Vox Popoli

From the New Deal through the civil rights revolution, liberalism strove to use expanding government to drive the alteration of society. Conservatism’s mission was largely restoration — rolling back big government. Neither persuasion is now plausible.

Kerry insists he is not a “redistribution Democrat.” But of course he is. And Bush is a redistribution Republican. There is no “natural” distribution of social wealth. Distribution is influenced by many social arrangements, from property laws to tax laws to educational arrangements, all of them political choices. Both parties have redistributionist agendas….

Very few voters care about questions of political process. That is why the political class feels free to act with scandalous impunity, as in this Bush-Kerry collaboration to silence what the political class persistently calls “outside groups.” A question: Outside of what?

It’s nice to see that Mr. Will isn’t interested in waving pom-poms, even in the midst of the Republican convention. He is, as is his custom, genteel but clear in referring to the socialism of both factions as “redistributionist”. George Will, more than any other political writer, has been an influence on my interest in editorial commentary and it is good to see that he perceives the same bi-factional ruling party that I do.

GS woofs like a good little lapdog:

You have joined yourself with the Democrats for a Soviet United States and the candidacy of a treasonous dog. Piss off.

Let’s see, you’re voting for the guy who’s wiped out free speech and is trying to merge the USA with Mexico in imitation of the European Union, but I’m the one supporting a treasonous dog?

*sigh*

Okay, slow learners, it’s basic addition time! If George Bush has 39,999,999 votes and John Kerry has 39,999,999 votes and I vote for Michael Badnarik, how many votes does John Kerry have?

a) 39,999,999

b) 40,000,000

c) five

If you answered (a), congratulations, you are capable of passing first-grade math. If you answered (c), you are a rabbit. If, on the other hand, you answered (b), you are clearly arithmetically-challenged like poor GS. Isn’t math fun?

All candidates start from zero. The fact that the vast majority of Americans are so short-sighted that they will cheerfully vote for their enslavers does not mean that those individuals who still value freedom and human liberty should follow their example.

“If you continue doing what you’ve always done, you’re going to get what you’ve always got.”

UPDATE: GS eloquently adds:

Like I said, piss off. I have read your stuff for the last time. Oh, yes, and one plus one equals two as in one face plus one face equals what you have.

Hark, what’s that I hear? Ah yes, the delicious sound of my readership’s average IQ rising….

Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld quoted in a US Department of Defense transcript of an interview conducted on June 30, 2004.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I do. I think basically what we have is we’ve had over our history since World War II basically an idea that we were either in war or we were in peace and that we were in peacetime constraints. And of course, since we don’t have a declaration of war and we’re not in World War III, all of those peacetime constraints and procedures and auditors and contract rules and competitive bidding, all of that pertains. And the effect of it is that you end up in a war on terror, like we’re in, losing lives and yet you are still required to adhere to the rules of peacetime, because we don’t have gradations of between war and peace and therefore we need to find a way to live in this 21st century where threats can come at you from the shadows and from ungoverned areas in ways that are not predictable, as they were, for example, during World War II or during the Cold War, for that matter.

The matter is not up for debate. It is settled. You cannot argue about Congressional authorizations being virtual declarations and whatnot when the Secretary of Defense himself announces that “we don’t have a declaration of war”.

Regardless of what you think of their merits, both the Iraqi War and the War on Terror are extra-Constitutional.

KC writes to correct me:

Greetings & good morning. I’m a regular poster to your site and think your latest article is great with one exception. Rush *DID* and *HAS* denounced the McCain-Feingold “reform” over and over again since it first came up for a vote. He said then that SCOTUS could not be trusted to strike down unConstitutional things because they seem to be making it up as they go along regardless of the Constitution (ie. Ginsberg’s recent references to foreign treaties). He has railed against this over and over as the law empowers “news” organizations (and him) to declare things as “news” and not political commercials/attacks and there’s no way for someone else to respond.

He – and I agree with him on this one 100% – believes in complete transparency. Let US Citizens give whatever amount they want to whichever political campaign they want… but EVERY PENNY must be accounted for in a public and timely manner.

If that’s the case – and I have no reason to believe it isn’t – then I stand corrected, applaud Mr. Limbaugh’s stance and will look forward to him criticizing the President’s latest attack on free speech this week. Unfortunately, I still expect Mr. Limbaugh to excuse these and many other unconstitutional actions and enthusiastically endorse George Delano on the grounds of there being “a war on”.

As for campaign financing, I don’t see any need to account for it. Money is fungible, so tracing it is simply an exercise in futility that only creates a need for government bureaucracy. If a politician obeys the Constitution, who cares who’s funding him? If a politician doesn’t, he should be impeached, removed from office, and if necessary, tried for treason.

Jeff Jacoby fails to consider all the possibilities:

WHY KOCH IS ON BUSH’S BANDWAGON. Ed Koch identifies himself with pride as a lifelong Democrat. The former New York City councilman, congressman, and three-term mayor says his values have always been those of the broad Democratic center — the values of FDR and Harry Truman, of Hubert Humphrey and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He disdains the Republican worldview as cold and unfeeling — “I made it on my own, and you should too.” The Democratic philosophy, by contrast, he sums up as: “If you need a helping hand, we’ll provide it.” No surprise, then, that Koch disagrees with George W. Bush on just about every domestic issue, from taxes to marriage to prescription drugs. But he’s voting for him in November.

I seem to recall someone saying that “Whenever someone is hurting, government has a responsibility to act.” That sounds a lot like Mr. Koch’s description of the Democratic philosophy: “If you need a helping hand, we’ll provide it.” Who was it that said that? Oh, that’s right, George Delano Bush! Why are Republicans supporting him again? I’m just curious.

Sure, it’s possible that Koch is supporting Bush solely because of the war/s, even though Kerry is likely to nuke half the Middle East just to get everyone’s mind off Cambodia and prove that he really truly always has been a Total Warrior Hero You Don’t Want To Mess With. But it’s also quite possible that Koch is supporting Bush because he knows perfectly well that they share the same philosophy.

Sometimes NRO reads as if they are nothing but Republican Party cheerleaders, utterly devoid of any principle except party uber alles. But Ramesh Ponnuru is resolute in refusing to put on a skirt and wave pom-poms simply because it’s an election year. He provides a brief history of George Bush on campaign finance reform:

1) I’m against it, and you should vote for me over John McCain on this basis.

2) Some campaign-finance reforms amount to a restriction on free speech, and I’ll veto them on that basis.

3) I’ll sign the bill, let the judges sort it out.

4) The bill I just signed bans all those George Soros ads.

5) I’m going to sue to get those ads all banned.

6) I’m going to support legislation to ban those ads that I already banned, even though they used to be free speech.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this man is the man that many conservatives, Christians and Republicans regularly hold up as a model of character and integrity. Which makes me assume that their position on the War on Drugs must be highly, highly hypocritical.

After perusing the deputy editorial editor’s response to the second Powerline article tearing apart the increasingly bizarre claims of the Kerry campaign in the Star Tribune, I penned the following letter to the paper’s editor:

Dear Mr. Ringham,

I hope, sir, that you are embarrassed and appalled by the complete lack of journalistic integrity and competence demonstrated by Jim Boyd in the Star Tribune today. Do you seriously believe that the following statement passes for a credible response to the second Hinderaker-Johnson piece?

“Now comes their second piece. I could do extensive line-by-line analysis, but I will not. It would take space I do not have.”

Considering that the digital bits available at www.startribune.com should be more than adequate to fulfill Mr. Boyd’s no doubt copious needs, and to which his piece in the paper could easily refer, this sounds suspiciously like empty words. Also, is “Moonie paper” an acceptable religious slur now? My AP Stylebook wasn’t clear on the preferred term.

Mr. Ringham, this is truly pathetic. I have been reading the Star Tribune for 19 years, and I cannot recall a shoddier, more haplessly incompetent editorial. Congratulations on allowing Mr. Boyd to take the paper to depths hitherto unknown.

In disbelief,

Vox Day

Universal Press Syndicate

CS objects vociferously:

ANOTHER SKIN-HEAD, AIR-HEAD, SUPERCILIOUS, — AND, I BELIEVE, COWARDLY — “INTELLECTUAL” JERK — OF THE LOST — FREE-LOVE — GENERATION — WITHOUT ANY TRACE OF CHARACTER.

-Retired U.S. Naval Officer (amphibious gunnery)

wounded (I actually bled – and lost consciousness) , but never photographed – never applied for “Hero-First-Class” — or medals

Retired Corporate President

Some people believe that military veterans are above criticism regardless of the subject. Having grown up with a few highly decorated veterans in the family, I do not share that belief. I sent CS the following email:

Afraid of the facts, are you? There are various types of cowardice, sir, and you are exhibiting the intellectual variety. And it’s profoundly silly to attempt to make character judgments on a complete lack of information. Or perhaps you seriously believe that a failure to bow down and lick the jackboot indicates a LACK of character.

There are plenty of veterans who fought, bled, and even lost consciousness who agree with me. They swore to defend the very Constitution on which George Bush now pissing. Didn’t you?

The Lonely One types through the tears:

In the last ten years or so, I have actually had several guys ask me directly to be their friend. Hmmmm. To me friendship just becomes…one day you both notice you are friends, and it feels right. Maybe at some point, you make some sort of a commitment, perhaps engage in some sort of bonding event, and you realize you have become more than friends, have become in fact Best Friends. A group of these, hanging together, is a joyous thing. And it has been a very long time since I’ve experienced such a thing.

No, it has been my experience that a friend is just some guy who will f— your wife/girlfriend/sister if he gets a snootful and half a chance. Some guy who will borrow your money and your stuff and then balk when the favor needs returning. Some guy who will listen to you drunkenly spill your innermost secrets, and then laugh about them and share them with people you do not like.

It’s not easy being green, Kermit. Friendship can be difficult for many men, though it’s not really that hard. It’s just about having someone you trust watching your back, and watching theirs in return. But to have a friend you must first be a friend.

It’s a two-way street. You have to accept the fact that sometimes you have to put them first, whether that involves not hitting on a smoking-hot girlfriend who’s good-to-go or listening to the world’s most boring soliloquy on the arcane minutae of import-export law for 45 minutes and occasionally asking questions instead of slitting your wrists. And in return, they won’t even think twice about rolling you out of the drunken innermost secrets that have risen from the pit of your stomach thanks to the evils of the shot glass*, lying to anyone that needs lying to, and wading in to beat down someone they don’t have anything against just because you can’t keep your stupid mouth shut.

They’ll never once tell you how much they care about you – something on the order of “you’re seriously a complete asshole, do you know that?” will instead be heard, and often – but you never doubt, question or even think about it. You know it because they show it.

I don’t need to hear my friends making declarations of undying affection. Sweet snow-capped mountains on high, I absolutely don’t WANT to hear anything even approaching that and would think less of them if they did.** And I could easily write an encyclopedic chronicle of their flaws, shortcomings and annoying idiosyncracies, seeing that they are respectively a prickly bastard, a latent freak and a mama’s boy. But if they say your ass needs kicking, my foot is already on its way. If they need something, the answer is when, not what. That’s just how it is.

I know some unfortunate men who are friendless, and it’s largely because they expect things to revolve around them. And sometimes things do, but you have to understand that unless you give something back to another person, there will soon be nothing left to take.

And besides, Bane forgets that he’s got the whole virtual gang, Nate, Gypsy, Zod et al. It’s like having real friends whose favorite sport is shooting the breeze and ragging on each other, with the added benefit that they won’t drink your beer.

*That they bought, the bastards. And landed you in jail. On your birthday.

**The correct response to any such mawkish womanly sentiment is, of course, a classic schoolyard standby expressing one’s opinion on the speaker’s unfortunate lack of heterosexual orientation.

Sorry about the blogless day. I was a bit pressed for time, wrapping up the first three chapters of Media Whores along with the proposal. So, we’ll wait and see if the publisher embraces it or finds it to be completely over the top.

In any case, this is the spot to discuss Monday’s column. I imagine we’ll have a some interesting responses, as it’s not one that pulls its punches. I expect most of the responses will evade the central point, however, as is too often the case.