Vox Popoli

From Little Green Footballs: “Ron Paul blames the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on the “interventionist” policy of the United States”

From Mark Steyn, earlier that same day:“The State Department geniuses thought they had it all figured out. They’d arranged a shotgun marriage between the Bhutto and Sharif factions as a “united” “democratic” “movement” and were pushing Musharraf to reach a deal with them.”

So, the U.S. State Department’s clever policy was to send Bhutto back to Pakistan to inaugurate a shining new democratic era there despite her extreme unpopularity with the two major Pakistani political forces, which, unsurprisingly led to her getting killed. This assassination, amazingly enough, was quite likely at the behest of the man that the State Department was trying to push out of power on her behalf. (Motive, means, opportunity….) But, according to the very little, very immature minds at LGF, to blame her predictable assassination on the State Department’s intervention, or even describe that intervention in the politics of a sovereign nation as “interventionist”, well, that’s just crazy talk!

I’m increasingly coming to believe that Democrats are stupid, and Republicans are insane. Both conditions result in the advocacy of that which will inevitably lead to evil. In fact, that will be my explanation the next time someone asks me why I am a libertarian. I am a libertarian because Democrats are stupid and Republicans are insane.

There is no shortage of evidence to support this hypothesis.

UPDATE – this comment at LGF tells you all you need to know about the attachment of LGF and media “conservatives” to human liberty:

“I’d vote for Hillary before I would Ron Paul.”

Yeah, we’d sort of figured that one out already. And why wouldn’t they prefer Hillary Clinton to Ron Paul, given that their favored candidates share at least 75 percent of Clinton’s policy positions?

Or is that, the weasel lawyers? It’s really synonymous, isn’t it? Despite much bobbing, ducking, weaving and trying to point out that America’s free speech rights are not absolute, the Canadian lawyer never quite gets around to directly answering my point:

Finally, if Mr. Day is to characterize my mention that Canada does, in fact, have constitutional protection for freedom of expression as “pulling a fast one,” I am wondering how he anticipates readers might view his erroneous suggestion that Canada does not?

I shall repeat my post for the benefit of Mr. Wise and anyone else incapable of understanding how the nebulous terms of the limits on Canadian free speech “rights” negate them entirely:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The reason Mr. Wise still refuses to post this part of the text despite having posted the following section from it is because doing so would lead to the inevitable demonstration that the “reasonable limits” currently being applied to Mr. Steyn’s speech have been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. Moreover, Mr. Wise conflates civil and criminal law in his attempt to demonstrate that American free speech rights little different than Canada’s so-called “rights” while skipping over the fact that the truth is an absolute defense in the case of perjury, slander, libel and so forth while it is manifestly not in the case before the various Canadian human rights tribunals. As for national security and other exceptions, they are overt VIOLATIONS of unalienable American rights by the U.S. federal government, they are not proof that the rights never existed in the first place.

So what, precisely, are those “reasonable limits”? And are the tribunals legally empowered to define them in the absence of any specific legal definitions? Inquiring Americans would like to know.

Can you find the factual errors? There are four objective ones – plus an additional five if you’re willing to get subjective, but reasonable – in this one paragraph alone:

Many of you are doubtless unfamiliar with Ted “Theodore” Beale, better known as completely insane person Vox Day. Foxy Voxy is a Christian Dominionist libertarian, a pairing that makes no earthly sense, as it’s impossible to force people to worship Jesus while still preserving personal liberty. Vox has written some horrible, horrible works of fiction, and his dad is a notorious tax cheat who fled the country rather than go to jail for tax evasion. But Vox is most famous for his personal blog and his column at WorldNetDaily (purchased, I must note, by his father, who was one of the principal founders of the site). In that blog, Vox generally attacks women and minorities, and both if he has his mojo working. But Vox doesn’t just attack women — he despises them. Vox makes MRAs move away, slowly, while muttering about his needing to calm down about the ladies. Vox, in short, is just a cavalcade of evil, and I’ve been tracking him off and on for some time now.

Good times, good times. The comments are particularly amusing; the level of mental acumen of the women there, unsurprisingly, is such that they actually think the above passage constitutes a “takedown”. Hey, this one’s new: It boggles my mind that any self-respecting (or not!) woman would sleep with this guy.. Of course no “self-respecting” woman would, since the proper translation of the feminist term “self-respecting” is “fat, ugly, and unpleasant”. I prefer my women to be hot, slender and blonde, as God intended them to be.

I particularly enjoyed the irony of how one woman claims I “stalked” her – I have no idea who she is but apparently I linked to her post about one of MY columns – in light of Feckles statement about “tracking” me. I hate to disappoint dear Mr. Fecke, but I’m afraid he’ll have to battle Michael Medved for my favors.

This time, they got her. Are we actually supposed to be surprised by this? To me, it was inevitable and the only real question is who got her? It might have been the jihadists, or as some of her supporters obviously believe, it could have been the current military regime which was basically handed carte blanche to get rid of a rival while blaming it on the jihadists after her return to Pakistan.

Shrieking headlines notwithstanding, I don’t see it being of much global significance one way or another as she wasn’t popular enough to return to power anyhow. Unless the neocons were seriously thinking of invading Pakistan and installing her as a puppet like Hamid Karzai – and let’s face it, they’re crazy enough to have considered it – I don’t see this as being either unexpected or internationally problematic.

UPDATE – I haven’t been paying any attention whatsoever to Pakistan, so it’s interesting to learn that according to Bhutto’s former neighbor, Mark Steyn, (!?!), the postulated neocon craziness I mentioned was, apparently, part of the grand plan for World Democratic Revolution:

The State Department geniuses thought they had it all figured out. They’d arranged a shotgun marriage between the Bhutto and Sharif factions as a “united” “democratic” “movement” and were pushing Musharraf to reach a deal with them.

I said a flip flop the flippie the flippie
to the flip flip flop, you don’t stop

There was a Euro dance hit a few years back called Las Ketchup which reminds me of Captain Underoos and his ever-evolving positions on, apparently, everything. In like manner, Drew Cline casts a very skeptical eye on the amorphous Mormon in the Manchester Union-Leader:

OK, here’s a game for the Christmas dinner table. Try to come up with a policy position Mitt Romney hasn’t flip-flopped on. I suggest this after seeing that Romney has even flip-flopped on the one issue where I thought Romney was strongest — taxes.

It would be hysterical to see a “Los Romney” remake of this featuring three blonde women doing the little Ketchup dance in their holy underoos. Of course, it would probably have to be someone from the Ron Paul Revolution; Huckabee supporters obviously can’t do it, since the dancing involved would be wrong.

Anyone who would elect to not only quote this particular part of an article written in defense of him, but actually leave out the positive aspects is fundamentally all right with me, whatever his political opinions on various matters might be:

READER OF THE DAY

“Mark Steyn is an overexposed, overrated, Canadian opinion columnist… He’s also not the distillation of P.J. O’Rourke, Ann Coulter and P.G. Wodehouse that the many gushing tributes to him written during the past few years might otherwise lead one to believe.”

I also admire Steyn’s refusal to kowtow to the Canadian anti-free speech fascists, pusillanimous advice from council notwithstanding. I can only assume I fall into the “another” category of defenders he mentions, but the truth is that as with the Ron Paul Revolution, there is no need for freedom’s advocates to be inclined to braid each other’s hair and bake cookies together in order to speak out when Man’s basic liberties are under assault.

An attack on the free speech rights of a pro-war, strong government guy is an attack on everyone, including those of us who happen to be anti-war and anti-government.

Here’s my reading list for the next month, courtesy of Spacebunny:

The Landmark Thucydides (annotated, with introduction by VDH!)
Outlaws of the Marsh (four volumes)
The Romance of Three Kingdoms (two volumes, translated by Brewitt-Taylor)
On Literature by Umberto Eco

Now, the interesting thing here is that of these eight books, only one was created during the IP era. However, since Eco’s essays in this particular collection are more literary and academic than political and cultural, the chances are high that he wrote them primarily as an academic, i.e. not for the same profit motive that presumably inspires his weekly columns in L’Espresso.

Moreover, Thucydides’s history and the classic Chinese romance have been ripped off by millions of dollars worth of books, movies and games, right down to the very name in some cases, with absolutely no compensation ever going to the creators.

OS correctly discerns my indifference to the NHL, but that’s about it:

I suppose he’s entitled to that, as well as his ignorance of America’s good friend and steady partner, Canada. Mind you, when so many Canadian families are mourning the loss of their young soldiers, blown to pieces in Afghanistan, it’s tough to swallow the
‘irrelevance’ vomit spewed out by the likes of Vox Day.

At least Condi Rice and President Bush have the good graces to thank Canada, one of the few countries who have sent many young men to their death alongside US soldiers in that Taliban hellhole. It also seems they are appreciative of the huge and reliable supplies of uranium, petroleum and electricity that come from Canada to feed America’s industries, heat its homes and power its nuclear weapons.

You know Vox, we’ll never be a ‘big gun’ like the USA. I mean, we’ve only got a population the size of California. Still, we do our bit and America has always been able count on us, military misadventures notwithstanding… but a MENSA member like you should know that.

Then again, maybe the standards for MENSA admission in America are just a little lower than elsewhere…

Yes, I’m deeply impressed by Canada’s willingness to aid George Bush in his war on liberties which Canadians do not possess, to say nothing of Canada’s noble altruism in supplying a giant market with its exports. I’m sure Canadians do it out of the goodness of their hearts, unlike, for example, the Chinese, who only sell their exports out of evil capitalist greed.

Meanwhile, Canadian lawyer GW, shockingly, tries to pull a fast one:

It might be a whole lot easier to take the arguments of writers like Vox Day seriously if they didn’t employ incendiary headlines like “Heil Canada.”…. Regarding the article itself and a tiny point of accuracy, while Mr. Day’s statement that “there is no Canadian First amendment” is technically true (as our free speech guarantees are not nested in a constitutional amendment), his readers should not be misled.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms affords constitutional protection to freedom of expression in Canada:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Mr. Wise neglects to mention the preceding paragraph, which qualifies these “rights” with open-ended strictures such as the sort which have been applied in Canadian law since 1970.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Similar limitations are placed on the “rights” supposedly guaranteed by the United Nations and the current European charter that currently applies to its European signatory states and will be adopted by the European Union once it claims sovereign status.

And while RB didn’t take offense on behalf of the nation of Canada, he was apparently upset that I was insufficiently respectful of the greatest writer that ever put pen to paper regarding matters political:

I just wanted to drop you a quick note to let you know that, judging from the ample evidence of both of your many columns, you are not fit to sharpen Mark Steyn’s pencil. He is considerably more knowledgeable than you on every topic you mention your last column. He has a grasp of real life politics and policy, unlike your Google-happy, MENSA obsessed, web-trolling egg headed know-it-all posturing. He actually travels to the places that you Imagine you understand. You embarrass yourself by trying to high-horse an intellect as strong as Steyn’s but, then again, you embarrass yourself almost every Monday, so I’m not surprised by this latest example. You are too smart by half. Or less.

Yes, this would be exactly the sort of individual I had in mind when I wrote about Steyn being overrated. He’s not bad, as nominally right-wing commentators go, but he’s not in my top ten either.

Of Imaginary Property:

In a potential blow to themed resorts from Vegas to Tokyo, Egypt is to pass a law requiring payment of royalties whenever its ancient monuments, from the pyramids to the sphinx, are reproduced. Zahi Hawass, the charismatic and controversial head of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities, told AFP on Tuesday that the move was necessary to pay for the upkeep of the country’s thousands of pharaonic sites.

“The new law will completely prohibit the duplication of historic Egyptian monuments which the Supreme Council of Antiquities considers 100-percent copies,” he said. “If the law is passed then it will be applied in all countries of the world so that we can protect our interests,” Hawass said.

What a brilliant idea! After all, if copyright can be extended from the life of the creator to 70 years after the life of the creator, there’s no logical reason not to extend it to 10,000 years after the life of the creator.

I’ve been an enthusiastic pirate all my life, as despite being a content creator myself, I’ve always understood that “IP” is nothing more than a variety of state-sanctioned theft. What passes for the main “defense” of IP is simply a lie; most of man’s greatest works were created before the existence of IP.

Fortunately for we IP-atheists who refuse to bow down before the idol of Imaginary Property, it’s not only the technology curve that’s on our side, but the generational one as well. That overwhelming majority of college students are not amoral, they’re merely recognizing the undeniable fact that if you had one apple before and you’ve still got one apple now even though I am happily crunching away something that is a perfect replica of your apple, then no one has taken anything away from you. No theft has taken place. But using the government to force me to pay you for the apple you still possess is theft.

Information not only wants to be free, information WILL be free. And before you do anything so blatantly stupid and obvious as try to label me some sort of hypocrite, do stop and remind yourself exactly with whom you’re dealing.

74 Masonville
65 Winston

Christmas is particularly merry this year in Masonville, as the Marauders’ wealth at quarterback- they began the season with the enviable option of choosing between Tom Brady and Tony Romo – propelled them to a first-place 9-5 regular-season finish and a close, but solid win over the Reverends.

Masonville will be back next year, along with the three permanent members, Mounds View, Greenfield and Burns. Next summer, those interested in participating can throw their names in the hat to fill up the other six team spaces.