Author: VD

It could, of course, be applied to almost any subject:

yes, I am totally ignorant re: home-schooling. But that still allows me to state that I personally think it’s a really bad idea.

I don’t know much about Uruguay myself. But that still allows me to state that I personally think Uruguayans are all really bad people. Anyhow, there”s an interesting discussion about homeschooling over on Pandagon, where the lefties are torn between blaming the Patriarchy for coming up with another way to keep women home and deprive them of an income, lauding hippy homeschoolers while castigating the “fundie” version and being vaguely defensive about their public school backgrounds.

If the feminist Left is so concerned about the problem of unpaid homeschooling mothers, there’s an easy solution: give them the money that their school district would get if their kids were enrolled in the public school.

And wouldn’t that make for an interesting battle between the feminists in the NEA and the feminists in whom genuine concern for mothers and children has not been entirely eradicated.

Conservative anymore. And yet, NRO published a reasonably fair article about Ron Paul today:

After serving in Congress for just over 16 of the last 31 years and attracting minimal national attention during that time, Paul has, in just a few weeks, begun to stand out — and apart — from the rest of the Republican candidates….

One might think that Paul, as a pro-life, anti-amnesty, government-cutting economic conservative would find a welcome home in conservative circles, but in recent weeks, the congressman has been lambasted for his longstanding opposition to the Iraq war. Michelle Malkin wrote that Paul “has no place on the Republican stage,” and Townhall.com’s Dean Barnett called him “the very definition of a crank.”

Rudy is a mendaciouth dithather. Romney only looks like the perfect politician, but he combines some of the worst elements of John Kerry and Michael Dukakis. McCain is insane. The sad thing about the Republican elite’s determination to keep Ron Paul out of the running – and the willingness of the Republican water-carriers in the blogosphere to follow their lead in this – is that he’s not only the right choice on principle, he’s the only pragmatic possibility for defeating Hillary with the possible exception of Huckabee.

Seriously, how do you expect to beat Hillary in what is obviously a down year for Republicans with candidates WHO SHARE HER VIEWS on all the major issues? Unless Republicans offer a viable and convincingly sincere break from the very unpopular actions of the recent past, they are sunk deeper than Dukakis driving his tank into Boston Harbor.

It’s bad enough when your leaders are ignoring Clausewitz. It’s worse when they’re ignoring modern military strategists who have been proven right again and again:

Will Saddam’s capture mark a turning point in the war in Iraq? Don’t count on it. Few resistance fighters have been fighting for Saddam personally. Saddam’s capture may lead to a fractioning of the Baath Party, which would move us further toward a Fourth Generation situation where no one can recreate the state. It may also tell the Shiites that they no longer need America to protect them from Saddam, giving them more options in their struggle for free elections….

The change in what our enemies fight for makes impossible the political compromises that are necessary to ending any war. We find that when it comes to making peace, we have no one to talk to and nothing to talk about. And the end of a war like that in Iraq becomes inevitable: the local state we attacked vanishes, leaving behind either a stateless region (Somalia) or a façade of a state (Afghanistan) within which more non-state elements rise and fight.

The primary reason 4GW foes are so hard to defeat is that their decentralized nature means that there’s no one leader susceptible to pressure into surrender. The main reason that Switzerland was not invaded during WWII was primarily due to the recognition that neither the president nor even the parliament had the authority to surrender the nation on behalf of the people and the various cantons; contrast with this the way that the Nazis barely had to fire a few shots before the central governments of Belgium and the Netherlands were falling all over themselves to wave the white flag.

As the Russians have learned, it’s much easier to defeat a powerful centralized nation-state of 60 million than it is to conquer a decentralized rebel populace of one million. When one recalls that the Russians are still fighting in Chechnya 13 years after their first post-Soviet era invasion and then considers that a) the population of Iraq is 27 times greater than Chechnya, and b) Chechnya is logistically easier for Russia than Iraq is for the USA, one should begin to understand that the Coalition forces have no reasonable hope of permanently imposing their will upon the various decentralized Iraqi forces against which they are fighting.

From Dr. Ron Paul:

The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King’s abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire-building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.

Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliché “Support the Troops” is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be….

Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

Ron Paul is not only the last chance for Republicans in 2008, he may well be the last hope of the Republic. The fact that this hope is a forlorn one does not excuse those who knowingly turn their backs on it in favor of dictators and Empire.

Portis, that is. I’m extremely interested in the Michael Vick dogfighting story due to its potential to influence the coming season, and I understand that if the laws have been broken, then NFL Commissioner Goodell will have no choice but to suspend Vick and any other NFL players that are involved. Although I suspect that Atlanta would be much better off without Vick than with him… especially if such a suspension would save them from having to pay part of his massive salary.

However, I don’t understand the rationale for banning dogfighting and cockfighting in the first place, let alone the laws against being a spectator at such events. There is something deeply twisted about a society that bans dogfights while simultaneously funding abortions, gassing millions of canines and running massive state lotteries. It’s especially bizarre that people who support dogfighting bans often wish to ban “dangerous breeds” entirely.

In other words, they believe that canine genoocide is desirable because certain breeds are prone to enjoy killing, but it’s undesirable to let the dogs kill one another. This isn’t just a massive violation of private property rights, it’s simply irrational. Shouldn’t we also prosecute National Geographic cameramen who not only attend Bighorn ram fights, but ACTUALLY GO SO FAR AS TO FILM THEM!

I very much like dogs. And while I enjoy human martial arts, I have no interest in ever attending a dogfight, nor has the thought of pitting my Viszla against anything more dangerous than a squirrel ever occurred to me. (And to be honest, it was entirely his idea, I was surprised he wasn’t afraid of the ferocious killer tree-rat.) But I see no legitimate moral or ethical basis for either banning dogfights or exterminating dog breeds.

For those who say it should be banned because it’s cruel to derive entertainment from pain, I note that I don’t see any moral or ethical basis for cutting out the tongues of teenage gossips either.

This Time Magazine article appears to note the ironies involved:

In the U. S. men can fight men in public, but the law decrees that it is cruel for them to match their dogs or chickens…. At week’s end, after tender care by Missouri Humane Society’s Veterinarian Carl Brenner, both dogs were in fine fettle, but were being held for probable asphyxiation….

I’m sure the dogs were tremendously grateful for their “rescue”.

Ann Althouse muses on female fatness:

The whole subject of the number itself is quite fascinating. There’s a mystique about the 200 mark, and lately I’ve gotten the feeling that there are a lot of Americans who don’t think a woman is particularly fat until she hits 200, and that there is a different group of people who think 125 is the point where fat begins.

Yeah, put me down for the latter category. Depending, of course, on the height; a woman shouldn’t weigh 125 unless she’s pregnant, unusually muscular or nearly six feet tall. 200 pounds? That’s ridiculous, it’s heavier than the average NFL cornerback at 5’10”, 190.

In many cases, I don’t regard fat people as being the most culpable for their state, however, as it’s often obvious that it is the parents who are primarily to blame. I was in the grocery store two days ago behind a very slightly overweight mother whose chubby seven year-old son was happily sucking down a huge soda that she’d obviously just bought him. Such poor dietary parenting not only creates bad habits, but sets people behind the weight ball from the start.

Unsurprisingly, the woman who goes 224 thinks that Americans need to rearrange their thinking. But I don’t see why fat people shouldn’t be banned from restaurants the same way smokers are, now that the principle of free association has been paved over in the so-called interest of the public health.

If you’re fat and want to get down to a normal size, stop drinking soda, (which you should stop in any case), stop snacking between meals and exercise every day, alternating 30 minutes of running or biking one day with 90 minutes of lifting free weights the next. Don’t worry about getting big from lifting, muscle takes up far less space than fat. The general rule is that fat girls do aerobics, fitness models lift.

You’ll start seeing results within four weeks. Unlike dieting, it becomes easier to stick to over time, not harder, thanks to the endorphin addiction.

I found this interview to be very interesting and I know the guy:

What is the Internet moving towards as an electronic entity? Do you agree with the assessment that it is turning people into inadequate socialites?

I think that as an entity, the Internet is in serious danger of choking to death on its own excrement, e.g., spam, viruses, Flash animations, etc.

As for whether it’s turning people into inadequate socialites: define “inadequate.” It changes the way people interact with each other, but then so do televisions, ATM machines, iPods, and self-service gas stations. Any technology that reduces the need to interact face-to-face with other people changes a person’s social patterns. Is this a bad thing? No, it’s just a change.

To say that it is bad is to say that change is inherently bad and we should all be living in tribal villages, listening only to live music, and never interacting with anyone outside of earshot or walking distance. Granted, thanks to the Internet I now have more communication with people in Australia and Europe than with my neighbor across the back fence, but on the other hand the people in Australia and Europe are far more interesting and intelligent than my neighbor. I’d rather be communicating with them.

The medical community continues its ethical death spiral:

The federal government is undertaking the most ambitious set of studies ever mounted under a controversial arrangement that allows researchers to conduct some kinds of medical experiments without first getting the patients’ permission.

The $50 million, five-year project, which will involve more than 20,000 patients in 11 sites in the United States and Canada, is designed to improve treatment after car accidents, shootings, cardiac arrest and other emergencies.

The three studies, organizers say, offer an unprecedented opportunity to find better ways to resuscitate people whose hearts suddenly stop, to stabilize patients who go into shock and to minimize damage from head injuries. Because such patients are usually unconscious at a time when every minute counts, it is often impossible to get consent from them or their families, the organizers say.

Of course, they could simply do a campaign to get people to sign up for the program ahead of time, like organ and blood donors. But that would cost money, and obviously money is far more important than ethics.

A great commercial. Courtesy of Evangelical Outpost.

I always find it mystifying that so many people continue to put such credence into the ideas pushed by awful people who lived unhappy, self-destructive lives:

The author of Peyton Place, says Foner, ‘was doing something on a cultural level that was extremely important. She was telling women it was OK to be sexual beings – to have the aspirations that men had.’

So an ugly, untalented woman who neglects her children managed to end up abandoned, bankrupt and dead at 39, naturally she is held up as a romantic figure worthy of emulation.

Cobbling together one novel of other people’s seamy stories is hardly a mark of literary greatness, if Metalious is to be considered an artistic success on the basis of the sales of the only book she managed to write herself, how much more greatness must we accord that multi-disciplinary genius, Jenna Jameson?

I think literary freaks of this sort are much to be preferred instead.