First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
So said Ghandi in his quest to gain independence from England.
It is in that spirit that Ron Paul's campaign has grown from a grassroots movement initially ignored and ridiculed as the den of conspiracy nutjobs, 9/11 truthers, tax protesters, John Birchers and assorted "fringe" groups. Dr. Pauls campaign has grown exponentially in the past few months since the airing of the televised debates.
This blog has never made a secret of which presidential candidate it endorses. But objectively, it is fair to say that Dr. Paul has the chance to, at the very least, frame the issues and shape the debate for the GOP nomination. Following are the Randolphus Maximus conventional wisdom talking points for and against Dr. Paul:
Pros:
Trackrecord - Dr. Paul has spent nearly 10 terms in Congress, with a track record of never voting for a tax increase, government spending increase, or anything that would expand the powers of the federal government
Message - the small government message still resides in our national character, freedom from government intrusion still resonates with the GOP base. Eight years of "compromise" have led to unprecedented increases in entitlements and spending, to the disgust of conservatives everywhere. His stance on illegal immigration and abortion fall into line with most traditional conservatives.
Supporters - Dr. Pauls supporters are enthusiastic about his message. They haven't seen a candidate like this in a long time. He brings out the passion in voters that has been lacking in recent elections. Personally, I know that George W has been a disappointment on a lot of issues. As a side note, I think that W's lasting legacy will not be the "War on Terror" it will be his Supreme Court nominations (the one campaign promise he has made good on)
Electability-
Dr. Paul's anti-Iraq war stance appeals to a lot of conservatives who thought going into Iraq was a bad idea (I don't like that we didn't declare war on Iraq, but that's a whole other issue). It also appeals to the Dems who feel the same way.
Cons
Message- does a small government message have any appeal anymore? Yes, it sounds good, but does that translate into votes on election day.
Time- Does Ron Paul have enough time to get enough name recognition? When will it be enough to register as a player on traditional polls?
Resources-
$100 million dollars is what's needed to get a job that pays a quarter of a million dollars a year. Ron Paul has $2.5 million cash on hand. Is it enough? It's at least more than John McCain.
In honor of Independence Day, hattip to Gorillamask. The idea for this list was swiped from Uber:
We're the best. Everybody knows it and that's why they're so dang jealous all the time. Sorry if our chicks are easily the hottest and our cars totally kick ass. It's not our fault we rule and everyone else in the world sucks. If anyone's got a problem with us we kick their ass or bomb their shit. BOOYA!
I like the intro but the list itself is kind of weak. So here's mine, with video evidence where applicable of course:
What does an obscure TV show from the 80's have to do with why America kicks ass? Because TV shows about our high tech prowess and know-how and its application in fighting badguys and saving lives is uniquely American. From Star Trek, to Airwolf, to Bluethunder, to Knightrider, Streethawk, to MacGuyver to ER and CSI, we know how to make shows with gadgets.
Imagine a whole store devoted to office supplies! I love walking among the aisles of inkjet cartridges, reams of paper, and pens, lots and lots of pens. The fact that there is a market for a store that caters to people's need to find cases of 24lb. 92 brightness recycled ecofriendly laser printer paper shows that commerce is alive in America.
The greatest city in the world. Period. The museums, the sights, the clubs, the bars, and the food. Strapz reminded me of how many different languages that you can hear just walking around Times Square. I was out there for two weeks and I don't recall ever having even an average meal. The fact that the sticker shock of visiting Manhattan ($20 for a mojito? $45 to park your car for a day?!?) was quickly forgotten since I was elbow deep in models and model wannabes sort reminds me of Vegas...which brings me to number 7
Let's see, gambling, world-class restaurants, prostitutes, drug dealers. Las Vegas is a city built on vice. It is also a city whose character is derivative of every other destination worthy place in the world. Want to see France? Don't want to be stuck with sitting next to dirty, stinky Frenchmen? Visit the Paris Hotel in Vegas!!! Want to take a gondola ride in Italy but don't want to sit in the dirty stinky water that plagues the canals in Venice? Visit the Venetian Hotel in Vegas!!! Never got laid in high school but think that the idea of meeting/getting intimate with a nice girl or two or three at the same time sounds neat? Stand at the corner of Las Vegas Blvd and Tropicana and grab the card from the Mexican who's sticking them into the holes of the chainlink fence surrounding the latest casino under construction.
6. I agree with Uber's listing at #6:
The Unholy Trinity (Paris, Lindsay & Brtiney) - They show their cooters and nipples like it's nobody's business. Screw reading the news, show me some celebrity beaver! Yeee Haw!
5. Uber's #2 : Morbidly Obese People
We're fat and we're good at it. Even though McDonald's was forced to get rid of super sizing and KFC's chicken now has 0 grams of trans fat, America will continue to find new ways to keep it's citizens fat as shit.
The top four admittedly take a turn away from the spirit of Ubers list, but I have to say that I've had more of a chance to reflect on the title and this is what I've come up with:
4. Milton Friedman
A diminuitive man whose gianormous intellect and personality propelled him to become an economic advisor to Presidents and other world leaders. His message about economic freedom and monetary policy literally changed the world and set millions of people free. I'd like to give some love and mention Hayek and the influence of the Austrian school but this is a list about why America kicks ass after all.
3. Ronald Reagan
The Gipper, along with Milton Friedman, make the top 5. He is America. A man who, over the course of his life, married, divorced, married again, had kids, adopted a kid. He switched careers a few times, got into acting, got into politics. Oh yeah, his vision as President toppled the Soviet Union and set millions free. Yeah world, you're welcome.
2. We Americans have a Tradition of Rebellion
So goes the subtitle of this blog. What's interesting is we tend to rebel non-violently. Of course, our country was founded on a violent armed conflict and there was the whole Civil War thing. But look at the great social movements in this country, most have happened relatively peacefully. Women's suffrage, desegration, prohibition. It's too soon to tell, but I think that illegal immigration, and the ending of the income tax can be put on that particular list as well. Anyway, the number two reason why America kicks ass is because rebelling is part of our national character. That we do it peacefully is even better.
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!"
So said W when confronted by members of the GOP in talks about renewing the Patriot Act.
Yes, it's the same paper that's been around for a couple hundred years, the same piece of paper that W and everyone else in government swears to "protect and defend". It is also the same piece of paper that we can come back to when we've lost our way as a country.
The vision of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other founding fathers has brought an unprecedented amount of freedom and wealth to us. How fortunate are we today that the phrase "you can't do that, it's unconstitutional" still carries at least a little weight with our government.
The Constitution is the number one reason why America kicks ass. There are many like it, but this one is ours. Happy Birthday America!
There used to be a tradition in this country of reading aloud the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution at independence day celebrations around the country (at least that's what my "Little House on the Prairie" books used to tell me). I'm reviving that tradition this week.
Henry Lamb from Worldnetdaily.com writes an article that mentions two things that don't get talked about enough or not at all: the Electoral College and the 17th Amendment.
The Electoral College is an ingenious scheme to balance the power among small and larger states. Without the Electoral College, a few large states could elect the president, and the small states would be left completely out of the voting. But the wisdom of our founders foiled the monopoly of power for the big states.
Ahhh, brings us back to 2000. Was that really 7 years ago?
I actually think Cavuto's head is going to explode at the thought of a different way to look at the income tax (not that his head isn't gianormous already):
Another thing that Giuliani has been advocating is this idea of a national ID card. It shows how far the GOP has come that this is even up for discussion as a plank in a party that Goldwater and Reagan once epitomized. Here is my opinion on a National ID Card in response to a couple of Newsmax.com opinion pieces that showed up here and here:
The idea of a "fool-proof, tamper proof ID" is silly on its face. Set aside for a moment the obvious un-Constitutionality of having such an ID. The "fool-proof" and "tamper proof" characteristics for an ID would last about as long as it would take for a criminal enterprise to make their own, or steal the equipment to make their own, or hack into the database that would store our citizens info. Think about the HD DVD encryption code that was recently hacked and posted online. A private enterprise spent years and untold millions developing that technology to secure their information. The code for it was posted on the internet and all of that work was rendered useless. I'm a conservative and I don't think government could do any better (government would be able to spend more money, but the end result would be the same). Nothing is fool proof, or tamper proof, banks still get robbed, cars still get stolen if the incentive for doing so is great enough and the risk in doing so is acceptable. I believe that being able to access the personal information of every single one of our citizens in a national database would be invaluable and ripe for abuse and fraud and exploitation, by an individual, a criminal enterprise, or a government (our own or someone else, see the cyberwar between Russia and Estonia as only the latest example)
My solution for solving illegal immigration? Decidedly low tech: A) build the wall (the one Congress authorized but did not fund). B) eliminate the minimum wage - let our own citizens compete for the jobs that employers want to hire illegals for. The argument goes that illegals do jobs that our citizens won't do. The reality is honest employers can't hire someone whose output is worth $3 per hour if they have to pay them $7. C) Go after employers who hire illegals D) bring back Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback" E) this could go with B - eliminate all entitlements for illegals, welfare, Social Security, schooling, etc. My solutions try to eliminate the incentives for illegals to cross the border for economic reasons. Terrorists who want to sneak into our country and attack us? That's a whole other response.
I gotta admit this about Tara Stiles. She's a model, into yoga, if she were into politics and economics and the Constitution and could cook I'd marry her.
Kidnapping, illegal wiretapping, "behavior modification" programs and experimentation on unwitting citizens, assasination plots, all of it sounds straight out of a Robert Ludlum novel. Not quite, it is the work of the CIA. Recently released documentation of the "Family Jewels" show that all the kooks might be right.
The release from the National Security Archive and additional documentation.
I'm just waiting for the press conference where the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in his full on General uniform with all the medals to roll out a little red wagon with a blanket over the top and for him to pull it off exclaim "Yes, it's also true, we are not alone in this world!" and then ET comes out.
According to this AP article, there is a boutique hotel in Germany that has as its theme "East Germany, 1985":
The four clocks behind the reception desk of Berlin's new budget hotel Ostel show the hour in Moscow, Berlin, Havana, and Beijing. Time, however, appears to have stopped here sometime before 1989, when communism was still entrenched in all four capitals.
The Ostel offers a renewed whiff of life in the former German Democratic Republic, welcoming travelers with portraits of communist leaders adorning the walls.
Furnishings — except for mattresses, bed linens, sink and toilets — are the real thing, dug up by founders Daniel Helbig and Guido Sand from flea markets, friends, family and eBay.
And once again, freedom, capitalism and the free market prevail.
Whether you agree or not with the position that Ed and Elaine Brown have taken regarding the income tax there will be some sort of resolution to this situation. It is not without a hint of irony that New Hampshire, the live free or die state, is the setting for a showdown between the government and its citizens. Like it or not, the way that the government handles this should be scrutinized as thoroughly as possible because, truly, if the government comes knocking at your door, this could be what to expect.
Why would Randy Weaver, of Ruby Ridge fame, be compelled to meet up with the Browns? What circumstances justify the use of SWAT teams, snipers, helicopters, etc. for a couple with no history of violence? Sure, they are telling the government to go fuck themselves, but isn’t that part of our national character? There is a peaceful way to settle this standoff, according to Ed and Elaine, show them the law. Why doesn’t the government just show them the law?
There is something more insidious at work here. It is the not so subtle message that you can’t tell the government to pound sand and get away with it. Sure, the government is okay with subsidizing urine soaked crucifixes as artistic expression, but demand them to show you which law you are breaking and you aint gettin’ nuthin. It is the ultimate statement of arrogance on the part of the government. We as citizens should be as, if not more, outraged at this situation as we are about the comprehensive immigration garbage that is being shoved down our throat AGAIN. Following is a link o rama regarding Ed and Elaine:
WMUR is a local TV station with video on Ed and Elaine Browns public statement today
We the People has an overview of what has led to this standoff
Danny Riley is a friend of the Browns who was literally walking the dog and stumbled on government snipers casing the Brown residence. Here's his video account of his encounter with the feds. He got tasered, he was held for questioning and then admonished not to talk about his experience to the press.
The terms "fortified compound" and "tax evasion" usually seem to go hand-in-hand in stories such as these. "Fortified compound" is a term applied by the government for psychological reasons that is repeated by the media out of psychiatric reflex. The government has trillions of dollars, tanks and armies of heavily armed individuals at their disposal. Our politicians have access to around the clock protection and bunkers that can withstand a direct nuclear strike. Not only that, but try running into any mainstream media building in New York or Los Angeles without being tackled by armed guards and tasered until your nose gives off a 75-watt glow.
But a married couple who lives in a six-bedroom colonial that might have an extra bolt on the door are the ones who the government and media says have a "fortified compound." The government and media parrot terms such as "fortress-like home" to imply paranoia, which implies mental illness, which implies there's a good reason for the government to move in and save the "fortified compound" dwellers from themselves and the rest of us. What's gone wrong?
Good riddance. This whole Duke Lacrosse story should be made into a movie of the week. I feel for those boys who were falsely accused and put through a year long hell. I'm wondering if the cops investigating the "crime" are facing justice as well.
Durham in Wonderland is the blog of record for the whole sordid affair. Good work KC Johnson!
District Attorney Mike Nifong will be disbarred for his disastrous prosecution of three Duke University lacrosse players falsely accused of rape, a disciplinary committee decided Saturday. Even the veteran prosecutor said the punishment was appropriate.
Such an egregious abuse of his prosecutorial powers and judgement. This should be the least of his worries, could there be criminal prosecution? what about any civil litigation? I'm hoping.
The eight-week trial of Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris grew out of such a bizarre set of circumstances that it’s not surprising it took a while for the jurors to sort things out. It probably also took them a while to come to grips with the idea that government agencies could so blatantly engage in entrapment, lying, cover-ups, and the killing of innocent people. As one alternate juror, excused before deliberations were completed, put it: "I felt like a little kid that finds out there is no Santa Claus"
Here's video with Randy Weaver and his daughter years later.
Does Olbermann, etal, make a good point about habeas corpus? Yes. However, his perspective on this issue is completely at odds with his political belief system. Here's how:
Generally, there are two types of rights, rights that are protected by the Constitution and rights that are granted by the Constitution. As an example, the Constitution grants Congress has the right to coin money. This is not a right that is inherent to Congress or any group or individual, but rather is a right that is granted by way of the social contract that we call the Constitution. As a people, we have agreed to allow Congress the right to coin money. However, the Constitution protects our rights to freedom of speech and religion. These rights do not derive from the Constitution, but rather are rights endowed on us by the Creator.
Typically, liberals think of the Constitution as granting rights to individuals, when in reality it merely protects them from being infringed by the government. An excellent example of this is every liberals interpretation of the 2nd amendment. They believe that the 2nd amendment only grants rights to militias to carry weapons, but in reality, it is designed to protect our inherent right to protect ourselves from aggressors, be they individuals or in government, from infringement by the government.
Now, apply this to the habeas corpus issue. Olbermann seems to make a fundamental, inherent rights argument by claiming that the government is infringing on the rights of a non-citizen by not allowing them habeas corpus proceedings. Since someone apprehended in Iraq who is not a US Citizen would not be subject to the US Constitution, his argument would mean that the rights associated with habeas corpus (confront accuser, know the charge, speedy trial, etc.) would derive not from the Constitution, but from the Creator. The problem is that you can't pick and choose which rights the Constitution grants to individuals and which it protects from government. Our rights as individuals do not derive from government, but exist as a consequence of our humanity. This makes him, and all others who attack this issue on these grounds while not having respect for other Constitutional protections, a hypocrite. Check out this link for a hysteria based commentary on the disbelief that the Constitution grants the right of habeas corpus. A telling line for my point is the last line of the essay.
There is something a little more nefarious going on here, though, and it is the reason why I can't agree completely with Keith that all of the enemy combatants should be allowed to utilize habeas corpus. For the last 50-60 years, liberals have realized that they cannot change policy to match their views through the political process. As a result, they have appointed sympathetic judges, who have lifetime appointments, and similar political beliefs. These judges also have no qualms about ignoring the text of the Constitution to achieve a political end, as evidenced through Roe, Newdow, and many other cases in recent memory. These are the judges who would be hearing the habeas corpus claims, and Olbermann knows it. This means a great many individuals who pose a danger to this country, or who have information about pending terrorist plans or the locations of terrorist leaders will be released because it furthers the political agenda of the liberals.
Finally, if Bush had gotten a declaration of war from the Congress, this may be an issue for debate, but the Constitutionality would not be up for discussion, since during a time of war, the President has the power to suspend habeas corpus almost without oversight.
According to this article: http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=43192&fb=1
Ron Paul has raised a crapload of money since the first GOP debate:
Congressman Ron Paul’s donations have moved up - not by hundreds of thousands - but by millions as a result of his debate performances and groundswell of support on the Internet and in New Hampshire, observers close to the campaign say.
The move is especially impressive since as of March 31, 2007, he had perhaps $500,000 on hand (see candidate estimates below
$5 million in 2 months? Let's see, when I'm not spamming online polls, I send money. My check for $2.5 million just cleared. Since me, Pat Buchanon and Bill Maher are Ron Paul's only supporters, that means Pat and Bill had to come up with the difference.
A young clerk with no knowledge of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown allowed a tribute to victims slip into the classified ads page of a newspaper in southwest China, a Hong Kong daily reported on Wednesday.
Watching the debate online was pretty cool with the different pipelines available.
Ron Paul didn't get enough time on camera.
Rudy McRomney is like the big budget summer blockbuster that has major marketing and starpower and the big opening weekend. But you walk out of the theater after spending $40 and are thinking "the movie was OK". The message being, yeah the special effects were cool but it wasn't that great.
Ron Paul is the indy film with the cachet of being esoteric or not as well known. But, once you see it, you realize the message is right on. And it sticks with you, and inspires you and shows you something you've maybe never seen before. That is greatness.
For a moment, I had a twinge of sympathy for Paris Hilton as Sarah Silverman unloads on her at the 2007 MTV Movie Awards last night. Then I remembered that Paris Hilton is a pretty shitty person. If I were a comic with a national forum and a chance to goof on someone who is a no talent, droopy eyelidded, self indulgent, no shame having, self absorbed, famous for having sex on camera and posting it on the internet coke whore. I would think that that would be like manna falling from heaven.
For the record, I think that Sarah Silverman has gone up 6 gazillion points in my book. In about a minute, she eviscerates Paris Hilton and reduces her to the verge of tears:
The Webpreneur.com has a snippet about the tough times that the porn industry is going through right now (the whole post is here):
According to a New York Times article today, it has become more challenging to make money in the porn industry. Why? Thanks to online sites such as PornoTube and YouPorn (not work safe sites), porn enthusiasts have begun filming their own movies at home and uploading them to free sites. This shift in porn consumption has caused a 15 percent decline in pornographic video sales and rentals. And you thought music companies had it tough
So there's porn on the internet? And you can get it for free? Wow, I only use my high-speed internet connection to keep in contact with my friends and to do research on rehabilitating and raising orphaned panda bears...I could never imagine trying to do a google search on videos of college freshman sorority lesbian coeds on spring break in Cancun...I wouldn't have imagined that if you did that, you would get ANY results...
I hope that CTU has set up a perimeter for this dangerous criminal. Apparently, Jorge Romero gained access, through the Internet, to the first 4 episodes of '24' before they aired this season, and he uploaded them to another website which made them publicly available. Under a new law, signed by President Bush in 2005, this is now punishable by large quantities of jail time and enormous fines. This guy could go to jail for three years for uploading these TV shows.
This shows how disproportionate the punishments for copyright infringement have gotten compared to the damage caused. If this guy had stolen the tapes from Real Time Studios (the production company for '24'), as long as he didn't try to upload them to the Internet, it would probably be considered petty theft. However, upload them to the Internet, and all of the sudden, it's a major felony. The kowtowing of the US Government to the RIAA, the MPAA and the TV studios (content owners) is really unlike any other industry in America.
Also, it's not as if Mr. Romero was a person who had special access given to him by FOX or Real Time Studios. According to the story, he actually found the episodes on another website, which means he wasn't the first to have them on the Internet. The moral is clear: repeatedly drive drunk and with a suspended license, go to jail for 23 days. Upload a TV show to the Internet, throw away the key.
Update: Check out this link for a partial list of congresspeople who take the blood money from the RIAA. Some notables: Obama, Clinton, Specter, and Feinstein.
So - I started playing Guitar Hero II for the Xbox 360 this week... talk about addictive. I've now accomplished unlocking every song in the game... I got to play Freebird. Apparently, its something of a hobby for people to post YouTube videos of them playing Guitar Hero II songs on the highest difficulty. Also, it is possible for some Playstation 2 owners to add additional songs into the game... don't ask me how they do it, but there are a lot out there. Here's my favorite song, as interpreted by Guitar Hero II:
Too bad he couldn't get the end in, but an admirable effort nonetheless.
Fred Thompson today formed his exploratory committee for the 2008 Presidential campaign. Assuming he is able to raise some money (almost a foregone conclusion) and the polling is at least somewhat positive, this means that he will become the 11th major candidate for the Republican nomination. Once he enters the race, it is widely speculated that he will immediately become the overwhelming front-runner, much to the chagrin of Rudy and Mitt. I personally have been hoping that Thompson will run, simply because I feel that he is very electable, and he is politically in line with me (for the most part).
Here's a linky to Fred's page at On The Issues. This represents his congressional career and it has been a few years, but there are still many relevant issues. A summary of the big ones:
Abortion - tough, but his rhetoric suggests that if the Supreme Court overturns Roe, he will leave it to the states.
Education - yes on vouchers, abstinence education, plus tax cuts for school expenses, his feelings are unknown on the federal Dept. of Education.
Energy - yes for drilling in ANWR, unknown on nuclear power (my pet issue)
Government Intervention - voted for removing federal restrictions on violent video game sales to minors, pro McCain-Feingold, pro banning union/corp contributions, pro photo ID for voting
Guns - anti gun control
Social Security - pro privitizing at least part of social security, pro personal accounts
Taxes - pro internet tax moratorium, voted for tax cuts, voted for requiring supermajority for raising taxes
The Wall Street Journal contributor writes about her estrangement from the Bush administration:
The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.
I think this is the first time I've ever posted a video of war footage. It's a pretty good editing job and the music a cover of Snap's "I've got the power"
Here is an interesting take on what could happen if Fred Thompson decides to run for office (from Liberty Update):
As of right now there are three front runners; Guliani, McCain, and Romney. Each spouting off a very similar big government neo-con message that differs only slightly. If each of these candidates stays out front until the election they will split the big-government neo-con electorate. If this happens, Ron Paul will need only 25%of the Republican primary vote (a few votes will most likely be split among the other 6 neo-cons as well). He'll have the full support of the small government conservatives since there will be no competition for that slot. In a state like Iowa where in 2000 there were 86,000 Republican primary voters he would only need 21,500 votes to win.
A very shrewd and interesting analysis, I'm (wishfully) hoping that he wins the nomination handily and the general election in a landslide. But I'll take the win in whatever form it comes in.
Saying "south american dictator" is like saying "smelly frenchman" or "brazilian supermodel" it's just part of the language. Our hemisphere to the south has a tradition of being taken over by strongmen.
It's no surprise that Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez would try to takeover the oil assets of his country (it's the country's most valuable export). It's also no surprise that Chavez would try to eliminate dissenting voices as well. What has been surprising to me has been the reaction to his shutting down the TV station that broadcasts opposition programming critical of Chavez. Students, professionals, other citizens are demonstrating in the streets. Are we going to be witness to the overthrow of a dictator? I hope so. I also hope it's as bloodless as possible.
There are a bunch of links at Gateway Pundit. Also Fox News has continuing coverage as well.
Fox News reporter Adam Housley
6:13 p.m.: We have now moved yet again, our fifth location today. We are now live, the only network in the world, on the street between protesters and the police. Thousands are amassed on the streets to me; to my left, they're chanting and singing, faced off with police; to my right, the police are shoulder-to-shoulder, standing under a major overpass. An armored car is wedged within the line. 6:22 p.m.: Shots ... SHOTS FIRED! I grab a bag and slam it against a cement wall. It's as if I am standing on the banks of a roaring river. I'm close to danger, but safely on the bank. Rocks and bottles fly. The crowd scatters as the police lunge forward. I'm staying close to the ground and behind their shields. They open rapid fire with shotguns armed with rubber bullets. Some turn their heads as the blasts continue. Pop, pop, pop, pop ... we are against the wall. I sneak out, just a bit, to get our remaining piece of gear. My mask is covering my nose and mouth, in case of tear gas. I have goggles over my eyes. Some students have their own military-style gas masks. The police lunge further; the students have stopped about 100 yards away ... more rocks, more bottles. I grab my microphone with the FOX News logo and hold it up yelling, "PRENSA, PRENSA!" (Press, Press!) I duck in behind the police to get my photographer shooting video of the clash. Together, we dash back to safety. 6:25 p.m.: The shooting stops and so does the rock throwing. The crowd chants again and the police retreat. Once again, there is a 20-yard space between the two. We are at an impasse. Periodically, over the next 30 minutes, students approach the officers with their hands in the air. Both sides talk, at least for a short bit and the standoff continues. 6:50 p.m.: The students are still singing, but now they're sitting by the thousands. They will not move, and neither will the police. I also get a call; apparently the same types of clashes are taking place near the American embassy, and I am told that a local cable station will be shut down by the government tonight. Globovision is a local cable channel, like RCTV, and it's critical of the Chavez reforms. Rumor has it that the owners and main anchor will be arrested.
The inimitable Paul Harvey (listen here and fast forward to 4:10)
Transcript "For what it's worth, the 9th circuit panel of San Francisco has been reversed. The Internal Revenue service had ruled that Valerie and Robert McKee (or McKey?) had owed the government $31,000 in unpaid taxes until Valerie and Robert demonstrated in court that the tax law was so complex that nobody could understand it. And the court had to agree. The law was so complex that nobody could understand it and the court reversed itself and the IRS gets the bill. The government sought and got a stipulation that this verdict would not be made public. Well, it just was. Paul Harvey, Good day!"
Jeeez, Memorial day weekend isn't even over, and Lindsay Lohan is in the papers AGAIN. Let's see, she was arrested on Saturday for being intoxicated and for leaving her car after crashing it, the same car that the police found "useable amounts" of cocaine in. Well, it's monday and it turns out there are pictures of her passed out in a friends car this morning as well (maybe to celebrate getting out of jail?)
This is going to end up badly for her. She's not even 21 yet and it seems like she's been around forever. Maybe it won't, but I'm pretty sure that if your diet for the past 5 years has consisted of cocaine, vodka, and semen, it's pretty safe to say that a reexamination of lifestyle choices is in order. (I know I lifted that line somewhere, probably here, he cracks me up)
a. Richard Marx b. Not being able to find a specific Richard Marx video on the internets c. Finding a specific Richard Marx song on youtube but having it as background for a Buffy and Angel video montage
The correct answer is d: posting a blog that has Richard Marx in it over a Buffy and Angel montage
All of the political junkies out there who watched the second GOP debate a couple of weeks ago saw an exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul that could be considered the first round of battle in what ultimately could be considered the fight for the soul of the Republican Party.
Rudy Giuliani is America’s Mayor. He revived New York City, cleaned up Times Square, reduced crime, and boosted tourism to record highs. It was on his watch that New York City was attacked. By nearly all accounts, he handled that day and its aftermath better than one would have expected. His performance earning him accolades such as a Knighthood from the Queen of England, and Time Magazine’s Person of the Year in 2002. He is a man of accomplishment who has shown leadership in the most trying circumstances.
Dr. Ron Paul is an OB/GYN who has delivered more than 4000 babies. He is an 11 term Congressman from Texas whose initial Congressional campaign run, by his own admission, was done on impulse. His reputation as a principled legislator who unfailingly measures his actions in Congress against what is explicitly expressed in the Constitution has earned him the moniker of “Dr. No”. He and his wife are proud parents of five children, and 17 grandchildren.
The contrasts between these two are numerous. Rudy is the man from the big city. Ron is the doctor from flyover country. Rudy’s personal life has been fodder for the gossip pages for years, having to endure a very ugly and public divorce. Ron, from what I’ve been able to glean from the tabloids, has five children and 17 grandchildren, and a wife named Carol. This is to say, you probably wouldn’t find him in magazines like US Weekly, or People, ever.
It is in the political arena that you would find the most differences, and they are stark. Rudy Giuliani has a campaign machine that is well financed, he is consistently named one of the leading contenders to win the nomination, and he currently polls in the top three as far as popularity among voters.
Dr. Paul has a fraction of the campaign funds that Rudy has. He is considered a second tier candidate, not even warranting inclusion in certain polls because of lack of name recognition. He is truly a grassroots candidate, his supporters, while not legion, are enthusiastic, vocal, energized, and active. They are technologically savvy and, through the internet, are able to communicate with each other as well as spread Dr. Paul’s ideas.
Like with Howard Dean in 2004, the internet is proving to be the great equalizer between Rudy and Dr. Paul in getting the nomination.
If anyone out there saw the GOP debate last week, you would have seen this:
The exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Dr. Ron Paul certainly brought to life an event which up, until that moment, would more accurately be described as a Debate In Name Only (DINO). Out of the 10 candidates that night, 9 of them seem pretty interchangeable. Sure, Mitt Romney might have a better tan and more hair than Rudy. Also, John McCain is the only candidate I’ve seen who actually tried to paraphrase/sing the Beach Boys (badly and awkwardly at that). But if you look really closely, they aren’t much different from each other. I get the feeling that if the nomination came down to those three, I couldn’t bring myself to, once again, vote for the candidate who sucks the least.
If you take a look at my recent posts, it’s obvious I’m a Ron Paul supporter. Why him? Hope. History is littered with the wreckage of failed empires, the map of which our country is following. Entangling alliances, oppressive government policies on it own citizens, failure to protect and defend its borders, continued currency devaluation. It’s all there. I’m just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Ron Paul gives me hope that it is not too late. That the ills our country faces in the near and long term can be cured. That the constant and increasing intrusion of our government into our lives can be stopped and the correlating freedoms that have been stamped out can be restored.
He gives me hope because he knows that the map to restoring our greatness exists, it is tried and true and it will work. When I say greatness, I don’t mean having the biggest and best military, we have that. There is greatness in the people that make up this country; for the most part we are generous, hardworking, optimistic, law-abiding citizens. When I talk about restoring greatness to this country, I am talking about setting its people free. Free to pursue our dreams, free to think what we want, free criticize our government, free to defend ourselves, free to choose how we live and free to fail and accept the consequences of that failure.
That is what America is about, choosing the path that makes the most sense to us. The audacious idea that each and every one of us has the ability to choose the life they want to lead because we know what’s best. That is what attracts people to us. That is why we won the great war against communism. That is what made my parents move half a world away with only each other to build their life around. That is what will save us from an economic and political meltdown.
I didn’t mean to turn this into a flag waving exercise but it turned out that way. I did intend to say that Ron Paul is the man whose vision of what our country once was and once again can be, and how to get there is most aligned with mine.
Question: What do Virginia Tech's 32 murders, Columbine High School's 13 murders, Jonesboro Westside Middle School's five murders, Germany's Gutenberg High School's 16 murders, the murder of 14 legislators in Zug, Switzerland, and the murder of eight city council members in a Paris suburb all have in common?
Answer: All the murders were committed in "gun-free zones."
So a reasonable question is: Does legislation creating gun-free zones prevent murder and mayhem?
What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do? Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahedeen were declaring war on us.
I'm posting the comments I've made at www.ace.mu.nu because it's a crapload of typing I did over there in reaction to Ron Paul at the debate. I tried to format it and fix some links that were broken. You can see the whole thread here:
My original comment:
I'm putting my support behind Ron Paul because he's the "strict constructionist" candidate. I don't think for a second that if Congress formally declared war after 9/11 against Al Qaida Paul would have a problem sending troops, ships, or nukes (if necessary) to whatever craphole needed to be douched.
It bothers me that we, as a party, want to send judges to the Supreme Court who will follow the the Constitution to the letter but when it comes to electing a President or Congress it doesn't apply. Posted by: Randolphus at May 16, 2007 03:48 AM (5naUR)
171I'm putting my support behind Ron Paul because he's the "strict constructionist" candidate. I don't think for a second that if Congress formally declared war after 9/11 against Al Qaida Paul would have a problem sending troops, ships, or nukes (if necessary) to whatever craphole needed to be douched.
How do you reconcile that belief with his anti-interventionist rhetoric? Paul made his views on foreign policy very clear last night. Posted by: Slublog at May 16, 2007 09:15 AM (R8+nJ)
172 I don't care how many advanced degrees he has, anyone who believes what Paul said last night, is a moron. And anyone who thinks that Paul believes exactly the opposite of what he said, is also a moron. People like Paul, and anyone who plays apologist for him, should be shunned.And don't bother with the fancy latin words for name-calling. As far as I'm concerned, sometimes it really is that simple. Truther = Moron. Posted by: Mob at May 16, 2007 10:19 AM (f+cPk)
173I don't think for a second that if Congress formally declared war after 9/11 against Al Qaida Paul would have a problem sending troops, ships, or nukes (if necessary) to whatever craphole needed to be douched.
So exactly what do you call it when Congress authorized the United States to commit what are unquestionably open-ended military acts of war against other powers? I did not notice the Constitution's required form for a declaration of war. Is it in an appendix maybe?
As for the "debate" over whether an MD can be a moron, some ideas are so amazingly dumb they seem to require advanced degrees for people to promote them. Posted by: VRWC Agent, BA, BA, JD at May 16, 2007 12:51 PM (Z3AmO)
174 I'm putting my support behind Ron Paul because he's the "strict constructionist" candidate.
Being a strict constructionist doesn't come close to excusing The Crazy. I'd love to see the federal government return to performing only those powers allowed for in the Constitution and the end of the 10th Amendment being ignored, but that's not going to happen overnight, and it sure as hell isn't going to happen under Ron Paul. In closing- Fuck You for supporting this Blame America First Truther douchebag. Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 16, 2007 01:16 PM (plsiE)
175 How do you reconcile that belief with his anti-interventionist rhetoric? Paul made his views on foreign policy very clear last night.
I believe that since he's a strict constructionist, Ron Paul would act and prosecute a war if it was declared by Congress. To not do so, would be failure to discharge his duties as President. The question then becomes, do people think that he wouldn't follow the Constitution to the letter? I would say following the Constitution is what makes him appealing. Posted by: randolphus at May 16, 2007 01:20 PM (5naUR)
176So exactly what do you call it when Congress authorized the United States to commit what are unquestionably open-ended military acts of war against other powers?
An abdication of Congress in its duty. By authorizing military force, it gives Congress cover if the war doesn't go as planned, it can be blamed on the President. By declaring war, its a commitment from Congress to say yes or no, not it depends. Posted by: randolphus at May 16, 2007 01:48 PM (5naUR)
177I believe that since he's a strict constructionist, Ron Paul would act and prosecute a war if it was declared by Congress. To not do so, would be failure to discharge his duties as President. The question then becomes, do people think that he wouldn't follow the Constitution to the letter? I would say following the Constitution is what makes him appealing.
Where in the Constitution does it spell out the need for a non-interventionist foreign policy? I don't have a problem with Paul's reading of the Constitution - I have a problem with his refusal to see the world as it is.We no longer have the luxury of isolationism. Posted by: Slublog at May 16, 2007 02:09 PM (R8+nJ)
178By authorizing military force, it gives Congress cover if the war doesn't go as planned, it can be blamed on the President. By declaring war, its a commitment from Congress to say yes or no, not it depends.
Huh? Sorry, dude, but authorizing the use of military force against someone is a declaration of war. Unless you believe it is possible to blast an enemy's infantry, raze their buildings and roll tanks down the streets of their capitol without making war on them. The Constitution does not require a magic phrase to be uttered when war is declared and no magic phrase would prevent the traitorous left from undermining any war in which our interests are at stake. Had the war resolution been called "The Really Super-Official and Extra-Explicit Constitutional Declaration of War By Congress," the phrasing would not change a single criticism or strategy to undermine the war effort. Not one.Your argument is silly. Posted by: VRWC Agent at May 16, 2007 08:34 PM (gjy1/)
179Had the war resolution been called "The Really Super-Official and Extra-Explicit Constitutional Declaration of War By Congress," the phrasing would not change a single criticism or strategy to undermine the war effort. Not one.
The February 6, 2006 testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority, indicates there is a distinction: GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force.
There is absolutely a difference between an AUMF and a declaration of war (which grants much more power to the Executive branch). One of the biggest being that Congress doesn't have as much room to politicize the prosecution of the war. If you look at our declaration of war against Germany in 1941, you can see that the language has no caveats. Compare that to the AUMF in Iraq. I would argue that with a formal war declaration, criticisms such as warrantless wiretaps, and holding terror suspects in Guantanamo would have been neutralized to a certain extent because there is justification in doing so http://johnshadegg.house.gov/RSC/DeclarationofWar.PDF see page 3. Posted by: randolphus at May 17, 2007 03:03 AM (5naUR)
180Where in the Constitution does it spell out the need for a non-interventionist foreign policy? I don't have a problem with Paul's reading of the Constitution - I have a problem with his refusal to see the world as it is.We no longer have the luxury of isolationism.
I don't think that non-interventionist and isolationism are synonymous. Isolationism to me means we don't trade or have contact with anyone outside of the US. Non-interventionist means to me we don't get into places like Darfur, or Somalia, or Kosovo because it's none of our business. We get our troops out of Europe and Japan and Korea and let them pay for their own defense. We get out of the UN and kick them out of Turtle Bay. If you want to trade with us, then lets trade. The other (and more important) part of a non-interventionist policy would be to make it clear that if you fuck with us then we turn into Denzel in "Man on Fire" and tear apart who ever it is and their families piece by piece. The failure of Clinton's foreign policy was that terror groups thought they could strike us (and they did) and our response would be weak (and it was). So much so that on 9/11 there was footage on the news from some country (in the Middle East) where people were out in the streets cheering. If there were any other blatant sign of our foreign policy shortcomings at that time I can't think of it. The only reactions that I should have seen on the news that day were expressions of sympathy and allegiance with us. Or, silence because of the collective worry and "oh shit we shouldn't have done that" that was going through the minds of our enemies from what our response was going to be.
Why Ron Paul? Because he's the strict constructionist candidate with the track record in Congress that doesn't make me wretch. 2008 is going to be the election that will be a milestone for the GOP. Is the idea of individual freedom dead? Is out of control government spending and intrusion into its citizens lives the wave of the future? Are Romney, Giuliani, and McCain really what the mainstream of the GOP really want? Stay tuned. My prediction is that Congressman Paul is going to make a lot of noise over the next year.
With the $80,000 drinking binge that was your college career now in the rear-view mirror, you're looking forward to your new adult life with hope in your eyes and a freshly-printed diploma in your hand.
Why? Because what is old is new. Milton Friedman is the man whose ideas relegated Keynes to the ideological and historical dustbin. We need to keep Keynes there.
Milton Friedman:
Gore Vidal vs. William F Buckley - A discussion about the Constitutional right to assembly turns into Vidal calling Buckley a "crypto nazi" and Buckley in turn responding by calling Vidal a "queer" Hat tip "Hot Air"
The candidate labelled by Peggy Noonan as "obscure but intellectually serious" Ron Paul has hit a chord with the political junkies who pay attention to debates conducted 18 months before an election. His message, based on initial readings of an informal poll by MSNBC after the Republican debate last Thursday by supporters of the Congressman (including this blog) and others, show that a campaign run on adherence to the Constitution might have resonance for members of the party that had lost majority control in Congress in 2006. From the Ron Paul for President blog:
Paul realized a massive decrease in net negatives (a favored indicator early in the Primaries). This places Paul's negative rating the lowest among ALL CANDIDATES by far and his positive just ahead of 2nd place candidate Romney.
McCain and Giuliani both got hammered good on their positive rating 11% and 13% with Giuliani registering 5% more negatives than before the debates.
Romney seems to have helped himself improving both his positive and negative rating but these numbers indicate a coming out party for Ron Paul.
The Drudge Report had the Reagan Derby Poll that showed Congressman Paul came in 3rd place behind Romney and Giuliani after the debate. The gap between Giuliani and Paul in this vote was 2 percent (out of 102,805 votes)!
His message, and his voting record in Congress, appeal to the strict originalist that the conservative base looks for in Supreme Court nominees. Which begs this question: Why shouldn't our expectation of all branches of government be fidelity to the Constitution, especially from the Republican Party? Why isn't there more campaigning for strict constructionist Presidents and Congressman?
Take a look at some of the reaction from other conservative blogs on Ron Paul at the debate:
Ron Paul: Someone needs to be a friend to this man and tell him to go home now. Heading Right
Ron Paul also showed that he should depart the race as quickly as possible. He gave one-note answers about federalism and the original intent of the founders for every question asked of him. Captains Quarters
Ron Paul… sigh, yes, thank you for telling us how a libertarian idealist would do it. National Review Online
Based on those reactions, mainstream conservative blogs weren't too impressed by the Congressman from Texas. To which I would say, "If its good enough for the Supreme Court, it should be good enough for the President!" (I give permission for the Paul campaign to use that as a blurb)
Ford Models has a youtube channel that has clips of models doing various things. Anyway, I found three that have a model doing yoga. She's cute in a goofy, nerdy, sort of way. But you can see she's very flexible. Also, as someone who is also a model and into yoga, I can tell you that the handstands are tough. Good job!
So, aside from the mental and physical benefits that yoga can deliver what else can yoga do? Why fight off two highly trained kung fu masters of course:
The questions that were asked of the candidates for the most part were dumb. Especially the ones that were read from the website politico.com
Chris Matthews was the worst choice possible as moderator. Keith Olbermann doing the post debate show? Ridiculous. Lucianne.com had quoteworthy commentary:
The democratic candidates wouldn't go on Fox because they said Brit Hume is biased. But, they have no problem whatsoever with letting Chris Matthews host the republican candidates who had the decency to appear on MSNBC.
Here was one of the last questions that Matthews asked last night at the Republican debate: “Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?” No bias at all. At the next debate, the moderator should ask the candidates "Would it be good for America to have Carter back living in the White House?"
Mitt Romney came across as very presidential, but he reminded me a little too much of George Hamilton: a little too polished and too slick.
Ron Paul is the dark horse candidate, a lot of his positions do not hold sway with the social conservatives of the Republican party, however, his stances appeal to the activist/internet generation. Which skews, I believe a lot more libertarian anyways. The war in Iraq would be the achilles heel for obtaining the nomination for Dr. Paul in the sense that most of the Republican party is wedded to staying in Iraq for as long as it takes. Dr. Paul's position on leaving immediately could be labeled as "cut and run" by his opponents.
No questions on nominating justices to the Supreme Court? If there were any comments about it I missed it.
"Glengarry Glenn Ross" with Alec Baldwin in the only non crappy role he has ever had. Now that I think about it he's pretty good on "30 Rock":
Michael Douglas in "Wall Street": "Greed is good" was the catch phrase written by hippie/director Oliver Stone that was turned into the rallying cry of the Reaganites of the 80's.
R Lee Ermey in "Full Metal Jacket": Gunnery Sergeant Ermey (he is a real life Marine) tells stories of people even today who have come up to him and tell him it would be an honor if he would choke them.
I started watching Veronica Mars when I found them filming in downtown San Diego (I thought they were going to start filming "Renegade" again) and let's be honest, she's totally my type. Witty, smart, well-written, sort of like Buffy meets Nancy Drew meets JB Fletcher. Check out the big brain on her.
His latest column links the VT shooter to the influx of immigrants to the United States:
What happened in Blacksburg cannot be divorced from what's been happening to America since the immigration act brought tens of millions of strangers to these shores, even as the old bonds of national community began to disintegrate and dissolve in the social revolutions of the 1960s...Before 1970, we were a people, a community, a country. Students would have said aloud of Cho: "Who is this guy? What's the matter with him?" .
See, this is where he loses me, when he makes his point about the inherent flaw of having a "gun free zone" I'm with him. But what Pat fails to note is that one of his instructors demanded that Cho be removed from the class she taught because of the red flags he was waving (the violent imagery in his writings, for example). It's not even mentioned. Also, Cho had a record of sending threatening and harassing emails to women. So yes, the people around him were wondering what was wrong with him. No one who could do anything about it did anything about it. That was the problem.
