Author: VD

JW writes again: I never mentioned a word about “heredity monarchy in Saudi Arabia”, Mr. Day. What in heaven’s name are you talking about?

My mention of the Founding Fathers and their lack of support for women’s suffrage was in response to a comment by Dr BDH, who said, predictably: “At last Vox Day has explained why everything is so great in Saudi Arabia.” JW seems to be confused as to who wrote what when, and why.

The case against women’s suffrage is by no means limited to original intent. Since you’ve now abandoned your previous “original intent” argument, may I take it then that you have tacitly conceded that argument as being totally without merit?

No, because I never made any original intent argument. As you admit in your first paragraph, you clearly have no idea what I’m talking about. I’m not surprised. Nice try for a quick win on a technicality, though.

You are the one randomly blowing hot air— first putting forward “original intent” as a justification for opposing female suffrage, and then quickly abandoning that argument as soon as its inherent absurdity is pointed out.

Sigh…he’s a slow one, this guy. Even for a libewal.

Anyway, to answer your question, Mr. Day, the women of my family are intensely involved in politics at the federal, state and local levels of government. They have run for office, held office, and supported other women who did so. They have worked on numerous issues and supported various political parties. I would personally be VERY upset if they could not vote or run for office, and I also think that their lack of political participation would be a loss to thenation as a whole.

Well, at least he’s honest. Women’s suffrage has benefited society because JW would be VERY personally upset if it didn’t exist today. A solid 8.5 on the libewal argumentation scale, ladies and gentlemen! The moderate use of all-caps shows a nice flair for the dramatic.

Secondly, the women of my family, like those of the entire nation, pay/have paid literally trillions of dollars in taxes toward the common good. I fail to see why you’d propose taxation without representation for them— and this is true regardless of the particular type of taxation, whether it be income tax (which you probably oppose as a Libertarian) or sales tax or tariffs on imported goods or whatever type of tax the human mind can devise.

He’s a real math whiz, this JW. Who wants to let him know that the annual national economy is all of $10.5 trillion. Since their taxes are in the literal trillions, they must be in the highest bracket and must have had a collective minimum income of at least $4 trillion over the past 40 years since women entered the work force en masse. So, the women of JW’s family are collectively pulling in at least $400 billion per year – say, are any of them single?

(Now, this assumes that taxes go towards the common good, not paying interest on the national debt as the Grace Commission found is actually the case.)

The fact that you are obviously irritated by the fact that women do not reliably support your favourite political or religious beliefs is, too be blunt, tough shit for you. Other people’s rights are not based upon your personal satisfaction.

I’m not irritated, I’m just observing that women’s suffrage has, as far as I can see, made American women more miserable than ever and helped tear apart our society. But perhaps I’m wrong, and we can have more divorce, more abortion, more obese single women on welfare and then society will finally reach that glorious pinnacle of self-satisfied ecstasy towards which universal suffrage is destined to bring it.

I think I’m feeling a little KG today. Anyone else feeling it? Get that weak….

Franger writes: Vox, I challenge you on what I feel is a flaw in this whole thing about denying women the right to vote. Why stop at women? By your argument – women are more likely to support security over liberty in their voting decisions. This is based on polling data. So why not african americans? They consistently vote for democrats or other leftist groups or parties overwhelmingly. Why not white atheist males? Couldn’t it be said that they tend to form a worldview different than that from white christian males? And what makes you worthy of the vote Vox?

I never said anything about stopping at women. Most people should not be permitted to vote in a constitutional republic. Women are simply the largest group that reliably opposes, collectively speaking, individual human liberty and freedom. Let me turn it around for a moment and ask this question: why have any restrictions on democracy at all? Why were such restrictions instituted in the first place?

The reason is that most people are incapable of looking beyond either tomorrow or their own personal interests. We do not permit children to vote because they would make foolish decisions that are not in their best interest. Women, like many other groups taken in the collective, repeatedly demonstrate that they are not interested in accepting responsibility for themselves. This is why they reliably support ideologies designed to concentrate all decision-making power in a very small oligarchy.

One way or another, an elite will be wielding power in every society. The choice is simple. A broad and decentralized elite of independent meritocracy – in historical terms, the rich white men who founded this country – or a very small and vicious elite that has clawed its way to central authority.

So, I challenge “democrats” such as Franger to put their money where their mouths are. Either support a true democracy and abjure this bizarre antidemocratic system designed expressly to thwart the genuine will of the people expressed through the ballot box, or admit that restrictions on voting are necessary and we are simply quibbling about precisely where to draw the line.

I do favor a decentralized constitutional republic where only those who demonstrate a) an understanding of constitutional principles, b) an ability to logically, c) an ability to think beyond their own interests, d) an ability to accept consequences, e) a genuine commitment to individual human liberty and freedom as expressly delineated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are permitted a voice in government.

But if that is not possible, and at this time I admit that it is not, I would fully support a genuine democracy, wherein the Supreme Court and Congress are disbanded, replaced by national referendums voted on weekly by the entire people. The technology is there. The perfect expression of the will of the people is possible. I’m all for it, seriously, as the history of state referendums proves that the people are more to be trusted than the ruling oligarchy.

So, tell me, outraged supporters of women’s suffrage, do you really support the right of women to vote? Or is it necessary to limit it and keep it under the control of those who know what’s best for them?

JW writes in: You are wrong in so many ways! But let me just limit this posting to your use of the so-called “original intent” of the Founding Fathers as an argument against women’s suffrage. The genius of the Fathers was not to bequeath us a granite monument with The Correct Answer for all time! Their genius was to leave us a living, breathing document that would live, grow and change according to the demands of democracy and conscience.

I will begin by admitting straight away that the Framers had no “original intent” to allow women to vote. In turn, YOU must admit that the Framers had no “original intent”to have the seat of government in Washington, DC. There was no “original intent” to have the President live in a building called the White House. There was no “original intent” to have an FBI. There was no “original intent” to have a CIA. There was no “original intent” to have NASA. There was no “original intent” to have the US AirForce. There was no “original intent” to have the US Marines. There was no “original intent”to have the Federal Reserve Bank. There was no “original intent” to have a Smithsonian. There was no “original intent” to free the slaves. There was no “original intent” for the Lousiana Purchase. There was no “original intent” for Texas statehood. There was no “original intent”for Alaskan statehood. There was no “original intent” for Hawaiian statehood. There was no “original intent” to have Thanksgiving. There was no “original intent” to have a national anthem. There was no “original intent” to have a Pledge of Allegiance.

I could go on and on, but these few examples alone reduce your tiresome argument to absurdity. You, and a few of your wacko friends may personally be opposed to female suffrage, but to attribute these warped sentiments to the Founders is completely bogus.

The wonders of the liberal mind never cease to entertain! The most amusing thing is that he doesn’t seem to realize that I never once mentioned anything about “original intent” as an argument against women’s suffrage. I only mentioned the Founding Fathers to illustrate why it is absurd to equate a lack of support for female voting with support for a hereditary monarchy as in Saudi Arabia.

My favorite part is when he concludes by stating that the Founders did not have the sentiments that he began by admitting they did, in fact, have. This is a lovely exhibit of how to argue like a liberal:

1. Fail to understand the point.

2. Latch onto a phrase the other person mentioned and make naked assertions derived from that.

3. Claim that this completely destroys the other person’s argument, even if it has literally nothing to do with said argument.

4. Assert that you have plenty of other equally devastating responses, but you won’t bother with them right now.

5. Conclude by contradicting yourself.

6. Walk away thinking you won.

Che bellissimo! Truly, a work of art.

AW writes from Mexico: Pretty outrageous of Bush, that speech of his. What with the “crusade” omission and the “not the expression of a religion” absurdity. And another zinger- Bush spoke of the war against the “ideology of terrorism”. But terrorism isn’t an ideology – it’s a method ! It’s like FDR saying WWII was a war against the “ideology of blitzkrieg”. Amazing, simply amazing. But have you noticed he’s still hated by Muslims as an enemy of Islam? The guy panders and it still does him no good. Another example, he’s pandered to Mexico more than any president in history. But here in Mexico, the media calls him an illegitimate president and likens him to Hitler. Will the guy ever learn?

I don’t know if I’d characterize the speech as outrageous so much as dispiriting. It’s been clear for over sixteen months that retreat from financial empire was out, and for nine months that decisive war is also out. I’m hoping that we’re not soon going to see another Pearl Harbor that will provide the impetus for kickstarting the latter option, but time will tell. Then again, one can never be too cynical where geopolitics are concerned.

As for the president, more and more he appears to have a relationship with his various foes that resembles a co-dependent battered woman. “Love me, love me,” he cries. “See what I do for you?” And all that gets him is another punch in the face. This is not a model of leadership, political courage or strength of character in my view.

Of all the remembrances of Ronald Reagan now being written, I think Joe Carter’s is perhaps the most significant.

The most appropos act of tribute to the late president, however, belongs to George W. Bush: “The federal government will be closed Friday in honor of former President Ronald Reagan, the White House announced Sunday.”

I can’t think of a more fitting way to honor the passing of this great man. Too bad the closure won’t be made permanent.

RD writes: Everyone in the world, who is not in denial, Christian and Muslim alike are holding their breath hoping that the coming World War, that everyone fears, can be delayed or prevented by partial war and appeasement. When it comes, It will be unlike any war in the history of civilization and hundreds of millions will die and it may continue for at least fifty years. Some believe that Armageddon is upon us. Most hope and pray that it is not, including President Bush.

It is a clash of civilizations that is over a thousand years old. And the three major religions all predict an ultimate conflict. The forces at work are beyond the control of anyone. It is not of our choosing and our only choices will be to become Muslim, to fight or to die. Still, there were few who believed that the conflict with the Soviet Union would not ultimately result in a nuclear holocaust. It was the singular courage of Reagan that won that conflict without a war.

I agree that we are potentially dealing with a great clash of civilizations here, but I don’t believe that the American people are well served by a dissembling leadership. The American people are being lied to about the nature of the enemy, the sacrifices that they may be forced, (not asked), to make as well as the dangers to their liberties that they face, from within and without. Meanwhile, the administration takes steps that actually place the people in more danger, even as they fail to prepare them for the potential conflict.

It is not too late for the West to avoid open war. Pulling back our quasi-imperial outposts and expelling the alien fifth column would likely lead to the collapse of the dollar’s global financial hegemony and have a terrible effect on our economy, but far less than full-scale conflict between the Dar-al-Harb and the Dar-al-Islam, and America would remain intact and prepared for decisive action. Those European countries wise enough to follow our example would do well – the Netherlands is already taking steps in this direction – while others, like France, will not do anything until it was too late for anything but the usual European solution, vicious government persecution of the disfavored minority.

This is a subject on which the national debate should begin, but since we live in a land where the people have given up their sovereignty to a cabal of professional bureaucrats and politicians concerned primarily about reelection, that seems unlikely. So, we’ll soon find out if George Bush’s half-measures will suffice.

But for those who still consider the president to be a great martial leader, ponder this. Both Churchill and Reagan spoke long and loud about the primary danger posed to their respective nations, to such an extent that they were both considered Johnny One-notes, long before either of them were elected to office. And once in office, neither was shy about working towards eliminating the danger.

Naturally, some left-liberals have gotten their panties in a bunch about my suggestion that women’s suffrage has been disastrous for the nation. And as you’d expect, none of them actually bothered to offer any argument that this is not in fact the case, but consider angry name-calling, senseless sputtering and otherwise affecting the vapors to pass for devastating response.

The expected comparisons to Saudia Arabia and the Taliban popped up; apparently the distinction between limited voting in a constitutional republic and no voting at all in a hereditary monarchy is too fuzzy for these handicapable brains to absorb. In other words, Thomas Jefferson = the House of Saud. Yeah, good luck with that one.

It’s a simple question, actually. Is the nation better off or worse off as a result of women’s suffrage? If so, how? It’s a tough case to make, unless you want to argue that divorce, illegitimacy, homosexuality and falling real wages are the historical signs of a healthy society. Of course, these are the same sort of people who, in the past, have tried to argue that masses of women entering the work force had NO POSSIBLE EFFECT on wage rates, so I wouldn’t put it past them to give it the old sophmoronic try.

The amusing thing is that these people, presumably small-d democrats, are so clueless that they don’t realize that this nation is not and has never been a democracy. We could actually have a real democracy now, as the technology is possible, and yet it never crosses the tiny little minds of these “democrats” to call for one as they support yet another plutocrat in the Bush-Clinton-Bush Yale line.

Voting is not a God-given right as delineated in either the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights. Liberty, in fact, denies universal democracy, (or mobocracy as it was known), a fact that anyone who has read the Federalist Papers would know the Founding Fathers understood very well. The dichotomy of a libertarian favoring limited suffrage is only an apparent contradiction to the ideologically and historically ignorant.

E perche “popoli” invece “populi”? Perche parlo italiano, non latina.

For some time, I’ve been disappointed that there isn’t a good Palmbook reader for Linux. This is strange, since some Palm-equivalents actually run on a Linux OS, but I’ve finally found a solution to my liking.

WINE, the Windows emulator, is a good program but not the easiest to comprehend or manipulate. In my case, it was almost unusable because every time I ran it, it would take 3-4 minutes to run the fonts through some process or another. After a little digging, I learned that I had to tell WINE how to find a place to load the Windows fonts automatically, which, since I run a dual-boot machine, is in the Windows Fonts directory.

I told it how to find them by going into the WINE configuration file, which is done by using the terminal to go into /home/user/.wine and running GEDIT CONFIG. I only had to change one line, (the italicized line below), and remove the semicolon that commented it out.

; the TrueType font dirs you want to make accessible to wine

[FontDirs]

“dir1” = “/mnt/windows/winnt/Fonts”

;”dir2″ = “/usr/share/fonts/truetype”

;”dir3″ = “/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TT”

;”dir4″ = “/usr/share/fonts/TT”

Palm Reader then worked without the excruciating delay, but I was getting an error saying that Windows 98 or better was required, so I made one more change, (again italicized below).

[Version]

; Windows version to imitate (win95,win98,winme,nt351,nt40,win2k,winxp,win2k3,win20,win30,win31)

“Windows” = “win2k”

; DOS version to imitate

;”DOS” = “6.22”

Finally, for ease of use, I created a launcher by first creating a little text file called winpalm, which does nothing more than change the directory to the one containing Palm Reader and call WINE PALM READER.EXE. The launcher command is simply SH WINPALM. Pick an icon, and you’re reading .pdb files in Linux. I don’t do much reading this way, preferring my Dana most of the time, but it’s a nice option if you’re going to sit down and have a sandwich while you’re reading.

From WND: Some 80 percent of the 816 GIs killed in Iraq have died since major combat operations were declared over in May 2003.

This is the percentage equivalent of America suffering an additional 1.17 million fatalities after hostilities ceased in WWII. (There were 292,131 American battle deaths from 1941-1945). From this, we can conclude at least one of two things:

1. The current war was never truly about Iraq or Hussein per se and is thus not over.

2. The Japan/Germany post-war model is not relevant to the present situation.

My belief is that both are true. I have no doubt that tomorrow’s column is going to infuriate a lot of people, including some regulars here, but I would encourage you to seriously consider what I am saying in light of the established facts, not your instinctive emotional reaction.

There are those who consider George W. Bush to be carrying Ronald Reagan’s torch. I find the suggestion laughable. The man who did not fear to demand that the leader of the world’s second most powerful military force “tear down this wall!” would never have uttered the infamous “religion of peace” line.

Rhone writes: think it would be very interesting to see WND’s response to a column like that. Prediction: they won’t like it; moreover, they won’t like it Big Time.

Manatee adds: No way will WND allow him to write that piece.

Sure they will. They’ve only ever refused to publish one column of mine, on the close etymological relationship between a homosexual slur and a political ideology, and they were probably right to do so. I’d be shocked if they demurred or even commented in any way on a column about the voting electorate.

That being said, there’s only one way to find out. If someone can email me the results of the post-1920 presidential election results broken down by sex, I’ll write it. I bet I can not only make a case for it, but one with which many women will agree as well as presenting an alternative that even outraged feminists will find hard to refute.