Category: Uncategorized

From the Washington Times:John Kerry is flirting with catastrophe by considering — it’s not clear how seriously — a bizarre scheme to delay his acceptance of the Democratic nomination in order to squeeze through a loophole in campaign-finance law to enable him to collect millions of dollars of public swag. To do this, he would first flip, by making a speech accepting the nomination but not really accepting it and later calling the delegates back to Boston, or to Chicago or some other place to execute the flop. He has wide and long experience executing such flip-flops. Or he might accept the nomination from the Democratic National Committee, whose members could meet anywhere, or even by telephone. There’s no precedent for any of this, so the convention assembled, which is after all the final arbiter of its rules and whether to suspend them, can do as it pleases.

Wes Pruden thinks that playing this game to collect more money not only makes Kerry look stupid – it does – but also runs the risk of a brokered convention that would nominate Hillary Clinton. That’s possible, but unlikely, I think, as most serious political observers don’t really think Kerry can win, and Ms Rodham-Clinton has no interest in playing a loser’s hand. The only thing that could upset her apple cart is were Kerry to win, and every time the man does anything, he makes that look less and less likely.

Now he’s in the process of sabotaging his convention bounce in favor of more ads that won’t work anyhow. With the problems that Bush has created for himself, Kerry should be killing him in the polls; the fact that he isn’t demonstrates what a horrible candidate he is. This reminds me more and more of the Dole nomination, when a vulnerable president was saved by the nomination of an incompetent foe.

JAU writes the boys from the govparochial school systems preyed mercilessly and and with impunity on the homeschoolers. These boys totally lacked any capacity or inclination to defend themselves from the taunts, pranks, beatings gleefully administered by the boys with the benefit of a short lifetime of fending for one’s self in the schoolyard….from where I stood they did not look like noble christian soldiers manfully restraining themselves in the face of provocation, but like sheltered sniveling misfits cowaring in the corner because they’d never had to go without the protection of mama’s wing….

This makes me laugh. By this logic, we should all send our children to inner city schools, because then they could learn how to pull out a nine and blow the head off of anyone who disses them, much less attempts to taunt or beat them. The only mistake that the homeschooling parents made was in sending their children to this high school – one of the advantages of homeschooling is that it prevents a child from developing the pack mentality that exists in every school, be it public or private.

What JAU describes isn’t strength of character, it is a superficial toughness that exists only in the exotic environment of the age-same. In the real world, potential victims have the protection of weapons, allies and social customs; only in the schoolyard is an individual expected to stand up for themselves without any resort to assistance. Interesting that one doesn’t see those sort of petty abuses at the office, as they would get one fired in a heartbeat.

One of my little brothers, who is quite a bit younger, came running to the car when I was a senior in high school, and told my other brother that a bully was hitting our youngest brother and making him cry. We left the car running in the street – my brother actually did a Dukes of Hazzard slide over the hood – and descended on the bully like a wrathful hurricane. The next morning, the two of us were summmoned into the Dean’s office, who wanted to know what on Earth had inspired two high schoolers not known to be bullies into beating up a fifth-grader at the elementary school.

Thoroughly unrepentant, we told the Dean that if he messed with the littlest one, we’d beat him up too. At that point, he laughed and said that when he called our mother the night before, she’d told him that she was only sorry that she hadn’t been there herself. No one ever bothered our little brother again.

The BS that passes for school socialization is useless, even detrimental in the long run. I’ve seen dozens of guys who think they’re tough from years of being the big fish in the small pond shrink like violets in their first round in the dojo, and that’s not even the true measure of the man that is real combat. Innocence is a treasure, not something to be despised, and there’s nothing wrong in believing that those to whom you belong will protect you.

My friend in Force Recon used to hate it when his platoon would hit a bar together, knowing that they were going to fight. And yet, he always threw himself into the thick of it because nobody fights just one Marine. And it doesn’t get any realer, or any harder, than the USMC.

If anyone’s up for a brief voice-over IP chat, I’d like to do a few tests with Skype later today. Download it from SKYPE.COM and do a search for voxday sometime after 3 PM. Thanks.

I’m not jealous of Ben Shapiro’s success with his new book, BRAINWASHED. I’m quite pleased that WND has another hit on their hands, and I’m happy that they’re going to do well with it. I have to admit, however, that I’m more than a little puzzled by the whole thing.

You may recall that WND Books rejected my book MURDER because the notion that governments have a strong tendency to kill their own people was, in the words of one executive, preposterous. MM-kay…. That was actually the third book proposal they rejected, which is why I’ve abandoned any plans to write non-fiction for the time being. Personally, I thought that SCREWING THEMSELVES, a book on how women sabotage their lives and relationships from a male perspective, would have been an interesting and controversial read, but I now have serious doubts about my ability to understand the book-buying crowd.

You see, I can’t imagine why anyone would buy BRAINWASHED. Not because Ben isn’t a good writer, but its premise is on the order of proving that water is wet or the sky is blue. But then, BIAS did pretty well too, so clearly, this sort of thing sells. Look for my next book, OXGYEN, devoted to explaining its vital importance to humanity and the global economy.

While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as “moderate,” a far higher number are “liberal” than in the general population. At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives. This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.

There’s an easy explanation for these errant estimations of the general public. Since everyone is watching Fox and no one is watching MSNBC or PBS, how is anyone supposed to know that those networks are chock full of liberals? And, of course, anyone with half a brain knows that the vast majority of the 59 percent of journalists who call themselves moderates are liberals, (in the modern leftist sense), as well.

It’s interesting. My column is almost always one of the three most popular on WND for the week, and yet UPS has not yet been successful in selling it to mainstream newspapers. This isn’t surprising, as it’s been a struggle for them to sell Ann Coulter to the op/ed pages, and she’s by far the best-selling, most popular political writer in America. This only goes to show that whatever the editors are interested in, it isn’t selling their product. This makes a degree of sense, though, because what good socialist is interested in dirty profit expropriated from the overloaded backs of the proletariat.

So, it’s not easy. Big deal. We improvise, adapt and overcome.

Joseph Farah writes on WND: For more than 200 years, Americans have operated under the constitutionally protected principle that citizens have the right to defend themselves by bearing arms. Yet, right now, the United States is leading an effort to disarm the Iraqi populace – leaving them at the mercy of groups and individuals who will never willingly give up their guns or a future government that will rule over the people by force.

If we are trying to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, why are we attempting to disarm the populace and establish a strong central government? How are they supposed to defend themselves against a future Hussein or Iranian invasion if they are helpless? And if it’s such a good idea there, conservatives, do you support doing the same here as well?

RC asks: While I like the idea of money being tied to specie, I fail to grasp a few things. First, if money were tied to silver and/or gold, then it would seem that the only way to “make money” would be in the mining business and all other businesses don’t make money but merely push it around. Second, if people create things that are worth more, such as Adam Smith’s classic example of creating pins from steel, but no gold is involved, how is the additional worth measured and factored in to the money supply? It would seem that if you have more and more worth/value being created, but a constant amount of dollars/pesos/yen, it would seem you would go ever downwards in a deflationary spiral. Help my unbelief!

You are confusing worth with price. The primary advantage of a metal-based monetary system, such as the gold standard, is that the money supply will only increase at approximately the rate of normal economic growth, around 3-4 percent. This is a real limit on money creation, since it is a lot of work to mine metal. As the economy grows, (in your terms, additional worth is created), the money supply grows with it.

Deflation, in a normal economy, is not a real problem for anyone except banks. In fact, it is only a much-feared problem in a paper-based economy where the moral hazard of constant inflation has created a vast overhang of debt. In that case, (the situation we’re in), deflation makes it impossible to continue the game since borrowers will not be able to repay debts in less valuable future dollars.

For example, the deflationary period between 1839-1843 saw a supposedly catastrophic drop in the money supply of 34 percent, causing almost a quarter of American banks to fail. However, during those four years, there was an increase in consumption of 21 percent and real GDP of 16 percent – 4 percent annual growth.

The 1879-1889 period of deflation is generally considered to be a period of hard economic times by clueless economists who only look at the 30 percent drop in the money supply and ignore the fact that real wages rose 23 percent and GDP almost doubled – an explosive rate of growth. So, when you hear that deflation is a horrific evil, it’s important to keep in mind that what is bad for the banks is not necessarily bad for the average worker, and vice-versa.

I strongly recommend A HISTORY OF MONEY AND BANKING IN THE UNITED STATES: the Colonial era to World War II, by Murray Rothbard, to anyone interested in these matters. It is available at the Mises Institute.

Accusing top Pentagon officials of “dereliction of duty,” retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni says staying the course in Iraq isn’t a reasonable option. “The course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it’s time to change course a little bit or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course…. There has been poor strategic thinking in this…poor operational planning and execution on the ground,” says Zinni, who served as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000.

You may recall that I have criticized the poor strategic thinking for some time now. I don’t expect anyone to pay a great deal of attention to what I have to say on military matters, but one would think that a commanding general’s opinion might at least be taken into account. Staying the course is not a reasonable option, and only someone almost wholly ignorant of the situation would recommend it. Significant expansion into global warfare and retreat into constitutional isolationism are the two primary alternatives. I tend to favor the latter, not out of any pacificist inclination, but because I do not trust the motivations and long-term goals of those who would be leading the former.

I wonder how Mowbray will go about defending his poor neoconservative friends this time? It’s an admirable instinct – to defend your friends – but here’s hoping he won’t have to start impugning false racist motivations to the general this time.

It’s a simple matter of mathematics. This was written about the time I left the industry, and according to my friends still in games, it’s only gotten much, much worse now that PC game sales are declining.

Their existence, and virtually every problem they address-–divorce, custody, child abuse, child-support enforcement, even juvenile crime—revolve around one overriding principle: removing the father from the family. If fathers remained with their families, family courts would have little reason to exist, since the problems that they handle seldom appear in intact families. While mothers also fall afoul of family court judges, it is fathers against whom their enmity is largely directed, because fathers are their principal rivals.

The judges’ contempt for both fathers and constitutional rights was openly expressed by New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell. Speaking to his colleagues during a training seminar in 1994, he said: “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, “See ya around.” . . .We don’t have to worry about their rights.”

Why are men so restrained about this obscenity? With all the unemployed Russian and Colombian gangsters willing to knock off judges for less than $500, I’m surprised there’s a family court judge in the country willing to rule against a father whose wife has unilaterally decided to split the family.

“Gee, honey, I sure am sorry to hear they have to reschedule and find a new judge again….”