Category: Uncategorized

The Revolution resonates:

It sometimes seems as if someone is playing a cruel practical joke on Ron Paul. He goes to a college and delivers the same speech he’s given for the past 30 years of his political career, the one espousing the Austrian school of economics. Only now the audience is packed with hundreds of kids in RON PAUL REVOLUTION T-shirts who go nuts – giving standing ovations when he drones on about getting rid of the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold standard. After a speech at Iowa State last month, when nearly half the crowd had to stand because there were only 400 seats, a hipster-looking student worked his way through the half-hour-long line to shake Paul’s hand. This was surely it – the moment when the straight faces would break and Paul would be wedgied up the flagpole. “When you see Bernanke,” the kid said, “will you tell him to stop cutting rates when gold hits 1,000?”

The libertarian’s traction is most apparent on the Internet, where his presence far outstrips that of any candidate from either party. His name is the most searched, his YouTube videos the most watched, his campaign the topic of songs by at least 14 bands. “The last thing I would listen to is rap,” Paul says. “But there’s something going on when there’s a rap song about the Fed.” On Tuesday, both Paul and Tom Cruise were guests on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. The actor went to Paul’s dressing room to thank him for his work on a bill fighting the forced mental screening of grade-school kids. “Go. Go. Go. Go hard,” Cruise said. Paul turned to an aide and asked, “What movies has he been in?”

“His supporters are the equivalent of crabgrass,” says G.O.P. consultant Frank Luntz. “It’s not the grass you want, and it spreads faster than the real stuff. They just like him because he’s the most anti-Establishment of all the candidates, the most likely to look at the camera during the debates and say, ‘Hey, Washington, f— you.'”

Given the state of the Establishment, there’s a lot to be anti about. And the reason that his supporters are “not the grass” the Republican Party wants is that they aren’t mindless individuals who will froth at the mouth and vote on command at every invocation of the “lesser of two evils” argument.

UPDATE – Mark Krikorian sums it up nicely:

Stanley: I decided to take a look and see who’d said what on the issue of licensing illegal aliens. Romney and Thompson have already issued statements blasting the idea, Giuliani was unequivocal in his condemnation on the Glenn Beck show, Hunter doesn’t seem to be highlighting it, but he touts his vote for the Real ID Act that set federal standards, so it’s safe to say he’s on the right side….

I’m not sure of Ron Paul is in favor of driver’s licenses for anyone.

Sir Anthony Flew is only one of many individuals, including me, who have rejected atheism or agnosticism as intellectually developed adults because of the evidence, not in spite of it.

Wiker: You are obviously aware of the spate of recent books by such atheists as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. They think that those who believe in God are behind the times. But you seem to be politely asserting that they are ones who are behind the times, insofar as the latest scientific evidence tends strongly toward—or perhaps even demonstrates—a theistic conclusion. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

Flew: Yes indeed. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.

I have found that one of the most damning things about atheism is the way in which very, very few come to an atheist position as adults, but rather as children (Hitchens) or teenagers (Dawkins, Russell). Sam Harris’s irreligious awakening as a result of taking ecstasy is amusingly ironic, but equally unimpressive. This doesn’t necessarily testify to the truth or falsehood of atheism itself, but it does go a long way towards judging the intellectual credibility of the individual atheist. College is not a time of intellectual refinement, but rather intellectual experimentation; it should be no surprise that college professors are particularly inclined towards atheism as they tend to be emotionally and intellectually stunted individuals, crippled by their existence in sheltered, artificial academic hot-houses.

They are college students in perpetuity, and one need only think back to one’s university days to recall that there are few things sillier or more shallow than what passes for a college student’s intellectual life.

Underlining the utter vaccuity of the atheist position is the fact that the average atheist does not even understand what the word “evidence” means. There are many types of evidence beyond scientific evidence, the entire basis for our system of law explicitly denies the concept that “scientific evidence” is the only valid form of evidence.

Of the four types of evidence deemed permissible for determining truth in court, only “real” evidence for God can possibly be considered lacking in any way, although not necessarily as documentary evidence is considered a form of real evidence. There is ample demonstrative, documentary, and testimonial evidence, and in legal terms, testimonial evidence is the strongest as it is “the only kind that does not usually require another form of evidence as a prerequisite for its admissibility. See Evid. Code § 702(b); Fed R. Evid. 602.”

Scientific evidence, on the other hand, is often not permissible in court because it is too often known to be unreliable.

The atheist Theodore Dalrymple adds the obvious:

Of course, men—that is to say, some men—have denied this truth ever since the Enlightenment, and have sought to find a way of life based entirely on reason. Far as I am from decrying reason, the attempt leads at best to Gradgrind and at worst to Stalin. Reason can never be the absolute dictator of man’s mental or moral economy….

The curious thing about these books is that the authors often appear to think that they are saying something new and brave. They imagine themselves to be like the intrepid explorer Sir Richard Burton, who in 1853 disguised himself as a Muslim merchant, went to Mecca, and then wrote a book about his unprecedented feat. The public appears to agree, for the neo-atheist books have sold by the hundred thousand. Yet with the possible exception of Dennett’s, they advance no argument that I, the village atheist, could not have made by the age of 14….

I got a phone call informing me that my father was arrested a few hours ago. He has a way of landing on his feet, though, so I won’t be terribly surprised when more High Weirdness ensues.

I really don’t wish to discuss the matter, at least not until he is cleared of everything, but given how many of you here wish him well, I thought you deserved to know.

I simply cannot understand the first thing about Brad Childress and his coaching decisions. From ProFootballTalk:

On Monday, former NFL quarterback Jeff George made it known that he’d like to play for the Vikings. On Wednesday, coach Brad Childress responded.

“Probably maybe go to a fantasy camp or something like that,” Childress said.

Asked whether George is on the downside of his playing career, Childress said, “Downside would probably be — I think — kind.”

Ouch. We didn’t know an NFL coach could be so snarky….

George is 38. Vinny Testaverde is 43. George has far less wear and tear than most other quarterbacks his age, because he really hasn’t played all that much. And he likely still has a rocket of an arm.

But even bringing George in for a look-see would be a tacit admission by Childress that his current quarterbacks suck. The fact that Childress is the only one who apparently can’t see this means that, in due time, it will be kind to say that Childress is on the downside of his coaching career.

What is wrong with the guy? His quarterbacks haven’t even been mediocre, they have sucked prodigiously by every single measure of quarterbacking performance known to Man! Entire quarters go by without a completed pass! The wide receivers are possibly the worst in the NFL and he didn’t even attempt to bring in any of the premier free agents or WRs available for trade – Randy Moss was never coming back but we surely could use Wes Welker or even Chris Chambers right about now.

I’ve never hated a Vikings coach. Tice was an buffoon, but we knew that when he started. Green was gutless when it counted, but he was all right. Les Steckel was in over his head, but at least he tried hard. Childress appears to want to make the fans hate him; I’m not quite there yet but I can understand why many Vikings fans already are.

On a related note, here’s a nice article at the Star Tribune using Childress as an example of why promoting lifelong administrators to executive positions is doomed to failure.

This is merely proof that no one watches Hannity and Colmes; Gennifer Flowers announced Hillary’s Wellesleyan sexual preferences on the air nearly ten years ago:

So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that “everyone knows” The LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate. “Everyone knows” meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world. “Sitting on it” because the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it. The way I heard it they’d had it for a while but don’t know what to do. The person who told me )not an LAT person) knows I write and didn’t say “don’t write about this”.

Some people think this might be about John Edwards having an affair with one of his video producers, and I suppose that’s possible too. The only thing we can be pretty confident of is that it involves one of the three leading Democrats, otherwise the LA Times wouldn’t be sitting on it.

While I very much like the core idea underlying Wikipedia, in practice the open encyclopedia has been rendered increasingly useless by the self-appointed bureaucrats who have taken it upon themselves to play thought police there. After having uniformly negative run-ins with the page squatters there, I quit bothering to even try contributing to it. One need merely peruse the history of any even slightly controversial article there to see the way in which even the most basic errors of fact are defended unto the heat death of the universe; despite its commendable usefulness the open concept is ultimately limited to mediocrity by its ideological egalitarianism and structural tendency to reward the bureaucratically minded.

The new Citizendium, on the other hand, created by Wikipedia’s founder Larry Sanger, offers a more reasonable open but non-egalitarian solution and one that I believe has greater long-term potential, by recruiting recognized experts in their fields to make the judgment calls when they are needed. Being such an expert myself, I have been asked to be the first Games editor there, so if any gamers here are interested in contributing game-related articles in their particular areas of interest or cleaning up some of the better Wikipedia game-related articles, please let me know. I already have two volunteers from the game industry proper and my intention is for the Citizendium’s Game section to surpass Wikipedia’s within three years. Given the way in which Wikipedia frantically scrubs all of the interesting trivia and Easter eggs from its articles versus my decision to fully embrace such things, I expect it may happen even quicker than that.

You may recall that it is said that it is the winners who write history… speaking of which, if you haven’t seen LEEROY JENKINS in action, well, it’s pretty funny.

A good family is a wonderful thing; however, I admit to having been naive enough to do a post on marriage at my blog thinking that I would hear about the positive things men liked about being married. Boy, was I wrong. Here is what I heard instead:

I’m a single, never married guy. Professional, good job, etc. Have been dating a great lady for almost a year. I thought I was ready to ask her to marry me (she has been hinting for months that she wants to marry). Problem is, at least 7 out of 10 guys I talk to tell me that it is one of the worst mistakes that they every made. Some tell me not to marry American women, that they are all feminist at heart. One married guy told me that I could get the same effect by selling my house, giving all my money away and having someone castrate me. This is really starting to un-nerve me and the more I learn about the legal bias against men, I’m beginning to back off of marriage. I love my girlfriend, but all of these guys say their girlfriends changed once they married and begin to dominant and control. I am starting to think marriage in American can not be saved.

I’ve mentioned my position before. Unless you are a Christian and are marrying a woman who is at least as serious about her Christian faith as you are, don’t even think about marriage. If you are both committed Christians who want to start a family, make sure your friends and family carefully check her out and listen to their concerns, if any. It’s better to get married only by the church, not the State, but if that’s not an option for whatever reason, get a Covenant marriage which makes it much more difficult for a woman to run the typical flee-and-fleece with the aid of the so-called Family Courts.

Literally everything that marriage has to offer a man is on offer these days without it; all marriage adds to the equation is a very high risk of financial and emotional devastation. No one with even one-tenth a brain would consider an investment that came with the same risk-reward ratio of American marriage today.

I’m fortunate to be happily married, but I’m both luckier and smarter than the average bear. A happy marriage can be made, but it takes as least as much effort as anything else worth pursuing.

National Review notes that Hillary has two weaknesses. One is immigration:

In the last moments Hillary began to crash—and all because Dodd—the dear darling Dodo—challenged her on a plainly dishonest answer about illegal immigration. Then the slippery Edwards, sensing blood in the water, swam snakewise to sink his fangs in her calf, and even the timid loquacious Obama felt bold enough to suggest that she may perhaps not have been wholly consistent. What this little thing demonstrates is that immigration is the issue that the Democrats know is their Achilles Heel.

The GOP’s problem here is that other than Tom Tancredo, the only Republican positioned to take advantage of this Achilles Heel is Ron Paul. And he is the only one able to take advantage of Hillary’s other weakness, namely, her ongoing support for the wars and occupations. Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson and Huckabee all share Hillary’s positions on these two matters, this is why none of them can beat her.

Hillary could have avoided this perception of vulnerability had she heeded my advice – not that she ever heard it – and moved to the GOP’s right on immigration. Don’t be surprised if she does so once she clinches the Democratic nomination, she’s obviously not afraid to jettison her former positions, at least in public.

It seems Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart aren’t brilliantly incisive individuals, they’re merely a different breed of performing monkey:

The canaries in TV’s creative coal mine are latenight hosts such as David Letterman and Jay Leno, whose monologues and sketches are dependent on union writers. If history is any guide, both shows will almost instantly go dark, as would “Saturday Night Live.” Comedy Central’s latenight stalwarts “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report” would also likely switch to repeats in the immediate aftermath of a strike.

If you can’t do your own talk show because you don’t have someone to put words in your mouth, well, I’m just not very impressed with you.