On First Amendment issues, Craig has always taken a wide stance.

Posted by: Ace at 10:06 AM | Comments (10)
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Morons have linked this. Mild content warning.

Posted by: Ace at 10:04 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

Rasmussen just published the results of a poll taken yesterday of likely primary voters in South Carolina. And while I normally wouldn't root for John McCain, I will if he pushes Mike Huckabee out of the top spot!

Arizona Senator John McCain, fresh from his victory in New Hampshire, has taken a narrow three-point lead over former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in the South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows McCain at 27% and Huckabee at 24%.

ThatÂ’s a significant change since last Sunday. Just before the New Hampshire vote, Huckabee was leading McCain 28% to 21%. In mid-December, Huckabee and Romney were tied for the lead with 23% of the vote while McCain was well off the pace at 12%.

As I wrote last week, it turns out that McCain really isn't the worst candidate that we could nominate. In November I never would have believed it.

Mitt Romney, who I've come to like more and more over the past month, is still in third at 16%. That's unchanged since before New Hampshire. Fred Thompson is in fourth at 12%, but take heart, Fredheads. Your guy has the most solid support.

The Republican South Carolina primary is just nine days away.

UPDATE: Even better numbers are now available from the latest Fox News/ Opinion Dynamics poll (PDF). It's McCain 25% to Huckabee's 18%. Romney is only a point behind. The margin of error is plus or minus 4%.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:06 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

A new baby polar bear cub, separated from momma after momma another momma polar bear decided to, uh, eat hers. (a commenter points out I got that wrong).

I don't know much about polar bears or zoos, but I'm pretty sure once mom decides to start eating them it's a good idea for some time out. yes, yes, I'm a moron. It's more like watching overzealous Polar Bear Protective Services assert their authority with impugnity.

The yet to be named four week old cub is being raised by polarbear zoo cub raisers who think she might one day make a good mate for Knut, who is now a year old and too big to play with anymore. Attendance at the Nuremberg zoo was up over 20% last year, zoo officials largely attributing it to the popularity of the baby polar bear.

I know. At least it's not a cat.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 09:04 AM | Comments (38)
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

I am sure you all remember this Lancet study of Iraqi dead that was released, absolutely 100% coincidentally, right before the 2006 mid term elections.

Well it appears that this completely objective and non-biased survey was likely off by at least a factor of three.

The researchers estimate that the number of violent deaths in Iraq between the US-led invasion of March 2003 and the end of June 2006 to be between 104,000 and 223,000.

This loss of life is described as "massive", but is well below the figure of 600,000 violent deaths claimed by a team of Iraqi and US scientists in autumn 2006

In light of this, Lancet has issued an apology to the American people for totally unwittingly assisting Nancy Pelosi to the Speaker's chair.

Posted by: Open Blog at 08:55 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

I've caught some flack in the past for making the observation that Reason Magazine and the CATO Institute are full of douchebags who exist primarily to promote a limited government philosophy that essentially boils down to their need to be perceived as "hipper than thou". "Thou", of course, refers to everyone on the right who doesn't believe that our national motto should be "Coolness and Cannibis Uber Alles".

Why do I sneer at them so derisively? Because in the Reason universe (in which everything would be perfect if you could legally smoke marijuana bought with gold-backed currency from a Columbian drug lord who travelled to your neighborhood through non-existant borders) politics isn't about substance. It is all about style.

And the politics of style is a politics bereft of core values, as style is constantly shifting. It is also a politics which lacks all seriousness of thought. Which, in part, explains how despite the anti-semitic, racist, conspiratorial messages promoted in Ron Paul's newsletters, his cult followers can still hold on. The seriousness of the allegations against Paul can thus be dismissed because political seriousness isn't as important as the signal that you are sending to your peers. It's cool to be anti-establishment, after all, and nobody is more anti-establishment than Ron Paul.

Of course he has to be. He thinks the establishment is chemically tagging his money to follow his every move.

But you don't have to take my word for Reason's/CATO's inner douchiness. Thanks to commenter "someone", I have been handed a perfect example of this "hipper than thou" attitude in action, courtesy of the Washington Post.

It should be required reading for any "conservative" who is tempted to respond to the siren song of "libertarianism" as espoused by these losers.

So, let's delve into Reason's inner douchiness, shall we?

Four minutes into Reason magazine's monthly bash at the Big Hunt lounge, and every Libertarian-as-Bacchus fantasy you've entertained plays out before your widening eyes.

Nick Gillespie, the leather-jacketed, Mama-said-you're-dangerous editor of the political rag peers at you intently. "What do you need?" he asks. "Do you need a drink? A cigarette?"

In the history of the universe, there is only one non-douche who was ever able to pull of the leather jacket thing. His name? Arthur Fonzarelli.

A stranger reaches out to knead your shoulders. Maybe what you need is a relaxing back rub.

My, is that cloying smell in the stairwell . . . marijuana?

Marijuana? At a libertarian party? I'm shocked! Why one would get the impression that their entire political philosophy was solely about getting high! Oh, wait...

"D.C. is a city of young fogies who think the only way to be pious is to wear ill-fitting suits" and obsess over politics, Gillespie, 44, says later. "We're the only people that want to have fun."

The Politics of Fun? Really? I just don't see how that could possibly go wrong as a foundational political principle. By the way, Nick. You're 44. Most people grow out of the "politics of fun" by their teens. I'm jus sayin'...

But you know, maybe I'm being too quick to judge. Maybe these small government types at least have a few nice things to say about small government champion Ronald Reagan, the man who united conservatives across the spectrum.

"It's clear we don't come from a political background," says Gillespie, referring to himself and Welch. "I started out in rock and teen magazines. We're not about [self-pleasuring] to Ronald Reagan." Oh, behave.

Whoops. Guess I spoke to soon. It is nice to know that Reason is led by a man whose formative experiences were gathered at rock and teen magazines. Lief Garrett for President! He's dreamy.

Once a month, culture comes in the form of magazine release parties at assorted Dupont dives and wafts of conversation like "This can't be good for my liver" and "Jeremy has passed out in his own vomit."

Jeremy, several people make sure to tell you, is not a Reason employee.

Does he work for the Cato Institute? Cato refugees have been known to show up at Reason parties, which are announced on the magazine's blog and thus open to anyone who reads it.

Stay Classy, Reason. You too, Cato.

But at the end of the day, despite their faults, aren't they all about adding to the political discussion in DC?

But Reason's goal in Washington is not to agree with everyone, says Welch, but rather this: "We want to add a new bacteria to the culture."

Ahhh. That's a pretty good analogy. Apparently the bacteria they want to add to the culture is a philosophy based on pot-smoking, gold-bugging, conspiracy-theorizing, neo-nazi money accepting, jew-hating, race bating, blimp-flying, militia-joining, confederate-sympathizing, terrorist apologizing, Hannity-accosting, truthers.

In the Reason world, I suppose that's the yeast that leavens the bread.

Now, I didn't excerpt everything. The article contains additional juicy examples of Reason's promotion of this "hipper than thou" meme. Really, read it.

And for those of who who think I'm being unduly harsh, "someone" points out another interesting fact.

I'm not the only one bemoaning Reason's utter lack of seriousness. You know who else is?

Virginia Postrel, the one time editor of Reason (1989-2000) who sees things much like I do.

In her words:

I do fault my friends at Reason, who are much cooler than I'll ever be and who, scornful of the earnestness that takes politics seriously, apparently didn't do their homework before embracing Paul as the latest indicator of libertarian cachet.

The dangers of style over substance, folks. The politics of fun, or of being "hipper than thou", is a one way street to the type of moral bankruptcy associated with the political left.

Is that really the road you want to travel on?

Posted by: Jack M. at 08:43 AM | Comments (95)
Post contains 968 words, total size 6 kb.

I never get tired of that joke.

Airstrikes in "safe havens" south of Baghdad, "safe" having been recently redefined by two B-1 bombers and four F-16s as "a safe place to die".

A military statement said two B-1 bombers and four F-16 fighters dropped the bombs on 40 targets in Arab Jabour in 10 strikes. Al-Qaida fighters are believed to control Arab Jabour, a Sunni district lined with citrus groves and scarred by daily violence.

“Thirty-eight bombs were dropped within the first 10 minutes, with a total tonnage of 40,000 pounds,” the statement said.

via James, who asks if there's a dental plan for tipsters. Yes! A quart of Valu-Rite vodka, a bullet, and whatever else you can find in the medicine cabinet.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 08:32 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

The Michigan primary has been called a must-win state for Mitt Romney, and a win there would increase the momentum of John McCain or Mike Huckabee. The candidates know this, so they are focusing a good deal of time and money into the state.

Unfortunately, the Democrats know it as well.

[State Rep. LaMar ] Lemmons told reporters Tuesday that the push for Republican Huckabee was prompted by the dearth of choices on the Democratic side of the Jan. 15 primary ballot. Lemmons said he himself supports Barack Obama, who chose not to run in Michigan. But Lemmons likes his tormenting and wants to turn out Democratic votes for Huckabee because, as he told the Detroit Free Press, “"the Republican establishment supports [Mitt] Romney and McCain.”

People choose to affiliate themselves with a political party because they agree with that party's principles and desire to have a say in who is chosen to represent that party in elections. So why do political parties allow those who may not have the party's best interests in mind to participate in the choosing of candidates? Sure, the parties should be attracting independent voters to their side, but here's an idea: if an independent voter is attracted enough to a candidate in one of the parties, how about that voter get off his or her duff and register in one of the parties for that particular election?

It's not that hard, and it's not binding. Sure, it might take awhile for that voter to wash those icky Republican or Democrat cooties off, but making party affiliation a requirement would put a minimal roadblock in the way of those who vote in opposing primaries only to screw with the outcome.

Posted by: Slublog at 06:48 AM | Comments (215)
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

Uber-feminist Germain Greer took Hillary Clinton to task in yesterday's Guardian for crying in public. Greer is a particularly base individual, and not one I would normally read or cheer, but her ridicule of Clinton is particularly amusing, for example when she infers that Clinton is a "sea-creature" as quoted above. She also writes:

Fear and loathing fled New Hampshire, Hillary scored against the run of play, and all it took was the suspicion of a tear. Or so they say. Can the moral of the story be: when you're up against it, don't fight back, just cry? As if too many women don't already use tears as a power-tool. Over the years I've had to deal with more than one manipulative student who produced tears instead of work; my standard response was to say, "Don't you dare cry. I'm the one who should be crying. It's my time and effort that's being wasted." Let's hope Hillary's crocodile effort doesn't encourage more women to use tears to get their way.

One important formative moment for my generation was President Clinton's demonstration that oral sex is not sex. Lets just say that the first Clinton presidency had a lasting impact on our impressionable young minds and taught us all sorts of...helpful things. Will a second Clinton presidency go on to teach a new group of kids that a little public crying is the route to success?

Greer goes on to lament the fact that Brits are weepy these days and she's not even British. Her rant is heartless and cold and itself a little undignified. I love it.
more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:02 AM | Comments (23)
Post contains 835 words, total size 5 kb.

Stolen from the Jawa scavengers off a tip from Junkyard Blog.

I really don't get it. I liked George W. Bush quite a bit when I voted for him in 2000 and 2004. I did. Seriously.

I know people hold Ronald Reagan in rather high esteem.

But I have never in my life witnessed the sort of zealotry that attaches some to Ron Paul.

Can anyone explain this to me? Why have so many otherwise sane-seeming people gone completely bugfuck crazy over this flake?

I wasn't just tossing a cheap joke into the last post. Seriously, honestly: Let us put aside indelicate questions about Ron Paul's possible anti-semitism, racism, etc. Just let's leave that be for a moment.

Can Ron Paul's defenders please justify voting for a man who appears, based on the evidence, to be mentally unstable and haunted by a livable and low-grade, but quite real, case of paranoid schizophrenia?

If Art Bell told you he really had some great ideas about cutting the federal bureaucracy and returning to "constitutional governance," would you guys all flock to him, too?

I don't know about you all, but "not google-eyed batshit crazy" is one of my higher-priority qualifications for a president. Yes, I realize it's not actually explicitly listed as a qualification in the Constitution, but I'm comfortable unconstitutionally imposing this test on a would-be leader nevertheless.

Blimps and Nazis and maniacs and money that tracks you and a secret cabal of all-controlling international bankers. If this weren't all too real, it might make for a neat pulp fiction story. Maybe Doc Savage and the Trilateralists of Terror.

Money that spies on you. Money. That spies on you.

I realize if someone is capable of caring for themselves, we don't usually call them insane. We call them "eccentric." But honestly, if you guys heard a homeless dude spouting this sort of over-the-moon blather would you say, "Oh yeah, Stinky Ted here makes some good points about fiat money and the fed's plan to track my every movement with their newfangled SpyBacks" or would you just avert your eyes and hope he doesn't eat somebody someday?

Why are such florid hallucinations suddenly sensible when they come from Ron -- ahem, Doctor -- Paul?

Is any of this humbuggery any less crazy than UFOs or Bigfoot or Atlantis? What's the limit here? What level of psychological, ahem, "quirks" are you willing to tolerate?

Posted by: Ace at 11:30 PM | Comments (87)
Post contains 409 words, total size 3 kb.