Bookmark me or the Baron will pull my heart plug thingy.

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

The left's perception problem

is right here. Now, you can argue that John Pike and the rest of the libertarian conservatives (of which I thought I was one, but now I wonder) are scared of the religious right and will vote democrat all you like... but they won't, unless the dems outright purge this element. Which they probably won't.

Beware the Christians!!!

Anti-Chrisitian hysteria is rampant. I don't get it, being that I'm a Christian and I think I'm a decent love thy neighbor type of guy. But I live in Hawaii, and I don't get a lot that goes on in the Mainland. For instance people in Hawaii CONSTANTLY make racial jokes, constantly refer to others in racially insensitive ways, and constantly try to nail people's racial identity down. For instance if my wife says a new child joined her pre-school I usually will say "What kind?" meaning "what gender and what race?" Now, I'm not sure, but I'm guessing people on the mainland find that offensive. I don't think anything of it, I'm just trying to picture the kid and the kid's parents.

Today, as I was reading Television Without Pity's Miss Ali's take on the latest Survivor, I came across this:

James now conducts an interview in which he declares, "Ibrehem's overstayed his welcome." After all, he was meant to leave at the last tribal council and so forth. And then James takes a giant flying leap right past "amusing dumb-ass" to "rampaging asshole bigot" with this gem: "By the grace of Allah, he didn't go. Well, my God says he is today." Oh, you fuck. You tiny-minded, backward, hypocritical, know-nothing fuck. The kind of small that you have to be to drag a miscellaneous religious slur into a discussion of tribal council is so particular that it betrays a sense that you carry these things with you always -- these little rocks of distrust of everyone who isn't exactly like you, and you may tolerate people who aren't precisely like you, but it's an inch below the surface, all this ugliness, and you just can't wait for your shot. What a horrifying remark, truly. How embarrassing that we have people like that walking around in polite society. We should make them wear bells so we know where they are. Jerk. ["PS: Same deity. So in addition to being offensive and dumb, James's statement was also inaccurate. Well done, sir!" -- Wing Chun]

Is this really warranted? "Rampaging asshole bigot?" I mean when he said that I thought- this guy is dumb as a stick- (which wasn't news, btw) (which is also, btw, what I thought when Ibrehem said Allah saved him from being kicked off the week before, which, again, wasn't news exactly) (btw I much prefer Ibrehem to James, as Ibrehem is big for nothing but know it, whereas James is small and useless but thinks he makes up for it with pep talks)

it betrays a sense that you carry these things with you always -- these little rocks of distrust of everyone who isn't exactly like you, and you may tolerate people who aren't precisely like you, but it's an inch below the surface, all this ugliness, and you just can't wait for your shot. What a horrifying remark, truly. How embarrassing that we have people like that walking around in polite society.

Wow! Does it really betray all that?!?!? I thought it was just a dumb joke. I call this an overreaction- and a symptom of... I don't know the word- hysteria? And this sense of hysteria is rife throughout the blogosphere and the MSM right now. Shall I say it? SHALL I SAY IT!?! I WILL- (drumroll) It reminds me of the way Jews are hysterically vilified.

George Felos (Michael Schiavo's attorney) Literally Communes with the Dead

From Felos's book: Litigation as Spiritual Practice

As Mrs. Browning lay motionless before my gaze, I suddenly heard a loud, deep moan and scream and wondered if the nursing home personnel heard it and would respond to the unfortunate resident. In the next moment, as this cry of pain and torment continued, I realized it was Mrs. Browning.

I felt the midsection of my body open and noticed a strange quality to the light in the room. I sensed her soul in agony. As she screamed I heard her say, in confusion, "Why am I still here ... Why am I here?" My soul touched hers and in some way I communicated that she was still locked in her body. I promised I would do everything in my power to gain the release her soul cried for. With that, the screaming immediately stopped. I felt like I was back in my head again, the room resumed its normal appearance, and Mrs. Browning, as she had throughout this experience, lay silent.

Yep. You can't make this kind of stuff up. I mean you can- but nobody would believe it. But this is true. Am I the only one wondering if Karl Rove is involved in this fiasco? No word yet on whether or not Terri Schiavo has been touching Felos's soul.

Terri Schiavo's CT scan is identical to Grannies.

Via Michelle Malkin, I find that Code Blue Blog is:

"offering $100,000 on a $25,000 wager for ANY neurologist (and $125,000 for any neurologist/bioethicist) involved in Terri Schiavo's case--including all the neurologists reviewed on television and in the newspapers who can accurately single out PVS patients from functioning patients with better than 60% accuracy on CT scans."

Whoa... basically he says that Terri Schiavo's CT scan is identical to many normally functioning old person's CT scans. So if your grandma gets a CT scan keep her away from judge Greer! The beauty of this is three-fold:
1. no way any of the people who are confident that it is okay to murder Terri Schiavo will take this bet, proving they aren't confident enough to bet, but confident enough to kill Terri.
2. if they do they'll lose, proving they are confident enough to bet, but not qualified to kill Terri
3. it will demonstrate the greatest fallacy of this entire fiasco- which is that we can trust doctors and judges to protect our lives as they would protect their own.
That's living in a fool's paradise.

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Terri Schiavo- murdered due to disability?

This post by a student at Harvard (hat tip to Powerline) presages a next step in the Terri Schiavo battle. Read the whole thing, but here's an excerpt:

Besides being disabled, Schiavo and I have something important in common, that is, someone attempted to terminate my life by removing my endotracheal tube during resuscitation in my first hour of life. This was a quality-of-life decision: I was simply taking too long to breathe on my own, and the person who pulled the tube believed I would be severely disabled if I lived, since lack of oxygen causes cerebral palsy. (I was saved by my family doctor inserting another tube as quickly as possible.) The point of this is not that I ended up at Harvard and Schiavo did not, as some people would undoubtedly conclude. The point is that society already believes to some degree that it is acceptable to murder disabled people.

If this case is remembered, in a couple of years, as an example of people murdering someone for being disabled, then some real good can come of her death.

Monday, March 28, 2005

Steyn on Schiavo

Mark Steyn's two cents are often priceless. His take on the Terri Schiavo tragedy is here. An excerpt:

Mrs. Schiavo has been in her present condition for 15 years. Whoever she once was, this is who she is now -- and, after a decade and a half, there is no compelling reason to kill her. Any legal system with a decent respect for the status quo -- something too many American judges are increasingly disdainful of -- would recognize that her present life, in all its limitations, is now a well-established fact, and it is the most grotesque judicial overreaching for any court at this late stage to decide enough is enough. It would be one thing had a doctor decided to reach for the morphine and ''put her out of her misery'' after a week in her diminished state; after 15 years, for the courts to treat her like a Death Row killer who's exhausted her appeals is simply vile.

This interests me for two reasons. First, because Steyn is an icon of the right. Not the religious right, but the... I don't know what you would call it... the non-religious right, for lack of a better term. For example- fellow UPC member John Pike, of pike speak, and I have clashed when it comes to Schiavo, but I feel sure that he's a huge Steyn fan. So I wonder what he'll make of this piece.

2nd, because I love Steyn and he more or less echoes many of the points I've made. So it is sort of like watching Michael Jordan do my crossover fade jumper with the tongue out just so... Of course, in the excerpt above, Steyn elegantly and easily says what I struggled to say and said badly. But still.

Sunday, March 27, 2005

Post of the day...

I haven't blogged much about Terri Schiavo lately. The energy I would have used to blog has been taken up debating the case on the Political section of the Brazilian Jiu Jitsu bulletin board I frequent. There are a bunch of threads about Terri there. This one and this one are the two most active, and feature some civil, (relatively) intelligent give and take.

When the Fed court decided not to review the facts of the case I figured that was it. Mostly I just answered attacks after that... I didn't want to concede, but I also felt there was no point in trying to change anybody's mind. Those trying to create a wave of publicity won a phyrric victory. The wave crested- it was big enough- it was powerful enough- I thought it worked!- but nobody caught it. Nobody rode it to shore- to safety. In the end a little legal trick made it all for nought.

Anyway, what makes this a post of the day is the fact that I was arguing with some fellow righties in there- this issue was heavily divisive amongst conservatives, and this post showed that very well.

Saturday, March 26, 2005

Kauai Photo Blogging

These pics (inspired by Althouse's pics of Wisconsin) were taken with a Canon PowerShot A95. I used this Wile E. Coyote looking casing for the underwater shots. Very cool casing. The Hawaiian with the tatoos is my brother in law, and that beach is his back yard.

Start at the bottom of the series and scroll up. Coolest thing about this series of pics is that I got off work at 5, my wife brought my shorts and stuff (this was spur of the moment) and we drove to the beach. So this all happened after work. YAY FOR LONGER DAYS!!!

The wives brought food and drink. A ring around the moon developed. Not a corona- but a slightly off-round ring which took up one third of the sky, with the moon at it's very center. I couldn't get a pic of it. Then a paniolo rode his paint (maybe the most beautiful horse I've ever seen) and a couple of trailing horses up and down the beach, and then over to us to say hello.

And then we left.

This was on Thursday, and this morning, Saturday, I was supposed to get some pictures of sharks. But the waves got too big for free diving with sharks. Sorry.

They arrived right after this shot.  Posted by Hello

Swam back to the beach and built a fire. Wives were late, they missed twilight. Posted by Hello

So we took pictures of each other. My bro-in-law unenhanced is the last pic. This one is the same pic enhanced with Picasa Posted by Hello

We swam along the reef for 20 minutes but saw only a few fish. The problem was we couldn't snap the picture before the fish moved out of focus. The digital pic pause... urgh. Posted by Hello

First we swam out to the edge of the reef... I didn't think to take a good shot from here. This was just a test shot. Still pretty!  Posted by Hello

Friday, March 25, 2005

Gravitational Pull-Up

The UPC members have been charged with the question- "Who would you like to see run for President as a 3rd Party candidate?"
My answer is Lieberman. Since Clinton, a political moderate with a far left lifestyle, the dems have moved far, far to the left. Kerry was the 2nd most liberal dem in the Senate, and Dean, who now runs the party, is basically a lefty nutball. There simply is no room in the dem hieararchy for moderate, wise, non-America-hating liberals.
If Lieberman ran on a 3rd party ticket he would actually have a chance to win. 1st, becauase the Deaniac democrats are a tiny but active and vocal minority of the dem party. Their influence is way out of proportion to their numbers. 2nd, because many republicans are republican by default: they see the Deaniacs as America-hating nutballs, the Kerry/Kennedys as limousine socialists, and they would willingly look at, and maybe vote for, a sober, moderately liberal democrat who didn't blush with embarassment while declaring he loves the USA.
Even if Lieberman lost, or dropped out early, he would already have tugged the left closer into the center, and pulled many veils from leftist eyes.
No, lefties, the libertarian conservatives are NOT going to split from the Christian conservatives because the CC's tried too hard to save an innocent woman from starving to death. Sorry, but it ain't exactly compelling.
No, lefties, libertarian conservatives are not going to vote for the party that wants to socialize medicine because Bush tried to fix the system without completely socializing it. They'll choose the lesser of two evils.
No, lefties, libertarian conservatives are not going to abandon the republican party because we are nation building here, there, and everywhere, because Bush's War on Terror is a rational response to 9/11.
If you read the lefty blogs right now they are almost hysterical. They honestly believe the Republican Behemoth is ripping itself apart from within. Well... No. Conservatives dig open debate and disagreement, and are motivated by ideas, not by a desire to fit in with the cool folk, so we fight amongst ourselves quite a bit. This doesn't mean that Christian Neo-Con Conservatives prefer Deaniacs to Libertarian Political Realist Conservativese. Until the dems get ahold of themselves, until somebody like Lieberman kicks the dems square in the ass, the dems will be the party for people to vote against. And that's bad for America, and for the world.
So- I nominate Lieberman.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

The Mechanics of Terri Schiavo's Death

Newsisyphus, the all time leader in posts of the day, explains why Terri Schiavo is being starved to death. He defends the courts decisions. He makes a lot of sense. This is absolutely a must read. It is fantastic. An excerpt. (but I could have exerpted 20 different parts- read the entire thing)

One of the primary differences between American conservatives and liberals, as Thomas Sowell will explain to you, is that conservatives view justice as a process and a procedure while liberals define justice by the outcome of a certain process or procedure. Thus, the conservative speaks of due process and orderly procedure in accordance with centuries-old Common Law practice while the liberal bemoans the fact that a particular number of blacks are sentenced to death or a certain number of products liability cases are decided in favor or gigantic corporations.

What is most interesting to us about the tragedy that is the Terry Schiavo case is that it seems to have induced a strong case of role-reversal, with conservatives not only lobbying but demanding that the courts rule in the way they feel is correct. This suggests that perhaps one’s views on what constitutes justice depends heavily on how strongly one feels about an issue.

I think he is right. The system has failed her, though it, apparently, has done so honestly. Does this make me feel better? Well, not really. Does this make her death less or more of a tragedy? I don't think it makes a difference. Does the integrity of the process matter, if I disagree with the result. Absolutely. But... ugh... why kill her without doing another review of all the evidence? What's it hurt?

Peggy Noonan has a good article dealing with that question here. An excerpt:

God made the world or he didn't.
God made you or he didn't.
If he did, your little human life is, and has been, touched by the divine. If this is true, it would be true of all humans, not only some. And so--again, if it is true--each human life is precious, of infinite value, worthy of great respect.
Most--not all, but probably most--of those who support Terri Schiavo's right to live believe the above. This explains their passion and emotionalism. They believe they are fighting for an invaluable and irreplaceable human life. They are like the mother who is famously said to have lifted the back of a small car off the ground to save a child caught under a tire. You're desperate to save a life, you're shot through with adrenaline, your strength is for half a second superhuman, you do the impossible.
That is what they are trying to do.
They do not want an innocent human life ended for what appear to be primarily practical and worldly reasons--e.g., Mrs. Schiavo's quality of life is low, her life is pointless. They say: Who is to say it is pointless? And what does pointless even mean? Maybe life itself is the point.

I do not understand the emotionalism of the pull-the-tube people. What is driving their engagement?

Noonan nails it. Terri Schiavo is dying, after all is said and done, because some people don't feel she's worthy to live. Those people have the upper hand in this case. They created the law in Florida that applies to her case, they testified that she wanted to die if she was in her current circumstance, (leave alone, for the moment, whether or not she really would have wanted to die, the testimony is what murders her- anyway, even if she did foresee this exact circumstance, she, the Terri Schiavo who said that, not the Terri Schiavo alive now, would still be 'they') they have assured us that being starved to death doesn't hurt, and they, apparently, have won.

I don't understand them. I don't understand the philosophical underpinings, the root of the arrogance, the- I don't understand any of it. Nobody is hurt by her being alive. If you want to kill her because she offends you with her life- surely you would agree that she shouldn't be murdered in this tortous way- if you say she can't feel, she has no awareness, etc., then why not just PROCLAIM HER DEAD, so that her husband doesn't have the right to control her medical condition, and let the people who love her and want to take care of her have a chance to revive her?

The answer to all these questions? No. No, it is okay to murder her. No. It is okay to torture her because she's not alive. No. She's too alive to dissolve her marriage. No. No. No. No matter what, no matter the argument, no matter the evidence, she dies. She dies. She dies. She dies. In the end her death is the goal. She dies. No to every argument. Kill her. Kill her now. Don't review it. No. I don't want to hear it. Kill her. Hurry up. Kill her. No. Death to her. Kill her. End her. END her. KILL her. Murder her. KILL her. NO.

She dies!

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Double Post of the Day

Kofi Annan is a busy man, what with overseeing the UN goons systematically raping, pimping, and allowing genocides in 3rd world countries, ignoring his son's 300,000 thousand dollar bribe, stonewalling the investigation of the 10 billion + oil for food scandal, and bowing down to the grave of a Jew killing terrorist during his visit to Israel to commemorate a holocaust museum (I couldn't make this stuff up, lol).

Nonetheless, he's come up with a new scheme, outlined expansively here at the Belmont Club, and summarized brilliantly here at Dean's World.

What a joke.


Tough week for conservatives. No newly liberated countries, no women rescued from death by starvation, no protection from the boomers will suck up every dime that goes into Social Security...
I am depressed.
Then I read the neo-cons lost out to the Big-Oil interests in the Bush admin... that really pissed me off. No idea of whether it is true or not, but just the idea.
I'm spoiled. When Clinton reigned I was energized by setbacks, I burned with underdog fervor, but now I'm too used to gettin' my way, too used to being shocked by how well Bush pwns the dems.
Is he off his game? Or are my expectations too high?
Am I experiencing something akin to post-orgasm depression? The little death, they call it... Urgh... Tired tired tired.

I think I'm taking this Terri Schiavo thing too much to heart. Not just for her, but because I believe in karma, and am God fearing, and if a society can- with eyes wide open- callously starve an innocent women to death- doesn't that society have some serious suffering in store? Or hasn't it forfeited its special place?

Urgh... I'm bummed.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Aesthetics and murder.

Good people can own slaves. Good people can tell women and children to go into gas chambers, claiming they are showers. They can also murder babies the moment they are born. They can starve innocent women to death. GOOD PEOPLE can do all these things. They just need the right rationalization.

Sometimes the rationalization involves tribal or racial differences, as in the Holocaust or the periodic genocides in Africa. Sometimes they involve new technologies for which society lacks developed ethical systems, such as the forced euthanasia and sterilization campaigns so popular in Europe before WW2, or partial birth abortion in America today. Sometimes a neat acronym, such as PVS, is all that is necessary. Sometimes even that is not necessary. Once one GOOD PERSON has accepted evil, a hundred other GOOD PEOPLE can accept it, rationalizing that the first GOOD PERSON would not have accepted it if it really were evil.

The rationalizations allows GOOD PEOPLE to frame questions in ways that make doing evil palatable. Slavery is about property rights, not slaves. Partial birth abortion is about the right to control one's body, not about a baby. Sterilization is about eugenics, not sterilizing people.

Terri Schiavo's case is not about starving a human being to death, it is about state's rights. Or it is about keeping the Christians in check. Or it is about the right to die with dignity. The videos of Terri laughing, responding to her mom, responding to the swab test, tracking a balloon... None of these matter to the GOOD PEOPLE, (and no, I am not being sarcastic, they are GOOD PEOPLE) entranced by those three letters, PVS, or by the other rationalizations.

Championing aesthetics is the only way I see to combat the power of PVS. The GOOD German who puts a pistol to a Jewish child's head and pulls the trigger is ignoring the aesthetics of the situation... Call it what you want- but there is something in a human that can recognize another human IS human, IS like, and I call it aesthetics. And I contend that that German has to choose to ignore the aesthetics of the situation.

And I say the GOOD doctor who pierces a 9 month old babys skull and vacuums out the brains is ignoring the aesthetics of the situation. And I say George Washington and the other Founding Fathers, all GOOD PEOPLE, ignored the aesthetics of the situation when they refused to spend their lives freeing every slave they could.

And I say the GOOD PEOPLE who champion starving Terri Schiavo to death are ignoring the aesthetics of this situation. I say they should visit this sight, and they should scroll down to the video section, and watch each and every video, and they should listen to their hearts.

Final Appeal Re: Terry Shaffo


Terry Shaffo legally purchased and used intelligence enhancement services after receiving a large inheritance from his great grandmother’s estate. Consequently, over the next four years, Shaffo’s IQ (Intelligence Quotient) increased from 80 to 140, where it leveled off and was maintained with an intelligence maintenance regimen. Shaffo’s LQ (Life Quality), measured by income, stature in the community, and PJI (Pure Joy Index) rose dramatically.

After five years Shaffo realized that, despite his higher income, maintaining the 140 IQ was exhausting the inheritance and, barring some new windfall or massive increase in income, he would not be able to continue the intelligence maintenance regimen. Shaffo chose to create a living will, specifying ME (Merciful Euthanasia) should be employed if his IQ dropped below 85. Shaffo did this both to motivate himself to increase his income, and to insure that he would enjoy a minimum QL level.

Shaffo now has an IQ of 78. However his LQ (Life Quality) is 12% above the median EU (European Union) LQ (Life Quality). This is because his PJI (Personal Joy Index) is unusually high because his PHI (Personal Hope Index) is extremely high, though his RBHI (Reality-Based Hope Index) approaches zero. (This disparity between PHI (Personal Hope Index) and RBHI (Reality Based Hope Index) is an indicator of PSD (Possibly Subversive Derangement), and the appropriate authorities in the DRBER (Department of Reality Based Expectation Regulation) have been notified. However, given the probability of Shaffo’s death, they have not filed papers.)

Shaffo married while he had an IQ of 140, and he and his wife appealed to the 7th Chancellor’s court to stay Shaffo’s ME (Merciful Euthanasia) indefinitely, citing the high LQ (Life Quality). Shaffo’s wife, for unknown reasons, still loves Shaffo, and wishes to remain married. (We continue to test and will continue to test her until we have diagnosed the reason(s) behind this.)

The 7th Chancellor’s court stipulated that Shaffo’s living will specified that he demanded ME (Merciful Euthanasia) if his IQ (Intelligence Quotient) dropped below 85 because he assumed his LQ (Life Quality) would drop in kind. It has not. The 7th Chancellor’s court therefore agreed to examine the case. Upon closer examination they ruled that the ME (Merciful Euthanasia) would go forward because a)Shaffo’s LQ (Life Quality) is a result of a NRBHI (Non Reality Based Hope Index), and therefore it is not valid, and therefore it is not relevant, and b) if it were relevant, and the ME (Merciful Euthanasia) was indefinitely postponed, the DRBER (Department of Reality Based Expectation Regulation) would suppress Shaffo’s PHI (Personal Hope Index), thereby deflating his PJI (Personal Joy Index), thereby deflating his LQ (Life Quality) thereby rendering the appeal moot.

Shaffo subsequently converted to Islam and appealed to the SCE (Sharia Court of Europe) for a SESEUM (Special Exeption for European Union Muslims). The 7th Chancellor’s court ruled that Shaffo was not a SM (Sincere Muslim), but was posing as one to avoid ME (Merciful Euthanasia).

Shaffo subsequently begged the SCE (Sharia Court of Europe) for RDS (Recognized Dhimmi Status) and pledged 30% of his income to the MBEU (Muslim Brotherhood of the European Union) for life. The MBEU demanded 70%. Negotiations went on for 3 years, until the 7th Chancellor’s court ruled Shaffo was not a SDA (Sincere Dhimmi Applicant) but in fact was posing as one, and extending negotiations with the sympathetic MBEU (Muslim Brotherhood of the European Union) to avoid ME (Merciful Euthanasia). The 7th Chancellor’s court ruled therefore that the negotiations must end, and then ruled that Shaffo’s ME (Merciful Euthanasia) be carried out immediately.

Shaffo subsequently has written a letter from his PME (Place for Merciful Euthanasia) seeking a stay of ME (Merciful Euthanasia). He cites no legal reasons for the stay, but asks the 7th Chancellor’s court to, begin quote:

Just read this and remember I’m a man. And remember you are men and women.

end quote. The text of the letter itself is below. Begin text of letter:

Dear 7th Chancellor’s court,

I know that I asked to be killed if I got stupid again, but I didn’t know then what I know now. So I’m stupid now but I’m smarter now, too. I’m smarter because I know I want to live, even though I’m stupid. When I was smart I didn’t know Id still want to live, but now I do, so I’m smarter now. You want to kill me because I asked you to kill me when I was supposed to be smart, but if I was smart then I wouldn’t have asked you to kill me when I got dumb again.

Please don’t kill me. My wife and I are happy, and we love each other, and we want to have children. My wife says she loves me even though my IQ is 78 and that I’m smart in the ways that count to her. Her IQ is 128, and she knows me better than you guys do. And she knows me better than I knew me when I said to kill me if I got dumb. I wasn’t even me then so how could I know whether I’d want to be killed?

Thank you,

Terry Shaffo

end text of letter.

The 7th Chancellor’s court finds the letter to be out of order. Appeals for the court to remember we are “men and women” have no place.

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Fantastic Post of the Day

is here from Dean's World. It discusses the anti-war protest and the pro-war demonstration that rose up to counter it. What makes the story special is the way the pro-war demonstrators policed themselves. One woman, for example, went through the groups signs to remove offensive ones:

"This sign is out," she said, going through placards, and pointing to one saying "MORONS" (actually, I could use that sign could be used to picket any event involving Congress or for either political party, but that's my personal bias...). Her 8-year-old boy "Little Guy" played in the background.

"We don't want any of these snarky signs. We want them to be POSITIVE," she told some people. Smash had planned on having 50 people but 60 showed up. "I'm going to go through these signs and make sure they're not swiping at anyone..."

And she did....

Saturday, March 19, 2005

This is hilarious and sad.

UPC Hits of the week

As a proud member of the UPC I want to share some of my fellow pundits best posts of the last week. I'm using my own titles. (and really these aren't their best- they are my favorites)

From Newshog:
NeoCons vs. Bush and big oil - yeah, no kidding. Weird piece. I can't quite figure out what to think of it, but it is definitely worth a read and some thought.

From Left of Center:
Reason #1,030,028,332 for believeing Political Correctness Sucks

From Fester's Place:
Premature Iraqulation. I disagree completely with this piece, whollisitically and fractionally- I mean I disagree with the theme and with almost every sentence. I inculde it to show the depth of division inherent in the UPC and because it shows why conservatives must win again in '08.

From PSoTD:
International Liberal Blog Roll Day I think it was a great idea. PSoTD came up with the idea, and he came up with the color code idea that partially informs the UPC as well. PSoTD is a big-idea guy. And I salute him for it.

from SimianBrain:
Sham didn't cheat on the gravitational pull-ups. You'll see she thought I did with Zell Miller, but I don't think I did, since the point was to choose people with opposing political views who you admire anyway.

From Pike's Peak
Bush has Big Cojones. Truer words were never spoken.

So there it is, my UPC wrap up of the week. Some of these posts will piss you off, if your politics are like mine. But that's kind of the point of the UPC. Engaging in civil debate with those one disagrees with is a privelege and a duty for all citizens of democratic republics.

Friday, March 18, 2005

McCain - Feingold- a pledge to break this law.

I hate the McCain-Feingold bill. We HATES it like Smeagol hates Bilbo Baggins, my precious. WE HATESSSS IT!!!!!!!!! Patterico hates it, too, and has taken a pledge to defy it. Hat tip to the wonderful site Dean's World. (Dean's World is rapidly replacing Instapundit as my favorite and most necessary site. The Instapundit lacks heart- notice I did not say Glenn Reynolds lacks heart, please) Visit the two links below if you want to jump upon Patterico's bandwagon.
Link 1
Link 2
Let me say, for the record, that I hereby pledge:

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.

Now, having said that, I would like to ask who we are kidding? I mean, McCain-Feingold ALREADY SQUELCHES free speech. It has already limited my First Amendment right to express myself, only in the breach, since I've never given to PACS and or etc.
What we bloggers should do is get together, as a group, and buy airtime two weeks before a big election to endorse a candidate, thereby breaking McCain-Feingold on purpose, so that we may be prosecuted. I wonder if I can be prosecuted just for writing that? I mean have I just broken the law? Can I be prosecuted under RICO for what I just wrote?!?!? Is the effing McCain-Feingold law THAT FRIGGIN' BAD?!?! I think it is!!!

Gravitational Pull-Ups, the third.

The UPC has decided to make a kind of group blog entry now and then... Here's this week's idea:

Hopefully, each one of us is going to identify and write a bit about three living politicians that we appreciate and respect from an opposing political party from our own.

I’ve enjoyed griping about finding lefties I admire, but I really do admire my first choice, Zell Miller, and I really do admire my second choice, Senator Daniel K. Inouye, as well.

Choice number 3 was a bit tougher. I was going with Lieberman but he’s been taken by Pike’s Peak, so I choose Barney Frank. Now, Frank has done a lot of bad crap, from screwing rich NY gays out of campaign donations to backing Clinton extremely effectively. But Frank also:

1. Supports Israel. This is rarer than it should be in the democrat party. Frank on Israel.
"Within the borders of Israel, there is a flourishing democracy. Israel is one of the least secure countries in the world, and also one of the most democratic."
It shouldn’t be surprising that Frank said, that, and it shouldn’t be necessary for anyone to say that. However, what should be and is ain’t the same.

2. He has maintained as sense of proportion regarding President Bush, at least some of the time. Frank on Bush: (hehehe)
"I do consider myself supportive of the United States of America, even though we have a President now who makes me crazy."
Again- it shouldn’t be surprising that Frank said, that, and it shouldn’t be necessary for anyone to say that. However, what should be and is ain’t the same.

3. Stood up for the US at Davos, which resulted in Easongate:
Excepted from MichelleMalkin.com

Just got off the phone with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who spoke with me about Easongate. Rep. Frank was on the panel at Davos.

Rep. Frank said Eason Jordan did assert that there was deliberate targeting of journalists by the U.S. military. After Jordan made the statement, Rep. Frank said he immediately "expressed deep skepticism." Jordan backed off (slightly), Rep. Frank said, "explaining that he wasn't saying it was the policy of the American military to target journalists, but that there may have been individual cases where they were targeted by younger personnel who were not properly disciplined."

Rep. Frank said he didn't pay attention to the audience reaction at the time of the panel, but recalled that Sen. Dodd was "somewhat disturbed" and "somewhat exercised" and that moderator David Gergen also said Jordan's assertions were "disturbing if true." I have a call in to Sen. Dodd's office and sent an e-mail inquiry to Gergen.

I asked Rep. Frank again if his recollection was that Jordan initially maintained that the military had a deliberate policy of targeting journalists. Rep. Frank affirmed that, noting that Jordan subsequently backed away orally and in e-mail that it was official policy, but "left open the question" of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.

After the panel was over and he returned to the U.S., Rep. Frank said he called Jordan and expressed willingness to pursue specific cases if there was any credible evidence that any American troops targeted journalists. "Give me specifics," Rep. Frank said he told Jordan.

Rep. Frank has not yet heard back from Jordan.

That meant quite a lot to me. Frank was attending a good old “Hate on America festival” with a bunch of MSM foreign press types and he stood up and called shenanigans. It was not the popular thing to do, in that room at that time. Frank almost certainly believed that what happened in Davos would stay in Davos. There was no profit in it for Barney Frank. Barney Frank did what he did because he loves his country or because he loves the truth. Either way, I respect the hell out of him for this one thing.

You lose, Barbara.

So now the truth has come out. The democrats control neither the legislature nor the executive, and are about to lose control of the judiciary. Their solution? They are going to look within, realize that the American people don’t like America-hating liberals, and change. NOT! Instead they are going to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION! How do they plan to do this, considering the fact that they can’t change the Constitution using Constitutional mechanisms unless they DO control the judiciary? By whining, apparently.

Here’s Barbara Boxer, via Radioblogger:

Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary.

Why would we do that? I don’t know. Oh! Because that’s what we’ve always done. Because that’s what the Constitution says we do. Because that’s the law of the land. Oh, wait, a Democrat is asking that question. I forgot! To Democrats the Constitution is whatever the liberal elites deem it should be at any given moment. But wait, that’s only true so long as they control the judiciary, and this is a fight TO control the judiciary. So what can they do? They can’t do anything but squirm!!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!! SQUIRM BARBARA!!! HAHAHAHAHHAHA! Oh it is so evil of me to enjoy this so much. It is wrong, but in this case I don’t want to be right.

So now it isn’t enough for the Republicans to win both the executive and the legislative branches of government. And it isn’t enough that, having won both branches, they still need to pick candidates that their moderate members will back. And it isn’t enough that, having done so, the democrats can openly debate the worth of the judges before any vote. Nope. Barbara wants a veto. And if the rules say she can’t have a veto, she wants to change the rules. Sorry, Barbara, you lose.

Thursday, March 17, 2005

And yes MORE incompetent Raider reporting!

Welcome Raidernews.com readers! Again! While playing the self-appointed role of “Scourge of stupid is as stupid does Bay Area reporters” I have written this and this. Check ‘em out if you haven’t seen them yet, please. The Raider Nation response was massive and largely positive. So, first, Mahalo from this Kauai-based Raider fan.

I wanted to do it again, but there haven’t but a lot of recent ridiculous reports from the local media. There hasn’t been much news at all since the my last report. So I’ve widened the scope a bit. Here are three ridiculous mistakes the national media has made.

Mistake number 1! From Fox Sports:
The link: (this link works, but it doesn’t link to the same report I’m quoting from. That quote has vanished.)
The quote:
HARD TRUTH: The Raiders haven't had a consistent playmaker at safety since Albert Lewis retired after the 1998 season.
My comment on this:
In 2002 Rod Woodson had 8 interceptions (remember the 98 yarder against Dungver? Of course you do!) and 3 fumble recoveries. Not a consistent playmaker???

Mistake 2! From Sports Illustrated:
The link: (this one works)
The quote:
The Raiders franchised a lousy player, and now they might be stuck with him.
His name is Charles Woodson and his last great game was in Ann Arbor eight years ago.,…
My comment:
Now Charles Woodson is a LOUSY PLAYER??!?!?!? I know there is a faction within the Raider Nation that thinks CWood is overpaid, overrated, and that he doesn’t show the work ethic or leadership he should. Even if one concedes all of that- there is no way in hell CWood is a lousy player. That’s a ridiculous statement, and it shows how just how poisonous the CWood haterade is. Also, CWood has had his share of great games as a Raider. In fact, I recall he shut down one Randy Moss just last November.

Mistake 3!
The link:
The quote:
Last week, the Raiders signed defensive end Bobby Hamilton away from the Super Bowl champion New England Patriots. Oakland ranked 30th in total defense last season.
My comment:
I am commentless… No I’m not. Do these people WATCH football? Nobody noticed Bobby Hamilton wasn’t in the Super Bowl? Nobody goes - ‘oh, wait a second’ while writing that??? LOL!

I admit it is slim pickings for this post... I don't think the reporting is getting better... I think there's just less of it. C ya’ next time, Raider Nation! Wait- just a couple quick comments. First, I LOVE that Jordan will be wearing Kenny King and Eddie Anderson’s number. Those are two of my all time favorite Raiders. Hopefully Jordan will continue to bring honor to their number. Second- those of you who know me from the boards know I’m one of CWood’s biggest supporters. I hate to say it, but 10.5 million is waaaay too much for ANY cornerback.

A Ludlum-worthy conspiracy to end free speech-

Today's post of the day is right here. It discusses how the architect of McCain/Feingold used private donations from billionaires to weaken free speech in America. I used to love reading Ludlum books- they often featured a cabal of rich men doing evil for no particular reason- but a hero stepped up and fought for liberty or whatever and stopped them and saved the day.

Well, it looks like it really happened. Only 1) the cabal was made up of rich lefty socialist types rather than capitalist pigs and 2) Jason Bourne or, whoever, didn't dodge the bullet fast enough and it worked!!! and 3) the guy who did it admitted, on tape, that he did it and 4) nobody cares.

It is nice that a newspaper stepped up and printed this. It is not nice that the rest of the MSM doesn't have this story plastered up on the front page. I'm going to put my conspiracy hat on for a minute.

Q. If the enemies of free speech knew this story was going to break, how could they possibly stop it from being the lead story on every broadcast and the headline in every paper?
A. By telling the MSM that they were going to go after the blogs and leave the MSM alone.

Isn't that exactly what the FEC did last week?

Or am I losing my mind?

Or both?

Or neither?

Want some toast?

Gravitational Pull-Ups 2

The UPC has decided to make a kind of group blog entry now and then... Here's this week's idea:

Hopefully, each one of us is going to identify and write a bit about three living politicians that we appreciate and respect from an opposing political party from our own.

I’ve enjoyed griping about finding lefties I admire, but I really do admire my first choice, Zell Miller, and I really do admire my second choice Senator Daniel K. Inouye, as well. I’m very proud that Senator Inouye is the senator from my state. He was a member of the legendary 442nd, is probably the best known of the Hawaii Nisei, and always comports himself with a certain slow dignity that demands respect. Most mainlanders haven’t heard of him, but if you remember the Iran-Contra hearings, you may remember the deep voice of a certain Japanese senator. That was Inouye.

If you live in Hawaii you’d be a fool not to vote for Inouye because he’s incredibly powerful because he’s been a senator for like 50 years, and therefore is able to procure enough pork to satisfy Sally Struthers AND Roseanne Barr for life. Having said that, I’d vote for him anyway, just because of the way he carries himself and because of his war record. I don’t agree with much of his politics, but he rarely goes all the way loony left, and, unlike another war hero, John McCain, he hasn’t tried to destroy free speech.

I’ve cut and pasted Senator Inouye’s Citation for the Medal of Honor he earned in Italy below. Read it. Wow. Read it.

Inouye, Daniel K.

Rank and organization: Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, Company E, 442nd Infantry. Place and date: San Terenzo, Italy, 21 April 1945. Birth: 7 September 1924, Honolulu, Hawaii. Entered service at: Honolulu, Hawaii.

Second Lieutenant Daniel K. Inouye distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in action on
21 April 1945, in the vicinity of San Terenzo, Italy. While attacking a defended ridge guarding an important road junction, Second Lieutenant Inouye skillfully directed his platoon through a hail of automatic weapon and small arms fire, in a swift enveloping movement that resulted in the capture of an artillery and mortar post and brought his men to within 40 yards of the hostile force. Emplaced in bunkers and rock formations, the enemy halted the advance with crossfire from three machine guns. With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a sniper’s bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions. In the attack, 25 enemy soldiers were killed and eight others captured. By his gallant, aggressive tactics and by his indomitable leadership, Second Lieutenant Inouye enabled his platoon to advance through formidable resistance, and was instrumental in the capture of the ridge. Second Lieutenant Inouye’s extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the United States Army.

Here is a brief excerpt from Senator Inouye’s book, Journey to Washington- via this site.

Our family life was a blend of East and West. When we ate beef, we used knives and forks. When we ate sukiyaki, we used chopsticks. Although I went to a Japanese school every afternoon, it was never permitted to interfere with my American education. The language spoken at home now on Coyne Street, was English.

I remember a great celebration. After nearly 30 years of persistent effort, Asakichi had paid the family debt. There were songs and much sake and, though I was not yet five years old, I sat on my grandfather's lap and took a sip of the potent liquor. Had he chosen to do so, he could now have resumed to Yokoyama village. But there was never a doubt about what he would do. His son and daughters were Americans-he would stay the rest of his days in Hawaii.

Most of the Japanese in Hawaii felt the same. But the break was difficult, even for us who had never seen the old country. The Buddhist priest who taught us ethics and history in the Japanese school actually believed we were still Japanese and often in class he told us that our loyalty belonged to the Emperor. When I was 15, I openly challenged him, declaring in class, "I am an American."

"You are a Japanese," he retorted, angered by my insubordination.

"I am an American," I insisted.

So enraged was he that he dragged me from the classroom and threw me with full force into the schoolyard, screaming after me, "You are a faithless dog!" I never returned.

But I still revered the land of my ancestors and, although I sensed that the breach between Japan and the United States was widening, serious trouble between them was too terrifying even to think about.

I could go on and on about Senator Inouye. Suffice it to say that I’ve pwned my UPC leftist brethren- my admired statesman (statesperson?) on the other side of the spectrum can kick YOUR admired statesman (statesperson?) on the other side of the spectrum’s ASS!!!

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Blog whoring

From Dean' World:

When people give advice on increasing blog traffic, usually they will tell you things like: "Write what you know" or "Send good posts to higher traffic blogs" or some such thing. Sure, that work on occasion, but I've found another way: Mention "Mario Vasquez."

I'm serious. In the past two days, all because I mentioned that he quit American Idol, I've had thousands upon thousands of new visitors to my blog. For a while, Gay Orbit was at the top of every single search engine listing for searches on that guy's name. It was in the top 5 of most.

So I have mentioned Mario Vasquez. People might ask what I think of Mario Vasquez... I could answer, in Ayn Rand fashion - "But I don't think of Mario Vasquez," but that would be a lie. I didn't care for him. I didn't hate him, but he came off like a tweener. When it comes to reality shows I like flamers like Lynn and Alex on the Amazing Race, and I like super-cool gays like Anwar, but I don't care for the 'tweeners like Mario. In fact I don't even know that Mario IS gay- he might just be a gay-ish hetero- and the same could be said for Anwar. Except, with Mario Vasquez I don't like that kind of super gentle deer in headlights gay nor that kind of hetero, in reality shows, and with Anwar I like that type of super-cool and casual gay AND that type of hetero, in reality shows. Why am I limiting myself to reality shows? Because I don't know any flamers, tweeners, nor super-cool gay people in real life. My calabash bro is gay but neither he nor any of his many buds have fit into those categories... Which probably goes to show how real-life these real-life shows are. Anyway, did I mention Mario Vasquez?

On Privatizing Social Security

From me, a month and a half ago:

On Partially Privatizing Social Security:
I’m convinced the liberals are against this solely because George Bush is for it. Al Gore talked, endlessly, about a lockbox for Social Security. Most people figured the idea was crap, since the government would have the key, and they were the ones who would want to steal from the lockbox. What Bush wants to do is provide a lockbox with two keys. The People will not be able to access the lockbox without The Government’s key- and The Government won’t be able to access the box without The People’s key. The rest of the argument is just details.

From Alan Greenspan, yesterday: (hat tip to Simianbrain)

"We need, in effect, to make the phantom 'lock boxes' around the trust fund real," Greenspan said, referring to suggestions in the late 1990s of finding some way to prevent Congress from spending surplus Social Security revenue.

There it is... Me and Alan Greenspan agree. 'Nuff said. (lol) Seriously, why can't the libbies figure this out? Partially privatizing Social Security is a win-win. If libbies control the fed, they will raid the lockbox to buy more votes by funding pork programs. If cons control the fed they will raid the lockbox by returning money, as Bush did, or to pay for their tax cuts.

And, this question is especially for the post boomer generations: "What have the boomers done to make you think they won't suck every last friggin' penny out of you? Why in the world would you NOT want your own key to the lockbox?!?" The boomers are going to make Social Security/Medicare their single issue issue. And while the Xers, Yers, and Zers will be split according to their natural inclinations, 99.99% of the boomers will VOTE THE SAME WAY, according to this one issue. Nobody will confront them. They will control the fed. Hello???!!!???

People say let's fix the system as if nobody will mess with it after it is 'fixed'. Ridiculous! Wake up!

This is the funniest thing I've read in weeks...

C-Span has stayed true to its insane ethical code. Via LGF:

C-SPAN wanted Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt to appear on their program BookTV to promote her new book History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, but they were concerned about fairness and balance.

Their idea of “balance” was to give the cretinous Holocaust denier David Irving equal time.

Wow. This is what happens when institutions refuse to admit they have a point of view. Once you give up your identity, once you refuse to aggresively make a moral choice, moral choices are passively thrust upon you. Or does C-Span really believe the whole Holocaust thing is just another clever Jew ruse?
Anyway, I can't wait for the following C-Span book reviews:
Slavery- An alternative to high unemployment?
Pedophilia- What if that little boy really wanted it, though?
Necrophilia- The dead don't mind the rubbery feeling of a condom.
Incest- Is best?
Genocide - Is it always the wrong side?

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Post of the day is

right here. It is about diversity and identity politics. Mostly I'm linking to it because it is a great site, though.

ed.- link is now fixed. thanx to PSoTD for the heads up. Sorry to my beloved readers...

A democrat I admire!

The UPC has decided to make a kind of group blog entry now and then... Here's this week's idea:

Hopefully, each one of us is going to identify and write a bit about three living politicians that we appreciate and respect from an opposing political party from our own.

Zell Miller!!! Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahha! Now I know my fellow UPC members want to cry foul, but he IS a democrat. Why Zell Miller? Do I even have to say why? Well, how about I let him say why:

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It is not their patriotism, it is their judgement that has been so sorely lacking.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

Once upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all, FDR, looked south and said 'I see one third of a nation ill-housed, ill clad, ill nourished.' Today our national Democratic leaders look south and say, 'I see one third of a nation and it can go to hell.'

Same car

I've discussed whether or not Christians and Muslims worship the same god, online and in person, at least 10 times. It is always frustrating. I thought I'd write a little short story to show just how ludicrous the idea is, and to help share how frustrating the conversations about this subject are.

Same Car
I'm in insurance. Yesterday I went to this guy's house- let's call him Billy, to insure his 1997 Camaro SS. This is the Camaro with the Corvette engine, which is an expensive car to insure. Billy is a 25 year-old male, which means he pays an age penalty to insure his vehicle. Total cost to Billy for one year of No-Fault was $4817.53 cents. Billy didn't like it.

What surprised me was the way he tried to reduce this bill.

"My Suzuki Sidekick only cost me twelve hundred a year," Billy said.
"Yeah, different car, different price," I answered.
"Well, they're the same car, though."
"No they aren't."
"Yeah they are. Look, four wheels on both! Same car!"
"Well, that doesn't make them the same car."
"Yeah, it does! Look, they both have engines, don't they?" Billy popped the hood on the Camaro. "See, there's the engine! The Sidekick had one, too!"
"That engine is 8 cylinders and it make 250-plus horsepower, Billy. The Sidekick has 4 cylinders and make 120 horses."
"Engines is engines! Same car! My gradma says cars is cars, dammit!"
"Grandma is wrong."
"Oh, sure, Grandma is wrong! They're both made in auto plants, ain't they?"
"Yeah. But one's made in Japan and the other in America."
"I'm talkin' about what's the same! Why you keep mentioning the DIFFERENCES, HUH?"
"Because I'm pointing out that they aren't the same car. If they are different they aren't the same."
"They both use mechanics when they're broke, huh?"
"That's true."
"Same car!"
"Look, Billy-"
"You just want them to be different 'cause you get more money that way."
"It is just common sense and logic, Billy."
"No no no. You won't admit they're the same because you got a dog in this fight. But this is the same car. They both take gas, don't they?"
"Okay, then."
"Look, Billy, you can point out similarities all you like, but those similarities don't take away the fundamental, obvious differences between a Suzuki Sidekick and a Chevrolet Camaro."
"Sure they do."
"But- you know they aren't the same! Why do you insist they ARE the same?"
"'Cause they are."
"They both have seats, ain't that right?"
"It doesn't matter!"
"They both have steering wheels."
"Billy, they are different cars!"
"No, sir. They both use gas, and people drive' em to get somewheres. HAH! I win, you lose."
"That means they are both cars, Billy. It doesn't mean they are the SAME car!"
"Yessir, it does. Grandma says so."
"Billy, Grandma isn't a car expert."
"Grandma says so."
"Billy, this Camaro weighs 3200 pounds, the Sidekick weighs 2300 pounds."
"They both take keys, don't they?"
"The Sidekick has 4 wheel drive, the Camaro doesn't."
"They both go forward and they both go reverse."
"The Camaro's wheelbase is 8 inches wider than the Sidekick's."
"They both require oil changes now and agin."

I handed Billy the keys to my Pinto and got in his Camaro.

"What are you doin'?" Billy asked.
"I'm going home."
"But that's my car."
"It's the same as my Pinto, Billy. I'm trading you."
"Wait a second. They aren't the same!"
"They both have wheels, don't they?"
"This ain't funny!"
"And they both take gas! Same car, Billy! Same car!"

Monday, March 14, 2005

Has homicide bombing jumped the shark?

Thousands of Iraqi Shi'ites protested on Monday after hearing reports that relatives of a Jordanian suicide bomber suspected of killing 125 people in the town of Hilla celebrated him as a martyr.

It certainly has in Iraq. Thank God!
(It always feels weird when I say or write 'thank God' in reference to something good happening in the Middle East. I'm a Christian, and I feel like I'm somehow either
a)thanking Allah since Allah is primarily worshipped over there and/or
b)blaming God for what a horror show the region is generally by thanking God for those moments when it doesn't completely suck and/or
c)being a religious fanatic, which seems to lead to a place being a hellhole and/or
d)proving all the dickheads who say we are over there to spread Christianity right and/or
e)going to make my fellow UPCers think I'm a total freak since they are God-less atheists or (gasp! gasp!) heathens!

(Also, let me ask you this... when the phrase 'jump the shark' jumps the shark, if it isn't already over on the other side of the shark smoking a cigarette and wondering what the hell that shark was there for, how will people express that?)

Saturday, March 12, 2005


Cernig has a batch of news/blog entries up. Cernig is a good read for right leaners who want to stay in touch with how the other side feels and thinks. He isn't a diatribe spewing psycho, but rather a principled believer who happens to be wrong. Think Lieberman as opposed to Kerry. In other words he's what THEY need to be healthy, which is what WE need to be healthy.

Simianbrain links to a GREAT post about the death of enviromnetalism.

Here at the NYTimes. An excerpt:

In the 1970's, the environmental movement was convinced that the Alaska oil pipeline would devastate the Central Arctic caribou herd. Since then, it has quintupled.

When I first began to worry about climate change, global cooling and nuclear winter seemed the main risks. As Newsweek said in 1975: "Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend ... but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

This record should teach environmentalists some humility. The problems are real, but so is the uncertainty. Environmentalists were right about DDT's threat to bald eagles, for example, but blocking all spraying in the third world has led to hundreds of thousands of malaria deaths.

Likewise, environmentalists were right to warn about population pressures, but they overestimated wildly. Paul Ehrlich warned in "The Population Bomb" that "the battle to feed humanity is over. ... Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." On my bookshelf is an even earlier book, "Too Many Asians," with a photo of a mass of Indians on the cover. The book warns that the threat from relentlessly multiplying Asians is "even more grave than that of nuclear warfare."

Kudos to the NYTimes for publishing this editorial, and to the liberals who grasp its truth. The exerpt above is why I laugh when people say Bush in harming the environment. Why would I trust these people. If it wasn't for their irrationality much of the country would be powered by nuclear energy, which is nearly perfect. It if wasn't for their ignorance much of the old growth forest that burned recently would still be pristeen. If it wasn't for... well, anyway, you get the point.

The environmental movement is like the ACLU. If they really did what they profess to do I would love these people, but in the end they hurt the causes they pretend to champion.

Not ENOUGH government?

PSoTD has a post about the size of the house of representatives here. This is an interesting idea, as the size of the House of Representatives is based on a 1910 census, and therefore should probably be adjusted. As a conservative I'm supposed to be against big government, but having more governors doesn't necessarily lead to that, and, as PSoTD says (in different words), when you change the rules the professional weasels arent' so far ahead of the game as the non-professional weasels, and a little spike in the liberty graph often ensues. Anyway, it is an interesting idea.

Friday, March 11, 2005

The Nuclear, or Constitutional Option, according to VP Cheney

via HughHewitt.com

Here's what the Vice President said about the filibusters yesterday:

"HH: Last question, Mr. Vice President. Back to the Senate on judges. The nuclear option is much discussed, the Constitutional option as Senator Hatch calls it, the lead story in the New Yorker. Do you expect to have to make that ruling of whether or not it is out of order to filibuster judges?

VP: Well, the way I think I would describe it is we believe what the Democrats have done, with respect to filibustering judges for the first time in the history of the Republic, is just fundamentally wrong. We've gone through more than 200 years of history without having the filibuster applied to judicial nominations. And if we let that precedent stand, we'll have altered, to some extent, the relationship between the Executive and Legislative, and we will have undermined the president's authority to appoint nominees to the federal bench. We think it's important that nominees come to an up or down vote. If they don't have the votes, they should be defeated. That's altogether proper. That's the way the system is supposed to work. But when we get into the situation we're in now, where they pick out an individual because of his or her views, and mount a filibusters, requiring us, in effect, to get 60 votes to confirm a nominee, we think that's just wrong. How this is going to play out in the months ahead is as yet undetermined. But obviously, I would expect to be in the middle of it as the President of the Senate and the individual who would preside over the Senate should such a rule become necessary."

That about sums it up for me.

Calling All Bloggers

From The Unpaid Punditry Corps,

Hey bloggers, we probably oughta all jump in on Glenn Reynold's and Politology blog's idea for a bipartisan blogosphere coalition to oppose (and punish) those who support the Bankruptcy Bill.

As a multi-partisan blogging coalition, the UPC heartily supports and will be involved in these efforts.

Our senators don't face reelection until '08 and '10, respectively, but we've got to organize to take down bought legislators, regardless of party.

This is really a matter that gets to the heart of whether we want to be a divided people, or whether we can put that aside from time to time and forcefully remind the politicians that they serve at the pleasure of the people.

In short, do we want to be partisans or do we want good government?

Time to get medieval on their asses.

Signed, The UPC

ed.- this post is copied from the UPC main board. As a proud and loyal member of the UPC I feel honor bound to publish it, but I must add that I--- 1. don't know too much about this bill 2. wish that the bipartisan energy being used to combat this bill was being used to destroy McCain/Feingold. Having said that- the UPC is full of smart m-fers, and Glenn Reynolds and the rest of the Higher Beings that began this thing are pretty derned smart, too.

No free speech in France or Italy

This BBC article is about how Christians in France and Italy used the courts there to stop a clothing manufacturer from showing a female version of Christ in public. Why? Well, it hurts some people's feelings.

Great... This, along with today's Big post of the day, (or just scroll down) combined with Justice Kennedy's decision to let Europeans decide what's legal in America, have got me freaking out. Is there a pattern here or am I turning into Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory? I do own quite a few copies of Catcher in the Rye...

BIG post of the day-

Is here. It details how nearly ALL the organizations dedicated to 'Campaign Finance Reform' are financed by George Soros and a bunch of like minded liberals. Actually, I won't even call them liberals, or even ultra-liberals, as the article does. To me they've left the democracy coin all together. They are on the totalitarian coin. Call them whatever you want. They are fascists. And McCain is in their pocket. You should DEFINITELY read the whole thing, but here is an excerpt:

by maintaining the fiction of independence from one and other, they appear to much of the press to be a pack of scrappy underdogs sinking their teeth into the ankles of the big-money men.

Well, it's a sham. It's a charade. It's a lie. They are the big-money men. And, with the release of the Political Money Line report, it's time the media started treating them as such. The billionaires and liberal foundations constantly calling for more restrictions on the freedom of ordinary Americans to assemble and speak are not a movement -- they are a lobby.

And the first lobbyist who should be called out is none other than the Reformer-in-Chief, Sen. John McCain. The senator has been caught with his pants down this week, accepting what are essentially campaign contributions to a phony think tank called the Reform Institute.

Thursday, March 10, 2005

The UPC is up and running... to somewhere, I suppose. I don't know where or anything.

I was going to make a post about how the UPC, (Unpaid Punditry Corps) was up and going but I was blocked. (I know it sounds stupid but it's true. I do lots of stupid things.) So I STOLE the below post from fellow UPC member Mr. M... Substitute the part where he says "I've been slaving away at setting up the Unpaid Punditry Corps' home page," with "I've been sitting around listening to my brain buzz and it is accurate for me, as well.

Okay, so you may have noticed a lag in blogging from me over the past couple of days. No, it wasn't because I was playing video games (not that much anyway). I've been slaving away at setting up the Unpaid Punditry Corps' home page.

As it stands, the site is about 90% complete which, as far as we're concerned, is good enough. So now all of you out there that have been wondering what the hell I've been talking about everytime I mention the "UPC," or you ask yourself what the hell is going on everytime you look at the blogroll off to your right, can go the website, and have your questions answered.

It's a broad sweeping vision, with a wide agenda, and a lot of good people driving it, so check it out, and maybe join the Unpaid Punditry Corps yourself. We'd love to have ya.

Mr. M

Many thanks to you, Mr. M!!! Not only for setting it up, but for writing a post about it that I could steal... MAUAAHAHAHAH!

Businessman Offers $1 Million to Keep Terri Schiavo Alive

Read all about it right here. The man who offered it is a hero, in my book. But from Terri Schiavo's husband's point of view... he's in a strange position.
If he takes the money he's an a--hole for not letting her live until he was offered money.
If he doesn't take the money he's an a--hole for not letting her live, anyway, but we can assume there is some kind of principle involved. Unless, of course, the rumors that he caused her brain damage and fears she'll recover and testify against him are true, in which case he's MORE of an a--hole.
This is horrible, terrifically compelling story. And it gets more gruesome and fascinating as the weeks go on. Let's hope he taks the money and runs. He's an a--hole either way- he may as well be a rich one.

Update. a-hole has rejected the offer... He says he once promised Terri he would not allow her to be kept alive by "artificial means." A feeding tube qualifies as "artificial means," according to a-hole, and he is judge and jury. So she will starve to death, I guess. Or maybe she will die of thirst.
I guess a-hole thinks some promises are more important than others. It is okay to screw other women and have children outside of his marriage, but it isn't okay to let Terri live. Hmmm...


Now that I'm a UPC member I'm on the waiting list at the China Club plus I get free Chalupas from Taco Bell every third Tuesday of the month.
But I do get homework... I need to pick 5 libby politicians and/or activists I admire... 5?!? Yeah, 5. And they have to be alive, believe it or not. This is tough. Kennedy? Oh yeah he let his mistress drown in the river. Okay, Kerry. Wait, he smuggled guns to genocidal communist geurillas. (HE said so... I don't believe him but either way he's out.) Clinton? Even if he didn't rape that other lady he definitely had an in intern suck him off IN THE WHITE HOUSE in between sessions of terrorist-buttock-kissing. His wife? She stuck with him... she's out.
Um... Tony Blair! Whoo-hoo! That's one!
Lieberman! Really? Well... no. I mean you wouldn't admire Mr. McGoo's eyesight just because his peers were blind...
I need to go to the Jiu Jitsu forum and get some help...

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

Why Join the UPC? (or any other multi-partisan group blog)

Old Nana (this is apocryphal) says her home town had but one radio station. The terrible result- she had to listen to country, classical, and gospel, to hear her beloved Elvis. The wonderful result- she was exposed to country, classical, and gospel, in her quest to hear Hound Dog. If Nana was a kid today she could probably locate, on her satellite receiver, (radios? HAH!) a station that played Elvis songs 24/7.

Political blogs provide the equivalent variety and specificity of choice to Political Blog Readers (PBR). Nobody knows the ratio of PBR to political blogs. Are there 10,000 PBR for every would-be Daily Kos? Maybe the ratio is as low as 100-1. There may, in fact, be more political blogs than PBR available to read them. (Not encouraging, exactly, for those of us who like to write them.)

Given this plethora of choices, libertarian-leaning-conservative-sci-fi-and-gadget-fanantics who-figure-gays-should-be-allowed-to-marry-but-legislatures should-decide-that will end up at Instapundit, while libertarian-leaning-conservative-non-sci-fi-and-gadget-fanantics who-figure-gays should-maybe-be-allowed-to-marry-but-legislatures-should-decide-that will visit Powerline. (My apologies to the authors of those blogs if I misinterpreted their stances). Of course that is an extreme example of specificity, and those two blogs share PBR and in fact link to each other pretty regularly. However, Daily Kos PBR read Powerline about as often as Quakers participate in Hamas rallies, I imagine.

The point is that, given the MSM’s decreasing influence, more people will rely on bloggers, and they will choose bloggers who reinforce their views. Thus, fewer people will be exposed to opposing opinions. This will result in a more divided republic, and perhaps in what you could call a Kook Republic. I’ve little doubt that the left is controlled by the Far Left, or Loony Left, Moonbats, or Kook Left, and no doubt those Loony Lefties think the right is controlled by fascist, racist, Right Wing Ideologues, Hitler Dopplegangers, or other manifestations of the Kook Right. The fact that I’m sure, or, more importantly, that YOU are pretty sure, that the Right is right and the Left is wrong about this, or vice versa, is immaterial and at the same time of the utmost relevance. The internet allows us to surround ourselves with those who reinforce our own viewpoints. If you think the other side is run by kooks you are a kook, no matter what side you’re on. We are ALL Kooks.

For graphic evidence of this read this Washington Monthly article. Note the accompanying graphics!

Multi-partisan blogs like the UPC are a solution to this problem. We have representatives from all ends of the political spectrum. We are united only in that we are Greens in PSoTD's Tom Ridge-inspired color scale.

PSoTD’s Commentary Scale

Red - Has declared liberals are traitors or treasonous.
Orange - Has declared that they despise/dislike liberals, but no mention of the T word.
Green - Has denounced the "liberals are traitors or treasonous" meme.

Red - Has declared conservatives are evil.
Orange - Has declared that they despise/dislike conservatives, but no mention of the E word.
Green - Has denounced the "conservatives are evil" meme.

This scale provides a guideline for liberals and conservatives who want to exchange ideas with those who disagree with them. It helps people choose and maintain a civil tone. My liberal friend Cernig doesn’t have to say anything good about President Bush, nor avoid criticizing him, but he does have to try to avoid labeling conservatives in order to squelch debate. And I must do the same regarding liberals.

The story of the scale’s creation and evolution also provide an example of how interaction with ‘the other’ – no matter who ‘the other’ is to you, benefits all involved. It began with this post, by PSoTD. The relevant excerpts:

How often do you see blog posts along the lines of this?

They do not know it or accept it, but liberals are traitors to this nation.

Fighting to show liberals that their actions actually hurt the
United States and enable our enemies to fight and hate us more.

Liberals like Ted Kennedy are absolute traitors...

we should be able to identify those who persist in such talk, who let this talk flourish, or who do not try to stop this talk in its tracks. I guess I'm suggesting a modified Tom Ridge Color Code for Conservative Commentators, which would work something like the following:

Red - Has declared liberals are traitors or treasonous.
Orange - Has declared that they despise/dislike liberals, but no mention of the T word.
Green - Has denounced the "liberals are traitors or treasonous" meme.

Cernig over at Newshog coupled that post with my related post, here, which doesn’t require an excerpt as it is tangential. (Worth reading in my humble, subjective opinion though, heh.) Having read PSoTD’s post I responded on my blog with this:

I think this is a fantastic idea. Let me be the first conservative to publicly declare... I RENOUNCE the "liberals are traitors or treasonous" meme. Ranking conservative bloggers with this system is only half the battle, though. In the comments section of the PSoTD's post I extended this challenge:

Conservatives, like me, often complain that while we say liberals are wrong, liberals say we are evil. I suppose this complaint is the flipside to that (complaint that conservatives say liberals are traitors). I hereby publicly declare that I denounce the "liberals are traitors or treasonous" meme. I will do so on my site as well... will you renounce the "conservatives are not just wrong, they are evil" meme?

And I think ALL bloggers, left and right, should employ PSoTD's system. Ths system for conservatives would remain as above. The system for liberal bloggers would be slightly different:

Red - Has declared conservatives are evil.
Orange - Has declared that they despise/dislike conservatives, but no mention of the E word.
Green - Has denounced the "conservatives are evil" meme.

Thus was a fully formed good idea born into the blogosphere. The UPC is an extension of the heart of this idea. Hopefully, more people will join multi-partisan blogs, dedicated to the principle that people should engage those with differing opinions. It is always better to search for the Platonic Truth, (even if you don’t believe in Platonic Truths) rather than preach to the choir, or sit in one. It can be uncomfortable, sometimes even painful, but in the end we are all stronger, smarter, and better if we do so.