February 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

-Ronald Reagan

December 27, 2006

What Privacy Concerns?

But hey, if you haven't done anything wrong, then what do you have to be afraid of?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 19, 2006

Fantasy Congress

What do you think about this? I will set up a league if we get enough interest.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

December 17, 2006

Turkey, the Kurds, and the E.U.

So I was reading the Economist last night, and two articles in particular caught my attention. They describe the likely coming military conflict between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan - a situation the U.S.A. does not want to see turning more violent. It turns out that my fellow Inactivist Alex wrote about those same two Economist articles yesterday. He summed up the situation thus:

A group of Kurdish militants/terrorists/freedom fighters/(insert preferred term here) called the PKK (Kurdish abbreviation for Kurdistan Workers' Party) is fighting the Turks but hiding in Iraq. The Iraqi Kurds have, at times, helped the Turks crack down on the PKK. Lately, however, the Iraqi Kurds have decided not to fight the PKK. The attacks continue, and Turkey now talks of invading northern Iraq to go after PKK strongholds.

So how can we encourage Turkey not to invade Iraq to strike the PKK strongholds? It's hard to argue that they shouldn't do it - though Inactivist regular Sam Franklin tries, in the comment section. (I couldn't resist poking him.) What we can argue is that there might be something Turkey wants more than it wants to invade Iraqi Kurdistan - especially if we can influence Iraqi Kurdistan to stop incursions into Turkey in the first place. In fact, I feel that the best answer to the situation is as clear as adding two and two - except that it doesn't hinge on the U.S.A. It hinges on the E.U.

As I said at Inactivist:

If only there were something Turkey really wanted, that might be used as leverage in negotiations. Something even Turkey's historical enemies might support. Something that would actually benefit the West in the perceived global culture war - secularism and materialism over religious and ethnic considerations.

The problem, of course, is that the E.U. doesn't seem to particularly want to admit Turkey. From the Economist article I linked above:

This week things went much as expected. The European Commission proposed suspending part of Turkey's membership talks, to punish it for failing to open its ports and airports to Cyprus... Yet the mood has turned unusually bad. The Turks are angry, the Europeans unbending, and it is hard to see how the talks can ever be unfrozen. For the row is not really over Cyprus but over growing doubts about whether Europe really wants Turkey to join the club.

Why wouldn't the E.U. want Turkey? People point to a lot of reasons, including poverty and a record of human rights abuses. But it seems like an obvious strategic move to admit Turkey anyway. Again from the Economist:

Its strategic significance is obvious. It abuts Iraq, Syria, Iran and the Caucasus; it has a big army (the second-biggest in NATO); in an era of energy insecurity its network of oil and gas pipelines is increasingly important. Above all, it is a rare example of a mainly Muslim country with a thriving, secular democracy and a liberal, free-market economy. The West's failure to promote liberal democracy in the Middle East makes it all the more pressing to support the only democratic Muslim country in the neighbourhood.

So what's the problem? I don't want to believe that it is as simple as some suggest - ethnic prejudice, or perhaps religious. Could it really be that Europe (much like America) seems to be comfortable with secularism only when it is Christian secularism? I'd like to think not, but couldn't it come across that way to 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide who have a lot of input on how peaceful our future will be? When people add two and two, the U.S.A. does have some influence on the math. The Turks will be adding two of what, and two of what?

Unfortunately, noting that smart moves on the part of the E.U. can keep this situation from blowing up is a far cry from expecting it.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 15, 2006

First Amendment Primer

Sigh. Stop the ACLU is a sometimes interesting site, with sometimes interesting commentary. But other times they represent everything that is wrong about the right wing. Today's example:

CAIR has been successful in silencing the free speech of a fellow blogger and friend of ours.

A free speech issue? Really? Well, there ought to be a law or something to protect free speech, in my opinion. It could say something like

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Need I highlight the first word in some way for the slower part of the population?

(The blogger in question is Vilmar of Right Wing Howler. I am unfamiliar with his writing, but if I were to judge a blog by its title, I'd say he's about as useless as Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. It's not that fine a line between satire and vile hateful stupidity, boys.)

As commenter Jeff Molby noted on the Stop the ACLU article (on December 15th, 2006 @ 4:12 pm):

This isn’t a free speech issue. When he began transacting business with his service providers, he agreed to give them an editorial veto. After receiving a complaint, they are exercising it.

He’s still free to spread his message. I’m sure he can find a more lenient service provider if he feels that his message needs to remain intact.

Exactly. In their knee-jerk response to what they view as an injustice, the right wing blogs I've seen weighing in on the issue seem to have forgotten that first word of the First Amendment. Isn't it supposed to be the left who disagrees with libertarians on issues of private property and the sanctity of legal contracts? I always find these turnabouts entertaining - until I recall how hypocritical and therefore ugly they are.

Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy says she can’t believe this BULLSHIT! She may have a legitimate complaint about how little CAIR Tampa Executive Director Ahmed Bedier has done to fight violence and terrorism by Muslims - I don't know, so for argument's sake I'll grant it to her. But that doesn't change the fact that Bedier was able to point to Vilmar violating Hostgator's terms of service. Getting angry with Bedier and CAIR over Vilmar's reckless comments just doesn't hold water with me. Whose web hosting company is it? Were the terms of service violated? If you're trying to get me riled up about free speech, these are the only two questions that matter to me.

Now, when John Stephenson emailed a list of bloggers (myself included), he wrote:

CAIR has successfully shut down a friend's blog, Vilmar of Rightwing Howler. I'd provide a link, but it would only go to a suspended account. They claimed he was a hate site and quote he advocates the murder of Muslim children. Where did they get this idea? Well, he quoted some Satire from the well known satire site IMAO. I've gathered up quite some angry reactions to this. Most agree that CAIR should put their focus in shutting down all of the jihadi hate sites if they really want to make a difference. People are outraged and urging others to contact his server and ask them why they are afraid of CAIR. Please share with your readers.

Here I have no argument. If Vilmar wants to argue that satire doesn't violate the terms of service, he need only contact Hostgator and explain this to them. Go ahead, get a lawyer, Vilmar. But there is nothing wrong with CAIR asking Hostgator to review the site and consider the terms of service. Not a thing. It's simply not a free speech issue.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Headline of the Day

Park rangers in India's Assam state have issued a shoot-on-sight order on... Osama Bin Laden!

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 14, 2006

Best Headline of the Day

World's tallest man saves dolphin.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 8, 2006

Enough

Regarding the Weblog Awards, I would like to say for the record that I hate them. I would prefer it if I could say that I don’t give a shit about them, but against my will, I actually hate them.

Those who know me will certainly recognize that it is certainly not a matter of sour grapes or anything like that. I don’t write for the folks at weblogawards.org and I really don’t care if they like this site or what I have to say on it. I get no income from this site, and people who don’t like the content (or the color or whatever) can kiss my ass. I write for my own pleasure, and for the pleasure of a few friends who are known to read the site with disturbing irregularity. I suppose I get almost nothing out of authorship except that I have met some very nice people and I get a lot more compliments on my writing than I did back when I never authored anything. There is no expectation of accolades, I assure you.

Besides, this blog gets relatively little repeat traffic and even fewer comments – it’s not exactly Weblog Award material. I don’t need a lack of nomination to make me aware of that. It’s just that the Weblog Awards remind me of the Academy Awards – a bunch of back thumping by people who really like to thump backs and have their backs thumped. Ain’t we grand? It’s just unattractive.

Look, no offense is meant to those of you who have been nominated. But please shut up about it. I am sincerely glad if you in any way get any kind of satisfaction from the recognition. For some of you, it’s much deserved. Just like there is, occasionally, an Oscar handed out to some screenwriter or actor who actually needs a bit of recognition. But I won’t vote for you. Why should I? I get nothing out of it. And I am tired of you bothering me about it. I don’t need some daily reminder to go vote for you. Just put up a banner and shut up – get back to writing the type of stuff that got you nominated, instead of tooting your own horn.

Please!

Posted by Wulf | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

December 5, 2006

"We're trying to protect those people."

The Bethie Bee notes that the new Fairfax County, VA ban on feeding homeless people from one's own kitchen is "Further proof that government is way out of control". I share it with you for three reasons.

1) You should be aware of this story.
2) I dig the Bethie Bee.
3) To note that while most people are aware that the government is way out of control, they seem to focus on our leviathan of a federal government. But the state, county, and local governments can be real bastards, too. That must always be on the minds of libertarians.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

December 3, 2006

Libertarian or Evangelical direction for GOP?

The two major political parties in the United States are, of course, coalitions of voting blocs who work together to advance common goals, but who are at odds on other issues. We are stuck with this reality so long as third parties are kept out of contention.

In light of this, what pundits often refer to as “infighting” is probably better viewed as just “fighting”, since the various factions in these two parties are of such divergent interests, and not really of the same family. In fact, it can be hard to tell whether changes in party identity are due to calculated steering of the party or strategic moves by interests who jump parties en masse. The recent discussion by libertarian voters about voting Democrat in order to put the brakes on the Republican government is an excellent example. Will the GOP turn more libertarian in order to woo these voters back? Or will it turn less libertarian now that we have left the table? Note that the Libertarian Party is completely insignificant to this discussion, sadly.

Bart Mongoven wrote a piece this past week at Stratfor (subscription required) that asserts that

the overlap between the libertarian Republican point of view and that of religious conservatives has dissolved during the past decade of Republican control of government. For secular libertarians, a small government was the central objective; for the religious conservatives, small government was an element of a strategy to reduce the power -- or at least slow the growth -- of institutions purveying secular values. The growth of government over the past 10 years has suggested to evangelicals that the strategy does not work. The Faith-Based Initiative, for instance, is seen as a small move in a positive direction, but one that also has done nothing to displace secular federal government activity.

Is there any chance that libertarians and evangelicals are both jumping ship in order to express dissatisfaction with each other? Does that leave the ship a bit empty and rudderless? What would that mean for the GOP? Mongoven believes that the party will follow the evangelicals, as they provide more of a geographic base of support – but that evangelicals will have to come more to the middle for that to work. But I don’t know how easy it will be to pull that off before the ’08 elections.

The sense among the evangelical grassroots is that the Republican Party has used them, but only paid lip service to their goals, aspirations and values.

Amen, brother.

Regarding the importance of geography to the evangelical-Republican bond, consider this news article:

”If you look at several states in the Southeast where the evangelical base came out in undiminished numbers, it held for Republicans. When you move to the heartland, there was some peel away. ... The question is why?”

[Author Mark Pinsky] noted that Republican candidates in Florida "who ran to the center" did better than those who ran "hard right." He cited Gov.-elect Charlie Christ, who is pro-life and anti-gay marriage, but who supports civil unions. As attorney general, Christ opposed intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.

"He didn't back away during the primary," Pinsky said. "He must have sensed there was fissure among white evangelicals."

"I think evangelicals are feeling pretty homeless right now," said Janice Shaw Krouse, director and senior fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, a think tank affiliated with Concerned Women for America. "They're increasingly uncomfortable with a party that didn't really make their issues top priority. In 2004, 74 percent of evangelicals voted Republican. In 2006, it was 69 percent. That's a huge difference, politically."

The biggest problem with libertarians may very well be that we are too disorganized to be highlighted in a news article. I have no idea what percentage of libertarians voted Republican in 2004 or 2006. I consider this yet more evidence that the GOP will have a better chance of winning back evangelicals than libertarians. And frankly, that is probably good news for Democrats - and bad news for libertarians of all persuasions.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)