Category: Uncategorized

AbleArt writes: Contrary to the predictions of Vox, and many other conservative (even if they think they’re not conservatives) blog pundits, Air America is suddenly getting good ratings in its markets. See here. File this in the “failed predictions” along with Kerry’s immanent demise.

“Even by the chaotic standards of a new media company, Air America Radio’s first two months of broadcasting have been convulsive. The fledgling talk-radio network has replaced five top executives, been taken off the air in two of its top three markets and lost several crucial producers. By late April, current and former executives said last week, the company was perilously close to running out of money. It has since received an infusion of cash, though it has not disclosed how much or from whom.

The roiling in Air America’s front office has undercut its continuing assurances that it has the financing and leadership to survive past the presidential election in November, in pursuit of its goal of establishing a permanent liberal counterpart to Rush Limbaugh and his radio cohort on the right. In a sign that the privately held company’s financial woes have not fully abated, Al Franken, the network’s best-known star, said in an interview last week that he had agreed not to draw a salary, however temporarily, making him “an involuntary investor.”

Speaking of trifectas, Able hits one here. 1) I’m still not conservative. 2) I never said Kerry’s demise would be imminent, I said he’d lose in November. 3) I’m quite satisfied with my prediction of Air America’s failure. They supposedly had funding to last them years, and already they can’t pay their personnel.

The first Vox Tox is up on voxday.net. It pretty much blows – what do you expect from a complete amateur with nothing but a headset mike and a computer – but check it out if you’re so inclined and let me know what you think.

Andrew Stuttaford writes: Step forward the latest bone-headed big government Republicans. Their names? Mike DeWine (a senator, amazingly) and Tom Davis (a congressman, astonishingly). In alliance with Ted Kennedy and the appalling Henry Waxman, these know-nothings are promoting a bill to give the FDA authority over tobacco products. That’s a bad idea to start with, but, interestingly, the bill also includes specific provisions banning certain types of flavored cigarettes (strangely, no flavors manufactured by Philip Morris are prohibited…). The whys and wherefores of this latest piece of legislative excess are discussed by Jacob Sullum in an excellent piece on Reason’s website, but this treacle-flavored phrase oozing out of Davis should tell you all that you need to know (and, yes, you can guess what’s coming): “This bill will help keep our children away from tobacco products and protect them from being targeted by the tobacco industry.”

Ah, yes, it’s for the children. So, we now have the party of big government versus the party of strong government. If you support smaller, weaker government, it’s clearly time to abandon both parties.

Bill writes: Which resolution was that? And what did Bush mean when he said “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.”

The technical casus belli for the current Iraqi war is Saddam Hussein’s defiance of 17 UN resolutions. Specifically, UN Security Council Resolutions 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 979, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1147, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284 and 1441 were cited as justification.

What did Bush mean? He meant to obscure the fact that he was, in fact, seeking a permission slip. Considering how many other things about which he’s been dishonest – compassionate conservatism, the religion of peace, etc – the notion that the man is not particularly honest with the American people in his political speeches should hardly surprise anyone at this point in time. As further proof of Bush’s obeisance to the United Nations:

October 11, 2002. In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

November 8, 2002: UNSCR 1441 – Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, 1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

…13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

March 20, 2003: U.S.-led forces began the major ground invasion aimed at overthrowing Saddam Hussein as Iraqis braced for the intense “awe and shock” airstrike campaign that could be launched at any time….

May 25, 2003: As the United States and Britain put forward a new UN resolution underpinning Iraq’s future government, Baghdad was rocked by more deadly blasts and US troops battled Shiite militiamen in the capital’s Sadr City slum. Britain said the resolution pledged a full transfer of sovereignty and a key role for the United Nations in Iraq.

AH writes: You’ve stated on your blog that you believe Bush is not protecting our national sovereignty, and among other things, you’ve cited this as reason why a Bush vote would not be in support of your principles. In general, I agree, and don’t plan to vote for a major party. However, you’ve also suggested that Kerry would be no worse for the country. On the issue of UN power over me and you, doesn’t Kerry seem a bit more dangerous? His real aspirations are probably closer to world president than US president. He’s made statements, in concert with his party’s platform, that the UN should be strengthened. Bush, although lacking vision on the subject (as he does on so many), has at least shown that he can take action apart from world approval. Bush may be dangerous (witness LOST), but Kerry is potentially lethal. Am I missing something? If not, are you willing to gamble that there will still be a sovereign US to govern by the time the two-party system is broken, if ever? This is the issue that most causes me to hesitate in taking my vote away from Bush.

The idea that Bush somehow challenged the UN is a fallacy. He went to the UN, asked permission to invade Iraq and received it. Worse, he characterized the invasion as supported by a UN resolution, and his State Department is actively working to turn Iraq over to the UN. LOST is a major deal, as it would provide the UN with one of the two things it needs to begin instituting global governance: an independent revenue source. I see zero substantive difference between Bush and Kerry on the UN; both support sacrificing US sovereignty to it. Kerry is a more open cheerleader, but that is irrelevant.

I do not gamble. I think it is unlikely that American sovereignty will be preserved in any case, simply because 99 percent of the populace has no more idea that it is being lost than did the citizens of the formerly sovereign united States when their sovereignty was given to the federal government. It is the same process as here and in the EU, only writ larger. Does this concern me? Yes, but not overly, as I strongly suspect that I know how this will play out – which is not as the players believe it will.

Jeffrey Sarver writes in to WND: If enough Republicans vote for Peroutka, then we will end up with President Kerry. How awful would that be? The malcontents would be worse off than ever before and would have proven nothing. If Petrouka is so great, he can run in 2008 when he can actually have a chance to win after spending the period from 2004-2008 exposing his plans and ideas to a wider, more receptive Republican constituency. I am amazed at how stupid some of your readers are sometimes, throwing their little tantrums because they don’t get everything they want RIGHT NOW.

Republicans’ favorite word for people who support principle over the naked pursuit of power is “tantrum”. Ironically, the word better describes the emotional, whiny argumentation that is expressed in this letter. If one compares eight years of Clinton with eight years of George Bushes, one can only conclude that a Kerry presidency will not be significantly different than what we’ve experienced for the last sixteen years.

The only thing that is stupid, in my opinion, is Republicans believing that George Bush will do anything but continue along the path to less freedom, less liberty and less national sovereignty. You cannot go north by driving south. There is not a single Constitution or Libertarian Party supporter who believes they will get everything they want right now. However, most of them understand that the Republican Party has zero intention of ever working for any of the liberty they seek, now or in the future.

Do you?

Burnell and like-minded believers are looking to encourage thousands of U.S. citizens to migrate to South Carolina, run for state office, and eventually prompt South Carolina to peacefully secede from the union to create a new country where “government derives its power from the consent of the governed.

I’m all for any form of secession from the US federal government – if nothing else, the inevitable reaction would likely prove my point about the Civil War – but this doesn’t seem like a particularly serious project to me at this point in time. The Free State project is far more well-organized; South Carolina is not a particularly good choice because it is simply too large for a small organization to make an impact.

Granted, there are many more Christians than libertarians in the country, but many if not most Christians are fat, lazy and content where they are. The Free State project already has 5,700 members; I’ll bet they’ll have 20,000 and start their move to New Hampshire long before Christian Exodus has the same number, assuming it ever does.

The problem is that Christianity and politics don’t tend to work very closely in sync, and for good reason. Those seeking liberty in the Free State know exactly what they want to do, whereas I’ll bet there is a much broader and less focused spectrum in the Christian Exodus. That being said, I wish both groups great success in their bold endeavor; certainly they offer more hope for changing the nation for the better than those devoted to the Sisyphean task of working within the Republican party.

The right of free association is the right to leave. I’m sure there will be some misguided “conservatives” who will oppose these efforts, but the truth is that no one who supports freedom and liberty can. This could be an interesting litmus test, down the road.

DW writes: What started as a “what if” rolled into “hey, I was reading that…” and trading stories about junior high school and rumors of unpleasantness at our city’s JHS. We determined to get our act together before the older started 8th grade. Then make that 5th grade, since grades 5-8 share the same building (albeit separate hallways). So that gave us two more full years. More talks, more incidents – such as watching in shock as a pickup truck blasted through the school bus flashers in front of our house; fortunately our little one had not started crossing yet. And the instance in which our older child warned her younger sister not to put Jesus’ picture on her collection of J-words because she heard the principal telling other students that they weren’t allowed to talk about Jesus inschool. (We encouraged her to include it anyway, and she did happily).

Well, that did it. We are riding out the last two weeks, and that’s it. We are wresting our wards of the state back and educating them properly,about life, facts, and the real things of importance. The search for how to go about it led to many web sites, magazines, and the library. While [my wife] was standing in line with a stack of homeschool books in her arms, the PTA mom behind her struck up a conversation, eyeing but never mentioning the books in my wife’s arms. Word must spread quickly, because recently our older girl was questioned when turning in a paper if she was returning to that school next year – this despite us turning in the form sent home to all asking where our child will be attending school next year. At that time, we hadn’t decided, so we said ‘undecided.’ Since the form was for ‘planning and staff estimating purposes only’ we didn’t think much of it. We’ve talked to the girls and told them of our plans and goals and dreams and they are both excited and looking forward to beginning school withMommy. So she told the truth – no.

The teacher confirmed that, yes, she was going to be taught by Mommy at home, then started the subtle game, “Well, I’m really going to miss seeing you.” And, ‘You know, you needspecial materials to teach at home. Does your Mommy have those? What will she be using?’ And, ‘Oh, is your Mommy a teacher? Has she done teaching before?’ Then she promptly dashed off a note to our younger’s teacher, and had it delivered by a student without delay. Later, we learned that our younger daughter received the same questions. Fortunately, 2nd graders that have just learned to read cursive feel no qualms about opening teacher’s notes and sharing their contents with their friends. Days later, the question comes from the teacher to our child — “Has your Mommy changed her mind about teaching you at home yet?” Nope. And on the third strike from Teacher we’re pulling them out with a week to go in the year.

This should illustrate why it’s important to keep your kids out of the system from the start. Don’t mess around with it at all. But I salute DW and his wife, and I have no doubt that this little bit of ominous weirdness will serve well to help them realize that they are doing the right thing.

I just turned in next week’s column. Since some of you will probably be out and about, I thought I’d give you a hint of what it is. Feel free to guess what they are; the answer will be revealed on Monday.

And, as always, by “liberal” I mean American left-liberalism. Language transforms over time, better to light a candle and deal with it than curse the linguistic darkness.

Papapete backs into a corner:Vox, did they have the right to secede? Maybe. Did they have the right to keep slaves? Never….the law is what it is, not what we want it to be.”

This makes no sense. Clearly, the Southern states did, at one point, have the right to keep slaves. George Washington and other Founding Fathers owned them. If individuals in the South did not have the right to keep slaves, and the law did not change, at what point did they lose this right? Furthermore, if they had the right to secede, being sovereign, at what point did they lose their sovereignty prior to being invaded?

Keeping the Union together – by force – was far and away the strongest message given out by the North. If the war was only about slavery, not independence, then is there any reason that the South cannot secede today since it no longer practices slavery? Will the federal government permit it since the issue has, according to the single-minded slaveryists, never been examined, much less settled?

Drawing on Papapete’s early points about case law, if the law is nothing but what those in authority declare it to be, there is no justice or human rights to be found in it. This is the Nietzschean mentality which declares that there is only the will to power, and that might makes right. It is totally contrary to the stated aims and goals of the American Revolution and tends to support the concept that the war to keep the Union together by force, not free association, marked the end of the original American experiment.

Ultimately, the superficiality of the slaveryist concept is being eroded by current events in the European Union. There, as in 19th century America, independent state sovereignty is being insensibly engulfed by Brussels. A potential repeat of the American Civil War is entirely possible, and would clearly illustrate the concept of free association and union by force being entirely distinct from slavery. In this potential case, the sparking issue would probably be tax harmonization.