Vox Popoli

Some people have complained that the blogroll is pushed to the bottom of the screen. Others have lamented that the text at voxday.net is too small, and still others are agog at the green-on-black text in the archives there. I regret the unpleasantries.

But interestingly enough, only those running Microsoft Internet Explorer are experiencing these difficulties. I run Opera on Fedora Linux, Space Bunny runs Opera on Windows, and I also check things out on Mozilla and Firebird. Everything looks and runs fine, and not only that, but I have little control over how this blog relates to Inferior Explorer, since it’s all Blogger code and external Javascript.

The problem is that Microsoft pays no heed to the HTML standards. There are two options. One, we can kowtow to Microsoft’s arrogance, put up with their ridiculous refusal to block pop-up ads – and you don’t realize just how annoying they are until you never see them anymore – and change to suit them. I prefer to make my quixotic stand on the HTML standards and politely suggest that those of you experiencing browser difficulties consider meandering over to opera.com and downloading Opera 7.53 for Windows.

It’s not hard, honestly, it’s free, it has an imitation Explorer skin if you want familiarity and you can even import your old bookmarks with little difficulty. There may be many things in this life that one must grin and bear, but a lousy browser isn’t one of them.

IMMIGRATION OFFICERS are having to pore through naked pictures of hundreds of exotic dancers to keep impostors out of Canada. Foreign strippers planning to table dance in clubs here must now provide photos of themselves with no clothes on to qualify for a visa for Canada, immigration officials say. “Stage photos during performances are required,” said Sergio Mercado, of the Canadian Embassy in Mexico.

MEMO TO VISA OFFICERS

In a memo to fellow visa officers around the world, Mercado said if a dancer passes the no-clothes test, they may then require a police certificate or medical examination. The memo was obtained from access to information documents obtained by the Sun.

The potential dancers have to prove they can dance in the nude, immigration lawyer Mendel Green said yesterday. “They can’t be partially nude,” he said. “If they don’t have pictures in the nude, they are not going to wiggle their bottoms in Canada.”

Brilliant! I imagine the next step will be to ensure that high-price Norwegian call girls are properly qualified to provide their services as well. It’s good to know that Canada’s Finest are willing to put their eyes on the line for their country. At least we know that they’re not wasting their time as jihadists pour across the borders into their country.

It’s odd, but the NFL theory of market performance could turn out to be another factor here. I never subscribed to it; I thought that the NFC champion Buccaneers would put paid to the idea that an NFC Super Bowl winner meant a positive year for the markets. But, I was manifestly wrong. And since the AFC Patriots won this year, that supposedly suggests a down year, which has certainly been the case so far.

Socionomics considers the markets a measure of mass societal emotion. As the challenger is ahead – however slightly – going into the convention, conventional political theory has it that the sitting president will be defeated. If we reverse the socionomics interpretation that states a negative mood as indicated by a down market favors challengers, then we should assume that the markets will be continuing on their downtrend instead of trending up into the election as is generally assumed.

I have other, more technical reasons for my opinion on where the markets are going, but it’s an interesting thought. I still don’t see how the conference affiliation of a sports team could have anything to do with mass emotions, though.

Some folks are attempting to summon outrage for Ann Coulter’s unceremonious dumping by USA Today. I don’t see why, as our beloved Miss Coulter did take the opportunity to leap straight over the top in a rather unlikely forum. Sure, the comments by the USA Today editor were stupid – one hopes he was being disingenuous – but USA Today is for people who want happy silly news in info-nuggets, not snarling contempt, however deserved.

Jonah Goldberg, who is a little more ideologically squishy than Ann and has that safe hail-fellow-well-met sense of humor ala Tucker Carlson that allows liberals to pretend that maybe he’s just kidding about all that conservative nonsense, would have been a better choice from the start. The mainstream media tilts heavily left, and the sooner one stops expecting it to be even-keeled, the better. Ann is wonderful, but she is for the red-meat lovers, not vegetarians who might nibble at a little piece of tofu.

There’s a place for running roughshod over left-liberal idiocies, but one of the foremost left-liberal newspapers probably isn’t one of them. And besides, who on Earth would want to go to the Democratic Convention anyhow?

MW is close to tears:

I do not agree with your editorial regarding Bill O Reilly. I can see your hatred for him is so visible, if what you say has the slightest bit of true to it, it would be discounted because of your seething hatred.

Maybe if she knew that I was crying on the inside, thanks to the massive jealousy that another O’Reilly fan asserted I have for Brave Sir Bill, she’d feel differently.

JS, meanwhile, only managed to confuse me:

I understand what you mean by OReilly setting up straw men, and not standing solidly on the principles he espouses. I have been frustrated with his stand on many issues that seem to contradict his values. I however disagree with your assessment of his selling himself and having a hazy grip of political reality. I think he does stretch his views in an attempt to seem fair and moderate which comes across to me as weak and wishy-washy, but I think his grip is relatively solid and he aims his guns at real and important enemies. Three examples are France, the ACLU, and Rap Music.

JS had me at hello, but he lost me with that last bit. But who could disagree that without Brave Sir William standing in between us and the raw all-devouring lethality that is Rap Music, our civilization would have already collapsed into chaos, carnage and cannibalism. Someone please, please tell me that Mr. O’Reilly has uttered the words “Rap is crap!” No, that would just be too perfect, it’s probably too much to wish for.

So, Brave Sir William is all for the Patriot Act, abortion and homogamy, but he stands firmly against Foxy Brown and Public Enemy. Hoo-raa! The phrase “fiddling while Rome burns” springs to mind.

I got a letter from the Factor

The other day

I opened and read it

It said they were suckers.

They wanted me for their show or whatever

Picture me giving a damn

I said never.

RK muses cynically:

So why is Day attacking him? Could it be to draw a reaction and publicity

for himself? Akin to one Mr. Franken? Perhaps O’Reilly suspects just this. Shame on you Vox for sinking to Franken’s level.

Actually, I’m just following the Libertarian talking points laid out for me by the Other, Not-So-Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Somehow, I suspect RK missed the discussion here last week when I explained my lack of interest in playing the talking head game.

What would I do with the publicity anyhow? The irony of being accused of being secretive one week and self-promoting is rather acute.

Bravely bold Sir William strode forth from Studio B.

He did not fear to debate, O brave Sir William!

He was not at all afraid to be humbled in nasty ways,

Brave, brave, brave, brave O’Reilly!

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,

Or to have his lies exposed and his logic broken;

To have his infinitives split, and his assertions blown away;

And his facts all hacked and mangled, brave Sir William!

His case smashed in and its heart cut out

And his proofs disproved, his polemic unplugged

And his talking points raped, and his claims disembowled

And his [what one can only assume is a very small] penis….

Brave Sir William ran away.

He bravely ran away, away!

When danger reared its ugly head,

He bravely turned his tail and fled.

Yes, brave Sir Bill, he turned about

And gallantly he chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet

He beat a very brave retreat,

Bravest of the brave, O’Reilly!

BM writes:

I am still rankled over that episode with the GOA owner, who I have forgotten his name. Bill O’Reilly just ramrodded him. Mr. O’Reilly just popped off on some standard stuff. I don’t think he had any knowledge on the subject. Then in an episode the next day he claimed to be acting facetiously when he referred to bazookas. I think what happened is the next day he did a little “after the fact” research and discovered that the AWB has nothing to do with machine guns. As for me, if the AWB expires I’m going to buy an AK-47! I got my eye on that!

P.S. – I enjoy your articles. You make your point but you never resort to nihilism or vulgarity.

Apparently he missed The Ballad of Sir William. In my defense – as I’ve already pointed out to one emailer – the reference to male genitalia is in the original. Not that I ever considered passing up the chance to add what Dark Window cheerfully describes as “a few quick kicks in the groin” for a second.

DS waxes enthusiastic:

I just recently read your article on Mr. O’Reilly’s “Fraud Factor,” and happen to be in total agreement with you…so, I forwarded a copy of your article to him and requested that he invite you. P.S. I also sent a note along with it telling him that I happen to agree with every word you said! Now let’s wait by the phone.

I wouldn’t hold your breath. If O’Reilly is afraid to have Badnarik on his show, he’d have to be completely insane to throw down with me. He doesn’t have the principles, the education, the ideological knowledge or the intelligence to survive, and he’s smart enough to know it.

Look, the guy’s no dummy. He’s sharp enough to position himself as a conservative, which beautifully differentiates him from all his competitors even though he isn’t one. If nothing else, he has a solid handle on the iron Law of Supply and Demand. I don’t despise the man; I rather think his astute salesmanship deserves respect and I have no doubt that he’ll continue to be successful as long as conservatives buy into his act. But I doubt he’ll take the risk of allowing anyone on who is likely to puncture the illusion.

RC writes:

I believe the Factor is doing much more good than harm by being on the air. Sure, you may be able to find some isolated cases when Bill should have zigged instead of zagged. However, we are living in a dangerous world at the moment. And please do not quote the founders regarding choosing between security and freedom. Everyone knows why the 2nd amendment exists. I do not believe it will ever be lost to us.

Precisely how is The Factor doing more good? How will boycotting France prove the answer to the continued loss of American liberties? O’Reilly is at best totally irrelevant, at worst, he is yet another cheerleader for the expansion of strong central government, the advocation of which a true conservative, PJ O’Rourke, once described as “treason to the human race”.

And if Mr. O’Reilly knows why the Second Amendment exists, then why did he suggest that one must be a nut to believe that private citizens should be able to own bazookas and machine guns? Is he aware that the Founders not only owned, but used, private artillery historically equivalent to modern large-bore howitzers and rockets? Is it ever better for the government to hold a monopoly on the use of lethal force? To again quote the immortal O’Rourke, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns. As the First Amendment has clearly been lost with McCain-Feingold, I think RC’s stated belief as to the positive prospects of the Second are naive. And of course he would rather I did not quote Ben Franklin, who might otherwise remind him that those who trade freedom for security will have neither.

I believe Bill’s point regarding harm caused by the Patriot Act has more to do with large numbers. In other words, is the Patriot Act a reasonable piece of legislation for our current national security situation? My view is that, on balance, it is reasonable–but you may find singular or isolated cases where the Act falls short at the expense of the citizen. Given the present climate, what else can reasonably be done?

Defenders of the Patriot Act invariably ask to know how it has been abused already. That is to miss the point. As the legal gymnastics of the Supreme Court and the Executive branch have proved with work-arounds such as Echelon – where the British listen to US phone calls and send the transcripts to the NSA so that the US government can honestly claim that it is not eavesdropping – and outright fictions such as the emanations and penumbras in which the right to abortion was discovered, the correct question is: can this Act be used by future US governments to abuse its citizens. And there, the answer is clearly affirmative.

What else can be done? There are many possibilities. The government can stop interfering with private airline security measures. It can stop granting visas to dead terrorists and their live cousins. The US government is part of the problem, not the solution, and giving it more power via stinking excretions like the Patriot Act will only create more problems in the future.