texas leads the nation in jobs created.

So Perry is openly Christian. Liberals certainly believe that that is extremist.

Perry said that Social Security is ponzi scheme, which, of course, it is. Did he say it's unconstitutional? I'll let you decide: "I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that. From my perspective, the states could substantially better operate those programs if that’s what those states decided to do."

Perry, like everyone else in Texas, has joked about secession. Liberals certainly believe that Southern culture is extremist.

If you follow the link, you'll find the the criticism about job growth includes a criticism that government jobs grew at a faster rate than non-government jobs, and that most jobs created were minimum wage jobs. You know where else government jobs grew at a faster rate than non-government jobs? In America, under Barack Obama. And minimum wage jobs are where unemployed people get their start. They don't make minimum wage their entire lives unless they're doing something really, really wrong.

However, there's also the criticism that Rick Perry presided over the execution of a guy named Cameron Todd Willingham, often identified as "probably innocent". For starters, this is like saying that Rick Perry is presiding over the wrongful imprisonment of people who are probably innocent. Let's face it, it's probably true that there are innocent people in jail as we speak. Even in federal prison, being presided over by Barack Obama, who could commute their sentences if he were a really decent person. But Obama won't do it, because he likes keeping innocent people in jail.

That's a rather ridiculous criticism, isn't it?

Let's break this down. Quoting from Wikipedia (and rearranging the quotes into a coherent sequence):

The primary evidence leading to Willingham's arrest and conviction was the result of police inspections after the fire, which determined that the fire had been started using some form of liquid accelerant. This evidence included a finding of char patterns in the floor in the shape of "puddles", a finding of multiple starting points of the fire, and a finding that the fire had burned "fast and hot", all considered to indicate a fire that had been ignited with the help of a liquid accelerant. The investigators also found charring under the aluminum front door jamb that they believed was further indication of a liquid accelerant, and tested positive for such an accelerant in the area of the front door. Although no clear motive was found, and Willingham's wife denied that they had fought prior to the night of the fire, later testimony from a fellow inmate claimed that Willingham had confessed to starting the fire.

Willingham was charged with murder on January 8, 1992. During his trial in August 1992, he was offered a life term in exchange for a guilty plea, which he turned down insisting he was innocent. At trial, the fire investigator Vasquez testified that there were three points of origin for the fire, which indicated that the fire was "intentionally set by human hands". A sample of burned material near the doorway of the house tested positive for mineral spirits, indicating the presence of lighter fluid. Willingham had escaped the fire with bare feet and no burn marks. This was taken as evidence that accelerant was poured by Willingham as he left the house.

Consistent with typical Navarro County death penalty practice, Willingham was offered the opportunity to eliminate himself as a suspect by polygraph examination, which "was rejected in the most vulgar and insulting manner," according to Jackson.

It's important to note that Willingham's wife was threatening to divorce him. There are also allegations of erratic behavior at the fire. After conviction, all of his appeals failed. A final petition for clemency was submitted to Governor Perry, which included a report by "an Austin scientist and fire investigator" Gerald Hurst, who challenged the official report. Wikipedia doesn't mention how Hurst became involved in the case, whether through official capacity, as someone who just became interested in the case, or as someone hired by The Innocence Project or similar group, or what his credentials are. But it's important to remember that in every single clemency petition, all the facts are challenged. That's the way it works. If there are fingerprints on a murder weapon, that will be challenged. The defense will claim that all the evidence is based on flimsy science, or it's been planted, or aliens did it. That's what advocacy has become. This so-called "battle of the experts" is one problem in the way that courts handle forensic science. Essentially, you have a scientific issue that is so complex that you're just relying on an expert's opinion about it. And each side hires their own expert. There are some important reforms that could be made here.

So this is what Governor Perry was looking at in the clemency petition: yet another claim that all the evidence has been discredited. The key point is that Perry had no reason to grant clemency based on that petition. (Added: Even Perry's critics describe Willingham as only "probably innocent, meaning they're not sure either.) There's simply not enough evidence that the jury got it wrong. Before a conviction, there is a presumption of innocence, but after a conviction there is a presumption of guilt. There are always going to be people claiming that "there is evidence" of some position. There's evidence that Elvis is still alive, and that aliens have visited earth, and especially that the defendant is innocent.

Willingham was executed in 2004. Afterwards, his story became a "cause celebre" for anti-death penalty advocates. As Wikipedia notes, Hollywood made TV shows taking Willingham's side. As far as Hollywood is concerned, that this can be turned into an anti-republican cause is gravy. In 2009, the TFSC hired a Dr. Beyler to review the case. He, like Hurst, also found serious problems with the forensic science involved. (There's little doubt in my mind that the prosecution's use of the phrase "forensic science" lent an undue credibility to its case, however I'd be willing to bet that Beyler doesn't agree with Hurst about everything. That's one problem with experts: they're often just as opinionated as the rest of us.) The TFSC was scheduled to discuss this in October of 2009, and here is where another silly attempt to link Governor Perry comes in.

Governor Perry replaced three of the nine board members of the TFSC before the scheduled meeting. The meeting was then cancelled. Until July of 2010. When they sided with Beyler and found that the forensic science was flawed.

So because the meeting was delayed for a few months after Governor Perry replaced a few board members, critics are claiming this was evidence that Governor Perry attempted to suppress... something. I dunno. If that was his plan, it doesn't seem to have worked very well. But conspiracy lunatics aren't bothered by that. Surprise, surprise.

Was Willingham innocent? Well, the forensic evidence against him certainly seems discredited now. The circumstantial evidence doesn't seem to hold up. And if I were on a jury, I don't think I could convict based on the witness testimony that I'm aware of. Monday night quarterbacking is always tricky, but I doubt the jury would have convicted in the first place without the forensic evidence.

But if an innocent man was executed, he was executed by a flawed system and not by Governor Perry. As I said earlier, there are no doubt innocent men being punished in our judicial system today. To blame this on Rick Perry is to say that he should have done something different. Given what I've read, that doesn't seem to be justifiable. If there had been more evidence for Willingham's innocence, I could justify an expectation that the governor should have gotten involved. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. Just because the defense found an expert to give his opinion that the forensic science was flawed is not enough. That's something to be handled by the appeals process. We have the appeals process for a reason. There was no sudden, last-minute discovery of compelling evidence that would justify the governor's involvement.

Instead, the attempts to link this to Perry seem to be concerned more with attacking a Republican presidential candidate than with discussing, and finding ways to improve, a flawed judicial system. Ultimately, that hurts people because those flaws do not get reformed.

I got into a little bit of a debate with Radley Balko about this in the comments to one of his posts. By torturing the facts of this case to make it about Rick Perry, Balko is doing a disservice to proponents of reform.

UPDATE: A tip from another blog led me to the website for the Texas Board of Pardons, which says: "If the Board recommends clemency in a death penalty case, the governor may grant commutation or reprieve." Wikipedia says that the Board never recommended action in Willingham's case, which would seem to leave Governor Perry without recourse. While it could be argued that Perry should have attempted to intervene anyways, the fact has to be confronted that Perry simply was not responsible for the execution because he did not "preside" over it in any meaningful way. He had no legal authority to intervene.

Abduction Trailer

2011-08-13T20:14:00.000-07:00

Reminds me of I Am Number Four. With Sigourney Weaver.

To be released on September 23rd.

Predicting Elections Part 2

2011-08-08T20:32:00.000-07:00

Early in 2008, at a website that's no longer available, I predicted that Barack Obama would get the nomination because he repeatedly got more mentions in the media than any of the other Democrats. I also pointed out that McCain got more mentions, but I didn't realize that he would get the nomination too. I'm trying it again, and here are the tallies for this season's GOP candidates:

Everyone has fallen since last time except for our new front-runner, Michele Bachmann, who leads with 8,780 results on Google News.

Mitt Romney has 6,470 results.

Rick Perry has 5,890 results.

Tim Pawlenty has 3,850.

Newt Gingrich has 3,220.

Ron Paul has 2,670.

Rick Santorum has 1,880.

Herman Cain brings up the rear with 1,740.

The other candidates are so far behind that there's really no point in checking.

Michele Bachmann has shown surprising resilience. Mitt Romney's experience is clearly helping him maintain. Rick Perry benefits from his imminent announcement, but not as much as one would expect. Tim Pawlenty is failing to excite people, but if he can outlast some of the other candidates, that may change. Newt Gingrich seems like he's not trying anymore. Given his experience, he could pull out early. Even Ron Paul isn't keeping people's interest as might have been expected. Santorum and Herman Cain were at the bottom last time, and we can probably expect them to withdraw eventually.

It's important to remember that the last four Republican nominees were George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain. One thing they all had in common is a significant amount of time in politics. Republicans seem to like nominees with extensive records. I would imagine that to continue to be true.

Last time.

The Natural Order, Part 2

2011-08-08T15:37:00.000-07:00

James Taranto:

Westen and Klein, and other like-minded progressives, have revealed that they dream of a strongman uniting the "masses." If that requires vilifying selected groups of Americans, they don't mind and may even view it as a plus.

Even if he wanted to, Barack Obama could not be a strongman, in part because he is a weak man and in part because America's constitution is a strong charter of liberty. But if Obama had the means and inclination to impose a dictatorship, is there any doubt that Drew Westen and Joe Klein, at least at the outset, would goose-step with gusto?

1 Samuel 8:10-20

Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

Part one here.

Jeane Kirkpatrick's 1984 Convention Speech

2011-08-06T22:09:00.000-07:00

Awesome stuff:

The Blatant Dishonesty Of Calling For Targeted Revenue Increases

2011-07-23T10:35:00.000-07:00

If revenue increases are the goal, that burden should be shared by all. But calling for targeted revenue increases means singling out some people for tax increases. Singling out some group(s) for tax increases may be the right thing to do, but only if you're arguing that the current tax burden is distributed unfairly. If revenue is genuinely your primary concern, then you're not interested in changing the current distribution of the tax burden.

Either argument may or may not be true on its own, but it's dishonest to call for changing the distribution of the tax burden as the solution to an entirely different problem.

More Lies And Hypocrisy From Obama Again

2011-07-19T20:41:00.000-07:00

Music Video Monday: There's A Communist Living In The White House

2011-07-11T16:46:00.000-07:00

Condi Rice Talks About Reagan

2011-07-04T12:18:00.000-07:00

Music Video Monday: Fireworks

2011-07-04T09:40:00.000-07:00

Happy Independence Day!

Schoolhouse Rock's Fireworks is a good one for this holiday.

Stossel: What's Great About America

2011-07-03T09:22:00.000-07:00

This is a great special by John Stossel just in time for Independence Day:

Music Video Monday: We Con The World

2011-06-27T11:01:00.000-07:00

Gaffes and Two Minutes of Hate

2011-06-26T09:46:00.000-07:00

Ed Morrissey put together what I think is a better list of Obama gaffes, though not all of them are available on video.

The Selma March in 1965 did not contribute to his birth in 1961.
Kansas tornadoes in May 2007 killed 12 people, not “ten thousand”.
Afghans do not speak Arabic.
Within 24 hours, Obama reversed his assertion that Iran did not pose a “serious threat” to the US to an assertion that the threat is “grave”.
Declaring that Memorial Day honors an “unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today”
Saying that his uncle liberated Auschwitz
Asserted that the Nuremberg tribunals offered habeas corpus and appeal rights
Referred to “the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor”

Morrissey also includes the "corpseman" gaffe and the "Austrian" gaffe, as well as the botched toast, the infamous "57 states" gaffe, and the incredible "Medal of Honor" gaffe.

Why do liberals overreact to conservative gaffes? My personal theory is that they need to be fed their constant two minutes of hate. It's true that conservatives mocked Al Gore's claim to create the internet, and John Kerry's botched joke about Americans getting stuck in Iraq because they're stupid. But conservatives don't find something every day to mock. And it's not for lack of material, as the above list shows.

Probably liberals are just more insecure, and they need this constant reassurance. And while liberals believe these gaffes prove that Republicans are stupid, conservatives tend to say that Democrats' gaffes prove they're human. Even HotAir's "Obamateurism" feature focuses on the fact that Obama is an amateur, not an idiot.

When your job involves doing so much talking, you're going to say stupid stuff from time to time. When your job involves being in the public eye, you'll get caught being human every once in a while.

Certainly we want officeholders who are more professional. But liberals' disproportionate focus on Republican gaffes seems to me to indicate an inability to have a realistic view of their own candidates. Republicans are far more comfortable laughing at themselves, which I think is far healthier. Liberals' messianic perception of their candidates is dangerous.

Music Video Monday: Going Green With Cap And Trade

2011-06-20T15:25:00.000-07:00

Predicting Elections

2011-06-19T13:32:00.000-07:00

Music Video Monday: I Gots'a Peace Prize

2011-06-06T15:15:00.000-07:00

Via Steven Crowder

How To Make Friends

2011-06-04T17:04:00.000-07:00

Robin Dunbar says that 150 friends is the most you can have.

Dunbar has found 150 to be the sweet spot for hunter-gatherer societies all over the world. From the Bushmen of Southern Africa to Native American tribes, a typical community is about 150 people. Amish and Hutterite communities — even most military companies around the world — seem to follow the same rule.

The reason 150 is the optimal number for a community comes from our primate ancestors, Dunbar says. In smaller groups, primates could work together to solve problems and evade predators. Today, 150 seems to be the number at which our brains just max out on memory.

But there's a huge difference between having 150 so-so friends and havinhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifg a few really good friends. Even within the group of 150, there's levels of friendship. Some people can have several really close friendships, and some people have maybe one or two, or maybe even none.

But as the number of people we're exposed to expands, there are social effects because we have less time for deeper relationships. When we have more superficial relationships, "ambiguity allows us to imagine that other people share our world-view". "Effectively the more traits participants knew about another 'phttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giferson', the more likely they were to find dissimilarities with themselves, and so the more likely they were to dislike them."

If familiarity breeds contempt, what does superficiality breed? Admiration or naivety?

I think people are feeling the absence of close relationships, though. That's why we're seeing effects like this: Single parenthood by choice is on the rise, as are deliberately child-free marriages.

Marriage for purposes of companionship is a fairly modern concept for the general population. It's kind of like going to work for your social life. But our generation may be the first to see having children for purposes of companionship en masse. Why go to the trouble of making friends, which requires mutuality, when you can just... well, make "friends"?

As Henry Adams said, seemingly prophetically, "Friends are born, not made."

Cross posted at Partial Objects.

In Memorial

2011-05-30T13:21:00.000-07:00

http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
And now Clifford Beatty.

Always remember.

Netanyahu Addresses Congress

2011-05-25T14:52:00.000-07:00

This is an amazing speech by the Israeli Prime Minister before Congress on May 24, 2011:

Music Video Monday: I Honor Back

2011-05-23T19:04:00.000-07:00

In loving memory of Jason Harkins, Joel Lewis, Jason Vaughn, and Clifford Beattie.

Music Video Monday: Song of Freedom

2011-05-16T18:50:00.000-07:00

Bing Crosby from the movie Holiday Inn:

Politics Is A Dirty Job

2011-05-14T08:38:00.000-07:00

So send Mike Rowe. Here, he's testifying before the Senate about how the social disapproval of the kinds of jobs that deserve more respect:

Partial transcript:

In high schools, the vocational arts have all but vanished. We've elevated the importance of "higher education" to such a lofty perch that ahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifll other forms of knowledge are now labeled "alternative." Millions of parents and kids see apprenticeships and on-the-job-training opportunities as "vocational consolation prizes," best suited for those not cut out for a four-year degree. And still, we talk about millions of "shovel ready" jobs for a society that doesn't encourage people to pick up a shovel.

In a hundred different ways, we have slowly marginalized an entire category of critical professions, reshaping our expectations of a "good job" into something that no longer looks like work. A few years from now, an hour with a good plumber â€“ if you can find one â€“ is going to cost more than an hour with a good psychiatrist. At which point we'll all be in need of both.

You can learn more about his Discover Your Skills initiative here.

Germany Increase Funding For In Vitro Fertilization

2011-05-10T22:25:00.000-07:00

Instead of addressing the real problem of why people aren't having babies the old-fashioned way:

Mrs. Schröder pledged more financial help for treatments such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and more opportunities for adoption. 'I find it intolerable if the hope for children is dashed because of money,' she went on. 'I get many letters from couples who tell me how they scrape together the money, then despair when it doesn’t work, and start saving again – all that with the pressure of the biological clock ticking.'

Treatments for IVF cost between 3,000 and 4,500 pounds with age limits set in Germany at 40 years for women. On average every fourth attempt is successful, according to statistics.

Financial constraints in hard times, plus pressure on the budgets of the compulsory insurance funds which make up the German health system, have seen a dramatic fall-off in applications for IVF in recent years. It is unclear how high the financial incentives might be although some media reports said they might be as much as half of the total cost of treatment.

Chris Wallace Stumps NSA Donilon

2011-05-09T19:30:00.000-07:00

Watch the White House National Security Adviser dance!

Chris Wallace asks why it's okay to shoot bin Laden, but it's not okay to waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohamed. The cognitive dissonance is amazing!

Music Video Monday: Taliban Bodies

2011-05-09T08:38:00.000-07:00

In honor of the elimination of Osama bin Laden:

Sex & Candy

2011-05-06T15:24:00.000-07:00

A police officer got into some trouble for saying that, well, I'll just quote from the article.

An international series of protests known as SlutWalks, sparked by a Toronto police officer's flippant comment that women should avoid dressing like "sluts" to avoid being raped or victimized, is taking root in the United States...

"It was taking the blame off the rapist and on the victim," said Nicole Sullivan, 21, a student at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and an organizer of the SlutWalk planned Saturday in that city. "So we are using these efforts to reclaim the word 'slut.'"

The police officer made his comments in January to a group of York University students at a safety forum. He later apologized, but his comments were publicized widely on Facebook and Twitter. They inspired a march in Toronto last month that drew more than 3,000 people, as well as SlutWalks since then in Dallas, Asheville, North Carolina, and Ottawa, Ontario.

Apparently thousands of people all over the world are protesting this one officer's comments. But is that really what they're protesting?

First, and most obviously, anything sexual is a heck of a motivator. Tell people to go out and protest for more sex, and they'll probably do it. Slightly less obviously, but still pretty obvious, protesting about sexual repression is a great way to meet people who want to have casual sex. So certainly there's an element of just wanting to meet other people who are as desperate and horny as you are.

So ya, this is probably mostly just a crowd of male teenagers doing their best to show support for women, and hoping to get rewarded for it. However, I'm sure there are some women who do have serious and legitimate concerns about the idea that women are still being blamed for inciting rape. It's absolutely true that there is never a justification for rape, no matter how much some guy may think she's "asking for it".

Suppose that the pictures of a dead Osama bin Laden were published, and suppose that the worries about incitement and increased terrorism were realized. Those terrorists would not be justified.

Some rich guy goes to a seedy bar and shows his fat wallet around while he's getting drunk, bragging to everyone about the killing he just made in the stock market. Does he deserve to be mugged? Absolutely not.

Just as it's also true that no matter how much someone may flaunt their wealth, robbery is never justified. And no matter how much someone's religion is being insulted, there is no justification for terrorism.

Of course, part of growing up means acting like an adult. We don't go to bars and flash our money around. We don't publish pictures of dead cult leaders while their cults are still active. We don't incite people. Incitement doesn't excuse the bad actor, but it's better to avoid getting mugged than it is to see the mugger punished.

The world is full of animals out there. You may have a right to do whatever you want to do, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Cross-posted at Partial Objects

Condi Rice Destroys Lawrence O'Donnell, Defends Waterboarding

2011-05-06T07:00:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ms. Rice's statement about Canada "ultimately" supporting the invasion of Iraq is technically correct, but implies that they were part of the invading coalition. She has clarified that.

She did another interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper yesterday where she states that she has "no doubt" that waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohamed and others led to finding Osama bin Laden.

Music Video Monday: Fear The Boom And Bust

2011-05-02T14:20:00.000-07:00

via Econstories

Uniformed Los Angeles Cops On Duty In Porno

2011-05-01T09:37:00.000-07:00

Liberals immediately defended these men as victims of a puritanical, vast right-wing conspiracy.

Or at least they would if they were consistent. But then again, the foundation of liberalism is double standards. They'll defend a Democrat President for this (and worse: perjury and obstruction of justice), but not regular guys.

The Change-Up Trailer

2011-04-30T11:15:00.000-07:00

The writers of The Hangover (which was fun), are bringing us this twist on the old Freaky Friday movies:

It's going to be really difficult to pull this off well, but there is potential.

To be released August 15th.

The Devil's Double Trailer

2011-04-30T09:01:00.000-07:00

This opens July 29th.

Hat tip: Libertas

Music Video Monday: Too Late To Apologize

2011-04-25T10:55:00.000-07:00

Obama Brags About His "Accomplishments"

2011-04-24T11:14:00.000-07:00

While hitting up Hollywood celebrities for contributions to his billion-dollar campaign, Obama highlighted what he felt were his most significant accomplishments as President. Let's take them one-by-one.

"We've pulled this economy out of a recession."

No, "we" didn't, and no, he didn't either.

Hat tip: Hyscience

Inflation is also out of control.

"We've stabilized the financial system."

Another statement lacking in truth.

Despite that America's credit rating has been downgraded, the world's largest bond fund is betting that America will go into default.

"We've passed historic healthcare legislation to make sure 30 million people aren't going to go without coverage."

We have more uninsured than ever, and the legislation on which this was based, RomneyCare, is a failure.

"We have repealed 'Don't ask, don't tell.'"

While the legislation allows the policy to stay in effect until the Pentagon decides to change it, it should be acknowledged that Obama worked to do this the right way rather than allow courts to overturn it. So, point for Obama.

"We have put two women on the Supreme Court, including the first Latina."

This pisses me off so much. In defending his record, Obama highlights the qualifications of his judicial appointments as... their gender and race. Really? The fact that they're women and one is Mexican is Obama's accomplishment here? These are Obama's actual words! These are the terms in which he thinks of his appointments! "Wow, a woman AND a Latina? You must be really qualified!" These are the qualities that he's emphasizing here. He's the one who is focused on their gender and race. That's what he sees as being of primary importance. This should be horrifying to Americans.

"We've passed equal pay for equal work."

If you don't remember this happening, you're not alone. The bill Obama is referring to is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair pay Act of 2009. The Act isn't for women so much as it's a giveaway to lawyers. All it does is allow women to sue for gender discrimination anytime within 180 days of their last paycheck. Previously, women could sue for gender discrimination only within 180 days of an actual act of discrimination. This basically allows each paycheck to be construed as an act of discrimination. That's all it does.

Like I said, the lawyers love it.

But Obama says he's not done yet. He wants another four years to build on these "accomplishments".

Obama Says Subsidies Are Bad Economics

2011-04-24T09:03:00.000-07:00

At a time of rising gas prices, when politicians would normally advocate increasing spending on subsidies (which gives the politician more power), Obama actually manages to support doing the right thing: ending subsidies to oil companies.

The president laid out his own plan for controlling prices, focusing on ending price gouging but calling for an end to the $4 billion in federal subsidies for oil and gas firms.

He said there are some steps the U.S. can take to improve the situation such as ramping up domestic oil production and ending subsidies for oil and gas firms.

“That’s $4 billion of your money going to these companies when they’re making record profits and you’re paying near record prices at the pump. It has to stop,” Obama said.

A price gouging task force is, of course, a horrid idea. If you want to end production of something, one of the easiest ways to do that is by tying up the producers with bureaucracy and investigation. But ending the subsidy is a great idea. It has been pointed out many times that subsidies don't have much, if any, impact on supply. However, subsidies do lower the quality of the supply as producers channel energy into getting more government money instead of producing a better product.

And since Obama believes that the proper response to rising prices is to slash subsidies, we should do the reasonable thing and end farm and food subsidies too!

Politicians use the middle class's money to buy the votes of the poor with welfare, and they use the middle class's money to buy the support of the wealthy with stimulus and subsidies. There's at least one indication that people in Britain are waking up to the unfairness of this situation (hat tip: Instapundit). All subsidies should be ended. If individuals want to subsidize something, they should use their own money to do it rather than using politicians to force everyone to pay. When will Americans realize this?

Hat tip: iOwnTheWorld

More Blatant Socialism From Obama

2011-04-22T14:50:00.000-07:00

"[W]e are all connected. We will rise and fall together. That’s the vision of America I’ve got, that’s the idea of the heart of America."

Obama is wrong in so many ways here. The idea at the heart of America is freedom because America was the first place where a nation of people established a limited government, one that would provide peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice. Not one that would chain us together in socialism.

Obama is President, not a pastor. He's not calling for voluntary association here, but the use of government to bind those who strive for success to those who don't. In Obama's America, people can be as successful as the people to whom they are chained. In the real America, individuals can be as successful as their drive and abilities permit.

Socialism is slavery. It is the binding together of swimmers so that they all drown. That is what results from Obama's plan for America. Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

There is some criticism of Obama on immigration here. Some of it is even legitimate. I'm a proponent of expanding immigration, but only after reforming the entitlement state. Expanding immigration without reforming welfare will destroy America, completely and utterly...

...even faster than it's collapsing already.

Milton Friedman on the welfare establishment:

Liberalism in a Nutshell: Hatred of Success

2011-04-21T07:24:00.000-07:00

Dr. Sanity reminds us

That's why the left are so desperate to create more victimhood constituencies who will proudly stand for all those unworkable policies. That's why they always resort to stoking the "evil rich" meme.

As O'Rourke suggests, they still believe that my money (and yours) causes everyone else's poverty. They have an intense psychological need to believe that because it justifies their stealing other people's wealth.

Honest leftists are pretty open about this. For example:

Our American elite are getting more and more powerful (the rich getting rich, not the poor getting poorer, drives inequality) and they seem to be more stagnant. So in my view we increasingly have the worst kind of elite. Since we’re never going to get rid of elites, the trick is to ensure that they aren’t so powerful that they limit social mobility. The easiest way to do this is to limit their overall economic power.

Margaret Thatcher pointed this out decades ago:

Evan Sayet brilliantly explains why this is. I'll summarize.

Liberals don't believe in good and evil. They believe that all actions are equally good. As such, success is an indication of injustice because there's no reason why anything should be more successful than anything else. This is why success must be punished (for example, with higher taxes).

And this is why liberals cannot be satisfied with the opportunity to try their idea. Liberals will never be satisfied until they can force everyone to live according to their rules. This is why liberals despise federalism. Federalism allows ideas to compete. But what good is competition if success is injustice?

And anyone who wants proof that an idea is successful is a proponent of injustice. Capitalism is racism. Federalism is bigotry. War is peace. Freedom is slavery.

It all makes sense if you accept liberals' premises.

Palin Versus Trump

2011-04-20T07:45:00.000-07:00

CBS's Jan Crawford explores the Republican field, noting how the star power of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump stirs a lot of excitement, while Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney, who have announced their candidacy, may be benefiting from the attention that celebrities are bringing:

Until the video finishes converting, you can watch it here.

"The Emperor Has No Clothes"

2011-04-18T17:33:00.000-07:00

Obama claims that he personally rescued America from financial collapse:

Meanwhile:

Shares fell heavily on Wall Street on Monday after a leading ratings agency fanned fears of Europe's debt crisis spreading across the Atlantic by issuing a strong warning about America's failure to tackle its budget deficit.

In a move seen by Wall Street as a "shot across the bows" of bickering politicians in Washington, Standard and Poor's (S&P) said it was cutting the outlook on the US's long-term rating from stable to negative for the first time since the attack on Pearl Harbor 70 years ago.

As Senator Rand Paul says, "The emperor has no clothes."

Hat tip: Pat Dollard

Music Video Monday: One Term President

2011-04-18T13:09:00.000-07:00

Shared Sacrifice

2011-04-17T09:37:00.000-07:00

The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.

There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

The sheer volume of credits, deductions and exemptions has both Democrats and Republicans calling for tax laws to be overhauled. House Republicans want to eliminate breaks to pay for lower overall rates, reducing the top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Republicans oppose raising taxes, but they argue that a more efficient tax code would increase economic activity, generating additional tax revenue.

As the editorial notes, the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes paid an average income tax rate of 17% in 2007. While the income tax has flattened over time, what politician would be brave enough to ask the half of Americans who aren't paying income taxes to take some of that burden? And when most of federal spending is redistributive, what about asking those who are the beneficiaries of government subsidies to share in the sacrifice? One bad thing about government welfare is the pervasive belief that the recipients are entitled to it.

People who have property have more of a right to their property than people getting government subsidies of any kind do. There is no justification for raising the rate of people who are already paying the highest rate when there are people paying no income tax or even getting back more than they paid in.

But it's not politically popular to call for them to share in the sacrifice. By "shared sacrifice", liberals only mean that those who are already bearing the biggest burden should pay more. When the bulk of government spending is on subsidies, the only way to reduce government spending is to reduce subsidies.

Al Gore Is Scum

2011-04-16T16:21:00.001-07:00

“It’s true that governments by and large have been politically paralyzed because the energy companies, the coal companies, the oil companies, the coal-burning utilities, they have spent enormous amounts of money and they have succeeded in many countries in paralyzing the political process,” the former vice president said.

Democrats have owned the government for the last two years. Judge them by what they did with those two years. If it wasn't enough of a crisis to act on then, it isn't now either.

These people are the lying scum of the earth.

Obama: Government Is God

2011-04-13T19:40:00.000-07:00

"Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." II Corinthians 9:7

“‘There but for the grace of God go I,’ we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities,” Obama said. “We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.”

Why "There but for the grace of God go I" if it is government that gives us those guarantees? Obama means, "There but for the grace of government go I." And he clearly says that coerced charity is what makes a country great. And here I thought that greatness was voluntary charity.

The Bible's clear command for voluntary charity is why socialists despise Christianity. Voluntary charity has no place in a world without individual value, and individual values must be suppressed in favor of society's values. And society's values are whatever the government says they are. Does the government sometimes actually support society's values? Possibly, but not any better than would have been had free individuals made the decision for themselves. The only difference would have been that they wouldn't have been coerced.

And that makes all the difference in the world.

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit via theabundantgift.

Music Video Monday

2011-04-11T07:22:00.000-07:00

Today's hit is the classic "All Your Fakes Are Belong To Us" by Sout al Kuffar:

No Law For The Wicked

2011-04-10T12:30:00.000-07:00

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

A Fayette County man is acquitted of a battery charge after spitting on a member of the controversial organization tha tcame to West Virginia to demonstrate during the days following the Upper Big Branch Mine Explosion.

The jury in Charleston Municipal Court found Billy Spade of Hico not-guilty of the charge. Spade was arrested when he spit tobacco juice on a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. The inflammatory organization was protesting in downtown Charleston and holding signs reading, "Thank God for Dead Miners." Another sign, which Spade testified was particularly offensive to him, read "Thank God for Dead Marines."

The group is gained notoriety nationally for showing up to demonstrate during the funerals of military members killed in action. The church is vehemently anti-gay, anti-Catholic, and anti-Semitic. Their protest April 11, 2010 --six days after UBB -- was staged in downtown Charleston outside Charleston Catholic High School and a Catholic elementary school.

An officer assigned to patrol the event witnessed Spade spitting and arrested him. The officer testified he saw Spade spit on the woman's chest. Spade told jurors he spit on her sign which she was holding above her shoulders.

Charleston Police Sgt. Nick Null testified as he was leading Spade away, the victim Shirley Phelps-Roper said, "I'm glad you pigs finally did something,"

Phelps-Roper is the daughter of the church's controversial pastor Fred Phelps.

The jury ruled in the case that Spade committed no crime when he spit on the woman, under the highly charged circumstances. The jury returned its not-guilty verdict in less than an hour.

What this report describes is jury nullification - a decision by the jury that the law does not apply to a particular set of facts. A jury does not "rule" in a case. A jury merely returns a verdict of "guilty" or "not guilty". The prevalent thinking on the issue of juries is that juries have no power of nullification, that is, they do not decide the law. Juries are supposed to only decide whether or not the person committed the act of which they are accused. In practice, jury nullification may be more common than many legal scholars would like to believe.

However, I don't believe that the reporter in this case has sufficient access to facts on which to base the claim that the jury ruled that the defendant committed no crime. But there are a lot of missing details here. The jury may have simply decided that there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict. The law may have been written in such a way as to allow for the alleged facts to be considered provocation. There simply isn't sufficient detail to conclude that this was, in fact, jury nullification, as the report would lead you to believe.

Why is jury nullification important? Well, a couple of reasons. Jury nullification was considered to be a defense of the people against the government, especially a distant government (because juries are drawn from the locality). In this sense, jury nullification may actually be sensible in federal cases. In local matters, though, jury nullification would arbitrarily enforce the law, with this case possibly being an example of that. In short, justice would no longer be blind because the jury would decide who deserves justice and who doesn't. Think of how a community divided by racism would likely see juries make the law into a completely dysfunctional instrument.

Justice should not be a popularity contest:

X-Men: First Class Trailer

2011-04-10T11:02:00.000-07:00

Now with Bacon! (Kevin Bacon, that is):

Fake Hate

2011-04-10T07:54:00.000-07:00

Via iOwnTheWorld, we learn about this:

A 28-year-old African-American man has been charged with sending threats signed from the KKK to officials in the southern Illinois community of O'Fallon...

Officials allege Kidd is behind two November 2006 letters to the O'Fallon Police Department and City Hall. Both are signed "KKK warning."

The police letter warns that an apartment complex would be burned down if "all the blacks" aren't removed. The City Hall letter threatens to burn down the homes of black residents if they're allowed to stay.

Faking hate crimes is not uncommon. But how is that really any different than this?

House and Senate Democratic lawmakers spent most of Friday attacking Republicans for holding up a government funding measure over a controversial social policy rider to defund Planned Parenthood, but a source close to the situation said that Democratic attacks were "just a ruse."

In fact, the issue of how to handle the abortion-related rider was decided Thursday night: The Senate would take an up or down vote on the matter.

But White House officials told reporters early Saturday that funding for women’s health groups was the sticking point.

After all, a great way to motivate the special interests on your side is to exaggerate the threat they face and overstate how much work needs to be done on their behalf. Isn't that what faking a hate crime is all about?

Hat tip: Instapundit

The Con-Con: A Contrary View

2011-04-07T18:50:00.001-07:00

The Constitutional Convention is in the news again:

The divide between the grass-roots tea party desires and the Washington tea partiers represents something of a new rift within the movement. Activists back home are still ready for revolution, while the folks they sent to Washington are increasingly cautious.

Even freshman Sen. Rand Paul, who made a passionate plea for a convention before Kentucky state lawmakers, seemed more enthralled by the effects such a convention would have on Congress rather than the gathering itself.

“Anything to push this body up here to balance the budget is good, and I don’t think we ever will unless we have a constitutional convention,” Paul, who founded the Senate Tea Party Caucus with DeMint and Lee, told POLITICO.

While tea party groups are staunchly opposed to a full-fledged rewriting of the Constitution, a handful have begun promoting an Article V convention that would be limited to specific issues — things like a balanced-budget amendment or a proposal that hands states the sole authority to raise the federal debt limit.

They’re pushing the convention in online tea party forums. They’re taking to radio airwaves in Texas. And they’re hitting the road, making their pitch to tea party groups around Arizona. Many of their arguments can be traced to the Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based libertarian think tank that released a report last fall advocating for a convention in the face of fiscal gridlock in Washington.

A Constitutional Convention is essentially a meeting of representatives to fashion and implement amendments to the Constitution. Normally, the Constitution is amended by a 2/3 vote of the Senate and a 2/3 vote of the House. The fear is that a Constitutional Convention, once called, would escape it's mandate and completely rewrite the Constitution. Contrary to popular myth, this has not happened before. However, that doesn't mean that it can't happen.

But there is a reason why a Constitutional Convention can never actually happen. Ever. Wikipedia explains why:

Every state, except for Hawaii, has made applications for an Article V convention. The majority of such applications were made in the 20th century. While there is no official count of the number of applications, one private count puts the total number of applications at over 700.[9][10] Even though the Article V convention process has never been used to amend the Constitution, the number of states applying for a convention has nearly reached the required threshold several times.

Congress has proposed amendments to the Constitution on several occasions, at least in part, because of the threat of an Article V convention. Rather than risk such a convention taking control of the amendment process away from it, Congress acted pre-emptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention.

Did you catch it? Let me repeat the key sentence: "Rather than risk such a convention taking control of the amendment process away from it, Congress acted pre-emptively to propose the amendments instead."

The legislature will never allow a Constitutional Convention to happen. They don't want to take the risk that it won't go the way they want it.

So why bother supporting a Con-Con if it can't possibly happen?

Because that pressures the legislature into responding to the demand. The legislature will act when the demand is high enough.

This is why it's perfectly safe to demand a Constitutional Convention as a matter of strategy. This is why everyone should support a Con-Con. It's simply the best way to pressure the legislature into obedience.

This is why I think we should all start demanding action from our state legislatures.

As to what Amendment we should demand, I personally favor repealing the 17th Amendment. The Balanced Budget Amendment, while popular, seems to me to be unenforceable and ineffective.

Life Imitates WKUK

2011-04-06T18:57:00.000-07:00

Life: Woman sentenced to indefinite jury duty after making racist remarks on a questionnaire

WKUK

BREAKING: More Lies And Hypocrisy From Obama

2011-04-06T18:30:00.000-07:00

I know, I know. I could write a post any day with that headline. But consider:

Obama in 2008: "[T]he leadership [of changing the tone] has to begin not just with the President but with his surrogates..."

And now, Obama appoints Debbie Wasserman-Schulz to be be the new DNC chair. Hot Air reminds us of the tone of the President's appointee:

So is Obama the most two-faced politician ever? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Obama is just a typical politician. This is what typical politicians do.

GEN McChrystal on Leadership

2011-04-06T17:25:00.000-07:00

Interesting speech by retired four-star general Stanley McChrystal:

Via TED Talks

Who Pays?

2011-04-03T19:02:00.000-07:00

First, there is no free market in health care as there is with other necessities... Most spending is done by insurance companies, including the federal government's immense... programs. Because people can buy without restraint, spending explodes. Imagine being able to purchase food, clothing, and shelter this way. Second, the health care market is more regulated than any other market. As quality has floated heavenward, so have prices, but unnecessarily so. With far-less-costly regulation, this country's food, clothing, and shelter are also without parallel. Third, the health-care market is the only one to be successfully captured by the political doctrine that all people should be equal. Envision the expense of providing only the finest restaurants, fashions, and homes to every citizen in an effort to equalize food, clothing, and shelter. - Marilyn vos Savant

Every year, thousands of people make a deal with their doctor: I'll pay you a fixed annual fee, whether or not I need your services, and in return you'll see me the day I call, remember who I am and what ails me, and give me your undivided attention.

But this arrangement potentially poses a big threat to Medicare and to the new world of medical care envisioned under President Barack Obama's health overhaul.

The spread of "concierge medicine," where doctors limit their practice to patients who pay a fee of about $1,500 a year, could drive a wedge among the insured. Eventually, people unable to afford the retainer might find themselves stuck on a lower tier, facing less time with doctors and longer waits.

Medicare recipients, who account for a big share of patients in doctors' offices, are the most vulnerable. The program's financial troubles are causing doctors to reassess their participation. But the impact could be broader because primary care doctors are in short supply and the health law will bring in more than 30 million newly insured patients.

Maybe the government shouldn't be in the business of deciding how much health care people should get. Economic ignorance will be the death of this country by bankrupting us. Ilya Somin links to an argument that it's immoral to encourage the economically and politically ignorant to vote.

"Voting is not like choosing food from a menu. If a citizen makes a bad choice about what to eat in a restaurant, she alone bears the costs of her decision. But if she makes a bad choice at the polls, she imposes the costs on everyone."

Bastiat highlighted this problem a long time ago. "Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." Frederic Bastiat

Incitefulness

2011-04-01T13:46:00.000-07:00

At least eight foreign U.N. workers were killed, two of them beheaded, on Friday in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif after a demonstration against the burning of Korans by a U.S. preacher, a regional police spokesman said.

"Eight foreigners were killed and two were beheaded," said Lal Mohammad Ahmadzai, a police spokesman for the northern region.

Over a thousand protesters had flooded into the streets of the normally peaceful city after Friday prayers, and after two or three hours violence broke out.

Remember George Tiller? He's the abortion doctor who was assassinated by Scott Roeder. There are a lot of ways I can describe this assassination in the name of providing "context":

George Tiller was assassinated by right-wing fundamentalist Scott Roeder.

George Tiller was shot by Scott Roeder after gruesome details of Mr. Tiller's involvement in extreme late-term abortions came to light.

This is known as editorializing. In the initial news report, this can be seen by the reporter's use of "the burning of Korans by a U.S. preacher" in the opening sentence. However, it's easy to see that the burning of the Korans weren't the cause of the 8 murders, because later in the news article, we read,

Thousands of demonstrators marched through western Herat city and around 200 in Kabul, but there was no violence at either protest.

So... only one city got violent? And yet they were all given the same information. Maybe, just maybe, the problem is that one city. Often, things are ready to happen and one spark sets it off. It's not really fair to blame one spark for causing an explosion in a house filled with natural gas. Maybe the volume of natural gas had something to do with it.

Likewise, people attempt to politicize every occurrence of violence (and even some made-up violence) when it's rarely a movement or religion that is to blame. This is the problem when trying to blame groups of people for the decisions of individuals.

But this does not excuse incitement. The attempt to politicize acts of violence is also incitement. It's an attempt to persuade people to react a certain way. That city had some people in it who deliberately promoted violence as the response.

The big point to take from this is that so-called news organizations that editorialize are doing more than just reporting the news. They're trying to get you to make the associations they want you to. The best we can do is to be aware of that.

Update: Hot Air has more on the mullahs who incited this crowd to violence:

Friday’s incident began when three mullahs, addressing worshippers at Friday prayers inside the Blue Mosque here, one of Afghanistan’s holiest places, urged people to take to the streets to agitate for the arrest of Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who oversaw the burning of a Koran on March 20. Otherwise, said the most prominent of them, Mullah Mohammed Shah Adeli, Afghanistan should cut off relations with the United States. “Burning the Koran is an insult to Islam and those who committed it should be punished,” he said.

The crowd — some carrying signs reading “Down with America” and “Death to Obama” — poured into the streets and swelled — the governor of Balkh Province, Atta Mohammad Noor, later put the number at 20,000…

The mob also burned down part of the United Nations compound, toppled guard towers and heaved blocks of cement down from the walls. The victims were killed by weapons that the demonstrators had wrestled away from the United Nations guards, according to Mr. Noor…

A prominent Afghan cleric, Mullah Qyamudin Kashaf, acting head of the Ulema Council of Afghanistan (and a Karzai appointee), also called for American authorities to arrest and try Mr. Jones for the Koran burning.

The Ulema Council recently met to discuss the Koran burning, he said in a telephone interview. “We expressed our deep concerns about this act and we were expecting the violence that we are witnessing now,” Mullah Kashaf said. “Unless they try him and give him the highest possible punishment, we will witness violence and protests not only in Afghanistan but in the entire world.”

Cute Kids

2011-03-31T17:35:00.001-07:00

This is a great clip from the TV show "Kids Say the Darnedest Things":

Music Video Monday: The Story of Spending

2011-03-28T06:42:00.000-07:00

Via BankruptingPA

Freeloaders 2

2011-03-27T10:22:00.000-07:00

Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Frederic Bastiat

John Stossel's latest special:

I just had this debate with someone the other day who said that sure, people are all being forced to contribute to each others' values, but she had faith that it all worked out equally in the end. Did she do the math? No, but that didn't bother her. Everyone pays and everyone benefits. Therefore, if everyone paid more, everyone would benefit more!

Here's Bastiat explaining why that's wrong.

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws!

Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution -- some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

4 Chords

2011-03-26T11:11:00.001-07:00

This is really funny:

The Axis of Awesome sing a medley of songs to the same chords in aid of Red Nose Day 2011.

Music Video Monday: Victicrat

2011-03-21T19:01:00.000-07:00

Language warning:

You can download the mp3 from Amazon.

There's No Extremist Like An Abortion Extremist

2011-03-14T18:51:00.000-07:00

All the talk of "listening" and "understanding the other side" and "finding common ground" goes out the window for liberals when it comes to abortion. They consider all pro-life people to be lunatics because that's what they're told to believe day in and day out. I can completely empathize with the argument that women shouldn't be trapped by a pregnancy. I've felt the horrible feeling that circumstances beyond my control have bound my fate, and that other people are going to prevent me from taking the easy way out. I'm willing to discuss middle ground. But I've yet to find any liberal who is. Nobody wants to talk about it (for a variety of reasons, I'm sure. But the lack of dialogue is still a problem.) If we had more civil discussions, we'd have less heated disagreement.

Allow me to indulge in a bit of whimsical fantasy. I've rewritten Obama's gun control letter to be about abortion. Let's see what it sounds like:

In the last year, we have lost perhaps another 800,000 members of our American family to abortion. Thousands of women have been wounded. We lose the same number of young people to abortions every minute as we did at Columbine, and every three minutes as we did at Virginia Tech.

Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it.

Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Constitution guarantees an individual right to liberty. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of freedom from government that's handed from generation to generation. Personal autonomy is part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of women - it has expanded them, including funneling more taxpayer dollars to organizations that provide abortions.

The fact is, almost all pregnant women in America are highly responsible. They're our mothers and sisters. They choose who they want to date, and they take responsibility for themselves. And that's something that pro-life advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for choice should accept the awful reality that abortion affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a planned parenthood in California.

I know that every time we try to talk about abortion, it can reinforce stark divides. People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen. We mire ourselves in stalemate, which makes it impossible to get to where we need to go as a country.

However, I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place.

I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding women agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few - dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example - from opening abortion mills in the first place.

I'm willing to bet they don't think that using medicine and using common sense are incompatible ideas - that we should provide ultrasounds before conducting abortions; that an underage girl shouldn't be able to get an abortion without her parents' consent; that there's room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Constitution.

That's why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting positions of power over young women in the first place.

• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban is the filter that's supposed to stop people from providing unnecessary abortions in the first place. Bipartisan legislation eight years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to providers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.

Porous background checks are bad for doctors, for law-abiding citizens and for the women themselves. If we're serious about preventing unnecessary abortions, then we can't allow a situation where underage girls are sold abortions without oversight.

Clearly, there's more we can do to reduce abortions. But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.

I know some aren't interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-abortion is a capitulation to the abortion lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's fundamental rights. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.

But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most pro-life advocates know that most women are responsible citizens. Most pro-choice advocates know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "slavery." And none of us should be willing to remain passive as doctors perform unnecessary abortions or resigned to watching helplessly as someone has her fifth or sixth abortion.

As long as those whose lives are shattered by abortion don't get to look away and move on, neither can we.

As you can see, I've left ninety percent of the language intact. How many liberals would trust a Republican who said this?

**I would like to point out that my position on abortion and my position on gun control are very similar: allow states to pass reasonable regulations, but repeal existing federal regulations.**

Music Video Monday

2011-03-14T05:48:00.000-07:00

Mike Church's classic "Here's to you, Mr. Jefferson":

Obama Lies To Promote New Federal Gun Regulations

2011-03-13T15:14:00.000-07:00

Obama comes out in favor of new federal gun regulations, but uses a lot of deception and dissembling in doing so. I'll start with the most ridiculous lie first:

It's been more than two months since the tragedy in Tucson stunned the nation. It was a moment when we came together as one people to mourn and to pray for those we lost. And in the attack's turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.

As anyone who was conscious at the time can remember, media on the left blamed Sarah Palin and/or the Tea Party and did such a great job that the majority of liberals actually blame her. Compare Obama's rhetoric here to his repeated denunciations of the belief that he wasn't born in Hawaii,even though 1/3 of those who think that still support Obama. No one who thinks Palin caused the Tucson shooting supports her.

Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.

But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.

Here, Obama is trying to pretend that his plan is moderate because some will say that it goes too far, while some will say that it does not go far enough. That means it's centrist!

Sadly, too many people will believe such ridiculous garbage. No matter what plan Obama puts forward, it would be true that some people will say it goes too far and some will say it doesn't go far enough. To believe that that makes it a good plan is the epitome of unreason.

So what is his plan? He presents it in three bullet points:

First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

"Enforcing laws that are already on the books" is Obama's job. That's what the President is supposed to be doing. Why is he saying that "we" should begin here?Why hasn't he already started doing it? The legislation is passed, but by his own admission, he has failed to properly implement it.

Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

Some people don't like Big Brother. Here, Obama is saying that the federal government should pay states to supervise and report on their citizens. What concerns me here is that this bullet point is as vague as it is short.

Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.

The really big problem here is that criminals don't get their guns from "sellers who want to do the right thing". Criminals get their guns from the black market. Maybe we should make the system "faster and nimbler." Who can be against that? I think a faster and nimbler system would be more decentralized. I'm in favor of that.

The biggest lie of all is the implication that these changes would have stopped Loughner from getting a gun. Loughner never did anything that would have showed up on a background check. Obama devotes six paragraphs to the Tucson shooting (the first five and the last one). Nowhere does he suggest anything that would have stopped Loughner from buying a gun. He's trying to capitalize on the tragedy to pass completely unrelated legislation. It's pretty horrific to politicize those people's pain and loss in this way.

I'm all for reasonable gun regulations. That's why I'm totally opposed to federal gun regulations, of which we already have many that Obama has announced he is failing to enforce. States are also perfectly capable of participating in a national database without a federal mandate or federal encouragement (Yes, I understand McDonald better than most). In the numbers that are being discussed, the one I'm most concerned with is "how much gun violence would a proposed regulation reduce?"

My cynicism is directly proportional to the blatant lies that politicians get away with. And right now I'm pretty cynical.

"You provide the pictures, I'll provide the war"

2011-03-13T12:16:00.000-07:00

"But whatever challenges we face and however history unfolds, we rely on all of you -- the press -- to tell the story. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be in positions of power may have our gripes about how the media covers us, but that's only because your job is to hold us accountable. And none of us would want to live in a country without that failsafe -- without a free press and freedom of expression. That's what people all around the world are fighting for as we speak. In some cases, they’re dying for those rights. And that's what many reporters risk their lives to uphold -- from Kandahar to Tripoli." President Barack Obama

Recent reports out of Israel describe a Jewish family that was slaughtered in the West Bank, and Palestinians celebrating these murders, despite the Palestinian Prime Minister's denunciation. There's a video at the link which includes images of the victims before and after the attack. Included in the video is language blaming the attack on "2 Palestinian terrorists", and saying "These are Israel's 'peace partners'." PJ Tatler reports that YouTube and Facebook removed this video.

A couple of points:

YouTube is loaded with videos about Jewish conspiracies and videos which include images of victims' bodies. YouTube had no basis on which to pull this video and not any of these others. If YouTube did.

And that leads to the second point: there simply isn't much in the way of investigative journalism into this incident. Substantiated facts are few and far between. At this point, all I really know is that there have been allegations. As has been pointed out to me before, it's not what the media tells us, it's what they don't tell us. But the media is too busy finding ways to support a particular narrative ("We'll give you whatever facts you want to confirm what you already believe if you'll just watch our network!"), that we often cut ourselves off from facts that might challenge our pre-existing beliefs.

Given that many Americans have been killed over what's happening in the Middle East, I'd certainly like to know if it's true that Palestinians celebrated this awful crime. Given that Middle Eastern culture is responsible for producing more modern terrorists than any other culture, I think it's an important and relevant question.

Whoa. Did I just criticize someone else's culture? Did I just imply that America's culture is superior?

Yes, I did. Not all cultures are equal. I know that's politically incorrect to say, but it's true. Too many people in the Middle East are suffering from a backwards, oppressive, barbaric culture. As we continue to see by the removal of one dictator after another, they want to be free of it.

Meanwhile, we allow, nay, demand that our media give us the equivalent of McDonald's for every meal of every day. Our media is the way it is for the same reason Americans have an obesity problem. We shouldn't trust it any more than we would blindly trust the fast food industry to give us healthy meals. They only give us what we want. We should want better.

Every day, I become more convinced that the future of freedom is somewhere else.

Hat tip: Instapundit

The Natural Order

2011-03-12T10:43:00.001-08:00

NYTimes:

The two authors mean to show that although the formal separation of powers no longer has effect, the president as a rational actor is still constrained through public opinion and politics; even a strong executive needs to appear bipartisan and to worry about popularity ratings. So there is no solid reason to fear executive tyranny, and we should feel free to enjoy the benefits of the administrative state.

Posner and Vermeule rest their argument on necessity, on what could not be otherwise. History and social science, they say, prove that under modern conditions the administrative state is the only way for the nation to meet the challenges it faces. But their analysis also shows that informal checks remain necessary: the calculations and political maneuvering presidents engage in to retain their credibility replace the formal checks Madison described. Thus the Constitution is false but works anyway.

But what about those benighted people — the Tea Partiers, for example — who oppose the administrative state, who believe that the cost of increased executive power may lead to crises brought on by defaulted debt? And is not the administrative state of the New Deal and its successors a fairly recent event, hardly inevitable but chosen by the American people? Once chosen, it is hard to change, but is change impossible? Is it not arguable that over time the administrative state, with its inexorable expansion, makes itself unfeasible because of the costs it incurs and the opposition it engenders?

Tocqueville:

No sovereign ever lived in former ages so absolute or so powerful as to undertake to administer by his own agency, and without the assistance of intermediate powers, all the parts of a great empire; none ever attempted to subject all his subjects indiscriminately to strict uniformity of regulation and personally to tutor and direct every member of the community. The notion of such an undertaking never occurred to the human mind; and if any man had conceived it, the want of information, the imperfection of the administrative system, and, above all, the natural obstacles caused by the inequality of conditions would speedily have checked the execution of so vast a design...

The democratic nations that have introduced freedom into their political constitution at the very time when they were augmenting the despotism of their administrative constitution have been led into strange paradoxes. To manage those minor affairs in which good sense is all that is wanted, the people are held to be unequal to the task; but when the government of the country is at stake, the people are invested with immense powers; they are alternately made the play things of their ruler, and his masters, more than kings and less than men. After having exhausted all the different modes of election without finding one to suit their purpose, they are still amazed and still bent on seeking further; as if the evil they notice did not originate in the constitution of the country far more than in that of the electoral body.

It is indeed difficult to conceive how men who have entirely given up the habit of self-government should succeed in making a proper choice of those by whom they are to be governed; and no one will ever believe that a liberal, wise, and energetic government can spring from the suffrages of a subservient people.

A constitution republican in its head and ultra-monarchical in all its other parts has always appeared to me to be a short-lived monster. The vices of rulers and the ineptitude of the people would speedily bring about its ruin; and the nation, weary of its representatives and of itself, would create freer institutions or soon return to stretch itself at the feet of a single master.

Thomas Jefferson:

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

Plato:

Do not their leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people; at the same time taking care to reserve the larger part for themselves? Why, yes, he said, to that extent the people do share.

And the persons whose property is taken from them are compelled to defend themselves before the people as they best can? What else can they do?

And then, although they may have no desire of change, the others charge them with plotting against the people and being friends of oligarchy? True.

And the end is that when they see the people, not of their own accord, but through ignorance, and because they are deceived by informers, seeking to do them wrong, then at last they are forced to become oligarchs in reality; they do not wish to be, but the sting of the drones torments them and breeds revolution in them. That is exactly the truth.

Then come impeachments and judgments and trials of one another. True.

The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness. Yes, that is their way. This, and no other, is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector.

In point of fact, our Constitution was created to prevent this centralization of power. The 17th Amendment prevents the Senate from acting as a check on centralization. Unless the Senate is restored to its proper purpose, America will continue its decline into centralization, followed by anarchy, followed by tyranny. That's the natural order.

Hat tip: A Thousand Nations

Meet The New Politics, Same As The Old Politics

2011-03-12T09:05:00.000-08:00

As President Barack Obama sets himself to the task of “winning the future” — not to mention the 2012 election — he and his aides are grappling with a trickier political problem: how to characterize the present.

This is a typical problem that politicians have: how do you motivate people to re-elect you? Don't worry. Politicians have their ways.

The White House is now betting on a recovery — and betting that the old rules, in which presidential popularity is tied to growth rates and declining unemployment rates — will hold. Reich remains among the skeptics, arguing that the economy is nowhere near 1996’s boom time, and that Obama should model himself on Franklin Roosevelt’s Depression-era combination of optimistic leadership and willingness to place blame on specific economic villains. But many economists who study public opinion say Obama may be well-positioned to catch a wave.

“In normal times, voters reelect a president when growth is high,” said Alberto Alesina, a Harvard economist. “The perception and reality cannot be so different for so long.”

Ya, it's really that simple. Take credit for everything good, whether you had anything to do with it or not. And blame everything else on your political opposition, whether they had anything to do with it or not. The same thing politicians have been doing since politics existed.

Alberto got one thing right: perception and reality cannot be so different for so long. But check out what he said right after that:

“If the economy continues to emerge from the recession, those perceptions could catch up with reality,” he said.

If? If??

What happened to reality? Apparently they're not as certain of it as they pretend to be.

And no surprise.

Obama: Mission Accomplished

About that perception versus reality thing?

Ya...

Hat tip @gabrielmalor for the article and to Gateway Pundit for the graph.

"I blame the press"

2011-03-11T17:39:00.000-08:00

It started with a Facebook status update. Upset at the media’s coverage of Charlie Sheen, someone took up for American soldiers dying in Afghanistan.

“Charlie Sheen is all over the news because he’s a celebrity drug addict,” it said, “while Andrew Wilfahrt 31, Brian Tabada 21, Rudolph Hizon 22, Chauncy Mays 25, are soldiers who gave their lives this week with no media mention. Please honor them by posting this as your status for a little while.”

The status update has since gone viral, shared by tens of thousands on Facebook. An abbreviated version is on Twitter.

When a friend of mine posted the message on her Facebook page, it was a sobering reminder of the news media’s failings of covering the Afghanistan war. I kept returning to the names of the four soldiers. Who were these men? What’s their story?

I started by calling the father of Cpl. Andrew Wilfahrt (pronounced WILL-fort) in Rosemount, Minnesota.

“I think it’s spot on,” Jeff Wilfahrt said of the viral post.

His 31-year-old son was killed while on foot patrol outside Kandahar on February 27, around the same day the Sheen media blitz kicked into high gear.

“From the Charlie Sheens to Lindsay Lohans, who are these people and what good have they done in society?” Jeff Wilfahrt said. “What are we collectively doing as a society? How do you wake people up?

“In part, sir,” he said, “I blame the press.”

Oddly enough, nowhere in this article does CNN discuss how much more attention its coverage of Charlie Sheen netted than did its coverage of these soldiers. What would be the fate of a media organization that failed to provide the coverage that media consumers demanded? Answer: it would be abandoned by media consumers and fade into obscurity. If it gets lucky, it may corner a small niche market.

No, success in the media industry means getting attention. The only way to do that is to provide customers with what they want. In this case, the customers want to be excused of their role in rewarding sensationalist media. And even for that, the press is willing to oblige.

Cross-posted at Partial Objects