Category: Uncategorized

Chuck Baldwin sees the light:

Let’s get real. The political battle between conservatives and liberals is no longer an issue worth discussing. Except for rhetoric, there is little substantive difference between them. The hype, scare tactics, and fear mongering used by both sides is merely for the purpose of raising money and electing people to positions of power. However, neither side has any real plans to change public policy or the overall direction of the country.

How long have we voters heard Democrats and Republicans warn us of the imminent dangers of the other party while assuring us that they and they alone can be trusted to save the country? It’s the same redundant message every two years, and has been for as long as I can remember.

However, the grim reality is, no matter who we elect, no matter which party controls Congress or the White House, the direction of the country doesn’t change. Fundamental liberties continue to be lost, the federal government continues to burgeon, and America continues to evolve into a socialist-Fascist society.

Furthermore, that people call themselves Christians also matters little. The Religious Right moves in lock-step with the socialist- Fascist direction of the country along with the godless left. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter whether a politician claims to be conservative or liberal, Christian or unbeliever (which, of course, hardly any politician claims to be). Nothing changes.

What Americans must come to understand is that there is really only one issue that counts today: will America be an independent, sovereign nation or will it become part of a global empire complete with global government and a global economy?

Finally, it seems that most of the off-Broadway commentariat is beginning to understand the genuine issue of the day. The mainstream media won’t touch this yet, not until they start openly cheerleading for a continental American superstate, but it will be interesting to see which “conservatives” will defect to the nationalist cause and who will remain in the anti-American globalist camp.

From Drudge:

Italy should consider leaving the single currency and reintroducing the lira, Welfare Minister Roberto Maroni said in a newspaper interview on Friday.

Maroni, a member of the euro-skeptical Northern League party, told the Repubblica daily Italy should hold a referendum to decide whether to return to the lira, at least temporarily.

He also said European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet was one of those chiefly responsible for the “disaster of the euro.”

The euro “has proved inadequate in the face of the economic slowdown, the loss of competitiveness and the job crisis,” Maroni said.

Unlikely, but definitely cool. I still have a few lira that were accidentally tucked away in a drawer a few years ago. The Euro has been a disaster, significantly increasing expenses in Italy while doing almost no one any good except the European Central Bank and their cronies.

According to Prechter, third waves lead to the dissolution of treaties and alliances, so this may only be the first sign of the impending doom of the monetary union.

I was perusing the Original Cyberpunk’s Ranting Room – a must-follow blog for anyone interested in the fiction business – and the discussion of reviews came up. Being a former video game reviewer, it should come as no surprise that I rather enjoy reading reviews and writing them.

That being said, there’s an awful lot of reviews that are simply terrible, barely worthy of the name. In the game world, such reviews usually focus on whether the graphics are better than they were in last year’s games, which is why the magazine reviews are all too often a collection of superlatives. In the book world, the lousy ones frequently focus on one minor aspect of the novel that the reviewer has somehow managed to get hopelessly wrong.

For example, when one of my books was reviewed by a sci-fi site, the reviewer concluded that demonic possession was tantamount to removing all responsibility from a character for his actions. Never mind the small fact that the character actually suffered severe and lasting consequences, the reviewer decided that her self-manufactured divorce of action and responsibility was the central message of the book and spent half her review criticizing that. For me, as a writer who has done more than his share of reviews, it was very strange and more than a little annoying.

As you’ve probably seen, I prefer a structure review format that specifically covers what I consider to be the four main elements of a novel: characters, creativity, story and style. But every reviewer needs to develop his own style; here’s a review of THE WAR IN HEAVEN from writer and VP regular Cris Naron:

Back in November, I wrote a piece about how conservatives and Christians need to take the creative professions more seriously, and the author responded, basically saying that he was doing exactly that. [X] is no conservative, mind you; he’s a raging libertarian. He is also a Christian and a writer who takes fiction seriously. That’s what sets him apart from most Christian writers. Most of the works of fiction you’ll find in Christian book stores are watered down, unrealistic visions of a world that the Christian religion itself strives to paint as hopelessly depraved and fallen. So my problem with “Christian Fiction” has always been with the Ned Flanders depictions of this fallen world. No one in “Christian Fiction” ever does or says anything that equates with the depravity the Bible describes. A glaring example would be Tim LaHaye’s and Jim Jenkins’ Anti-Christ, Nicolae Carpathia, in the Left Behind series. The book version of the character is slightly more evil than J.R. Ewing or C. Montgomery Burns. The movie version is less frightening than a Kennedy even after we learn he’s the devil.

[X]’s characters have dimension, and that means they’re dark, mean and ugly….

Go there to read the rest of the review. And by the way, Chris, where’s that SHADOW review?

The NYT hits the recruitment problem:

Some of that opportunity was provoked by the very law that was supposed to make it easier for recruiters to reach students more directly. No Child Left Behind, which was passed by Congress in 2001, requires schools to turn over students’ home phone numbers and addresses unless parents opt out. That is often the spark that ignites parental resistance.

Recruiters, in interviews over the past six months, said that opposition can be fierce. Three years ago, perhaps 1 or 2 of 10 parents would hang up immediately on a cold call to a potential recruit’s home, said a recruiter in New York who, like most others interviewed, insisted on anonymity to protect his career. “Now,” he said, “in the past year or two, people hang up all the time.”

That sounds like a little Law of Unintended Consequences action happening there. How ironic… and it just couldn’t happen to a more appropriate administration. And what a surprise, that helpful Federal government is protecting the children by giving out their telephone numbers and home addresses to the military.

Of course, the government military has a perfect right to make its pitch for voluntary service in the government schools. It’s just bitterly amusing that that’s the one thing that parents find objectionable.

From the Sports Guy’s mailbag:

Q: I was watching the final of “The Contender” when my wife made the observation, “Jesse Brinkley is way too hot to be married to that chubby girl.” Without even thinking I blurted out, “Well, she probably didn’t look like that when they got married.” Somehow my wife took that comment to mean that I think she is getting fat. Are all women irrational or is it just my wife?

Here’s a suggestion. If you want people to talk to you, don’t go out of your way to take offense at every word they utter.

Seriously, some people – usually, but not always women – make me wonder if they think they’re scoring bonus miles every time they manage to take umbrage at a perceived slight. Then again, considering how little I know about purchase-related reward plans, maybe they are.

The Sports Guy’s response:

SG: Nope. It’s not just your wife. During Monday night’s “Miss Universe” telecast, I had the following exchange with the Sports Gal:

Me: Wow, between Miss Venezuela and Miss Peru, I think we need to take our next vacation in South America.

Her: Very funny.

(Ten-second pause where you can hear their wheels turning as they slowly became angry.)

Her: “You know, you’re enjoying this show WAY too much. I wish they had these shows with guys.”

Me: “Yeah, but there’s one difference.”

Her: “What’s that?”

Me: “I wouldn’t watch a Mr. Universe show with you. In fact, I would rather kill myself.”

(Five-second pause as they’re totally flustered by a flawless, logical statement, followed by the obligatory obscenity.)

From WND:

Somewhere in America, a woman is raped every two minutes, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, and one-in-two rape victims are under age 18. In a national survey, 27.7 percent of college women reported a sexual experience since the age of 14 that met the legal definition of rape or attempted rape. To what can we ascribe such a shocking increase in violence against women?

That’s easy. A broad redefinition of the rape crime to include ex post facto regrets and a failure to provide written assent, combined with a reduced sense of responsibility on the part of young American women.

Only a completely clueless space cadet would say: “I think I should be able to get drunk and pass out at a fraternity and have nothing happen.” I’m sure Israeli parents think their kids should be able to board public transportation without worrying about it blowing up too. Some people are good and will not harm you no matter what provocation you offer them. Some people are bad and will prey upon you the first chance they get. Accept the concept and behave accordingly, depending on the situation.

The Rabbi also happens to leave out the minor fact that a sizeable percentage of criminal rape reports are false and are confirmed by the supposed victim to be have been manufactured by her.

From Drudge:

The Pentagon on Wednesday postponed by more than a week the release of military recruiting figures for May, as the Army and Marine Corps struggle to attract new troops amid the Iraq war.

The military services had routinely provided most recruiting statistics for a given month on the first business day of the next month. Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said the May numbers for the active-duty and reserve components of the all-volunteer military will be released on June 10.

“Military recruiting is instrumental to our readiness and merits the earliest release of data. But at the same time, this information must be reasonably scrutinized and explained to the public, which deserves the fullest insight into military performance in this important area,” Krenke said.

Translation: our numbers blow, so we need some time in order to spin this into something that combines positivity with credibility. What is worrisome is that the damage that is now being done to the recruiting effort will probably last longer than most people can imagine, and threatens to create a vicious circle where falling enlistments cause more stop-losses, which causes enlisting to look less and less desirable.

Such a vicious circle is likely how a draft would come about.

Now, it’s true that no general ever has enough troops. The McClellan syndrome is a legitimate concern. But when the military message that there are not enough troops to do the job is repeatedly overridden by the civilians in charge, the chances that the Law of Unintended Consequences will find an application rise dramatically.

WND covers the Southern Baptists and the public schools:

“Southern Baptists have been playing the ‘ostrich with its head in the sand’ routine long enough,” Arnold said. “The time is way overdue that we acknowledge the devastating effects public school is having on the faith of our children.”

Arnold takes issue with Baptist leaders who argue that having their children in public schools is being “salt and light,” a Christian influence and witness.

But Arnold points to the denomination’s own data — the SBC Council on Family Life Report of 2002 — which says 88 percent of those Southern Baptist children after graduating from government high school are leaving the church.

I have long stated that the argument that children from Christian families should attend public school as Christian witnesses to other children is utter nonsense. In my opinion, children are not yet Christians, as they do not have the spiritual, mental or emotional maturity to make such decisions. I do not believe that a five year-old child’s profession of faith is any more meaningful than his declaration that he is going to be an astronaut.

Considering that the only non-anecdotal evidence we have strongly indicates that the anti-Christian public schools are winning converts far more effectively than these little missionaries being thrown to the spiritual lions, I don’t see how anyone should be permitted to make that argument – which, let’s face it, is almost surely made as an ex post facto rationalization than a factor in a decision – without being laughed at.

I can’t prove that the report’s statement with regards to “leaving the church” is synonymous with “leaving the faith”, but based on denominational growth statistics, one can state with assurance that these former Southern Baptists are not all becoming Methodists, Episcopalians or Lutherans.

I would vote for this man for President. In a heartbeat. I even met him once, at a Minneapolis health club before the All-Star game some years ago. It was a funny situation, as I came out of the locker room ready for an evening out on the town and happened to see him checking out my brother’s old girlfriend, a pretty model who was accompanying TPAM and I that evening. When she turned around and gave me one of her typically overenthusiastic greetings – you’d have to know her – Sir Charles mistakenly concluded that she was my girlfriend and immediately walked over to apologize.

Most guys wouldn’t have done that, let alone so effusively. We didn’t bother correcting him and it was just as well because by the time he finished, everyone within earshot was cracking up. Fortunately, someone has taken the time to collect the wit and wisdom of the man:

“Cat was fantastic but when you lose to a woman, it means you suck at something. There are two times when you know you suck at sports — when you can’t beat the women and when you can’t beat the smart kids.”

“I’m bilingual. I speak profanity and English.”

“I don’t think there’s any doubt. Anybody in their right mind knows I’m the best forward in basketball. Well, the only person comparable to me is Karl Malone, but his body is so different from mine. Even my wife loves his body, and that’s the main reason I say I’m the best. With a body like that, he is supposed to be awesome. With a body like mine, I’m supposed to be a couch potato.”

“I know we have to work a lot during the playoffs, and that’s part of working. But I look at those five months of vacation where I do nothing but play golf and go to Vegas and lay on the bench and be the big sex symbol that I am.”

“My family got all over me because they said Bush is only for the rich people. Then I reminded them, ‘Hey, I’m rich’.”

“People keep saying I’m crazy as hell, but sooner or later they’re going to realize I know what I’m talking about.”

“You should be able to go and pick out one fan a game, and just beat the hell out of him.”

Kenny Smith was going on and on about his two championship rings. He said that, in a show of appreciation for their efforts, he gave one ring to his father and the other to his brother because “they were the ones who helped me get them”. Charles: “You should have given them to Hakeem.”

“I trust the public to have a little common sense. If they’re not smart enough to have a sense of humor, they’re just stupid and I don’t worry about it.”

“Politics is too corrupt. You know how you can tell politics is corrupt? President Bush is going to raise $250 million for a job that pays $400,000. Now tell me there isn’t something wrong there.”

“If you just want to be one of the guys, then cut your salary and make what the other guys make. They don’t pay you a lot of money to blend in. There’s a reason Shaq makes $20 million a year. You can’t just blend in — you have to lead the team.”

“If you’re working at Wal-Mart and have 10 kids, quit having kids.”

“Ex-teams are like ex-wives. Deep, deep down, you know you can’t stand them.”

EJ: “Auburn is a pretty good school. To graduate from there I suppose you really need to work hard and put forth maximum effort.”
Charles: “20 pts and 10 rebounds will get you through also!”

“Today is Jimmy Hatter’s birthday — he’s the gay guy we got workin’ behind the scenes, y’all. We hire them all at TNT. We do not discriminate. We hired the pimp last year, Craig Sager, and now we got Jimmy Hatter. We got all the ethnic groups covered.”

“If push came to shove, I could lose all self-respect and become a reporter.”

On the movie Space Jam: “Obviously, my part is terrific. But Michael is the leader. It’s his movie. I think it’s going to be very funny, great entertainment for the kids. I hope everybody likes it. But, really, I don’t care because I’ve already been paid.”

On throwing an elbow at an Angolan: “Well, he might have pulled a spear on me.”

Daniel Okrent writes in the NYT:

For a man who makes his living offering strong opinions, Paul Krugman seems peculiarly reluctant to grant the same privilege to others. And for a man who leads with his chin twice a week, he acts awfully surprised when someone takes a pop at it.

Because only a fool or a supply-sider would eagerly engage in a debate on economics with Prof. Krugman, I’ll try to eschew argument and stick to facts – or, at least, the sort of statements that he himself represents as purely factual:

1. I offered him only three examples of “shaping, slicing and selectively citing” (for some reason, he’s left one out of his rebuttal) because I was at home when he began bombarding me with outraged demands for retraction and apology; I’d completed my tenure as public editor the preceding week, and did not have any files with me. When I had the chance to consult some of my reader mail later in the week, some of his greatest mis-hits immediately came to the fore. I’ll get to a few of those in point No. 5, below.

2. This was the first he heard from me on these specific issues partly because I learned early on in this job that Prof. Krugman would likely be more willing to contribute to the Frist for President campaign than to acknowledge the possibility of error. When he says he agreed “reluctantly” to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word “reluctantly”; I can’t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism. But I laid off for so long because I also believe that columnists are entitled by their mandate to engage in the unfair use of statistics, the misleading representation of opposing positions, and the conscious withholding of contrary data. But because they’re entitled doesn’t mean I or you have to like it, or think it’s good for the newspaper.

3. The mixing of household and establishment numbers in his 5/25/04 column: Missing from the BLS chart he cites is any number that even resembles the 140,000 new jobs each month needed to keep up with the growing population a statistic he cites in the column, and upon which he seems to have based some of his computations. To my knowledge, that number only appeared in the household survey.

4. The Polivka-Miller paper: On the substance, readers can come to their own conclusions by examining the report themselves, particularly the chart and related narrative addressing “Duration of Unemployment” on page 23 (pdf). On Prof. Krugman’s defense of his unfamiliarity with it, he’s effectively saying, “If I didn’t know about it, it must not be important.” This is a polemicist’s dodge; no self-respecting journalist would ever make such an argument.

5. Some other examples of Krugmania that popped out of my copious files:

His 1/27/04 assertion that the cost of unemployment insurance “automatically” adds to the federal deficit. This two-fer misrepresents a pair of facts: that unemployment insurance is largely borne by the states, and that major federal contributions to the states come about only because of an act of Congress, which is hardly automatic.
His 2/3/04 assertion that tax proposals offered by Democrats would help the 77 pecent of taxpayers in the 15 percent bracket or less. The most recent generally accepted figures available at the time indicated that the number was actually 64 percent.
A very recent example that nonetheless escaped my memory until Prof. Krugman generously reminded me of it in his letter: His 5/9/05 column on progressive indexing. The column itself (without the ex post facto explanation) suggestively conflates “retirement income” and “social security benefits” without sufficient explanation, but with plenty of apparent point-making.
Believe me — I could go on, as could a number of readers more sophisticated about economic matters than I am. (Among these are several who, like me, generally align themselves politically with Prof. Krugman, but feel he does himself and his cause no good when he heeds the roaring approval of his acolytes and dismisses his critics as ideologically motivated.) But I don’t want to engage in an extended debate any more than Prof. Krugman says he does. If he replies to this statement, as I imagine he will, I’ll let him have what he always insists on keeping for himself: the last word.

I hate to do this to a decent man like my successor, Barney Calame, but I’m hereby turning the Krugman beat over to him.

Whoo-pah!