November 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
30

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

-Thomas Jefferson

September 28, 2008

Michael Ramirez sees it clearly

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

September 27, 2008

We yelled "Trick or Treat!" when we kicked down the door

Soooo... come Halloween night, does a kid dressed in a SWAT costume have to knock?

Or would that defeat the point of the costume?

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

September 25, 2008

Talking the talk

'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.' - Ronald Reagan

To the tune of $700 billion, baby.

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

September 24, 2008

Again leading from the rear

Thus Spake Al Gore:

If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration.

It is my fervent hope that within the month we will see the former Vice President and a few dozen young persons chained to construction equipment outside Pittsburgh, chanting pro-nuclear slogans and eating soy granola.

I mean, that would be seriously fantastic.

Of course, it was just over a year ago that Mr. Gore said “I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers, and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants.”

While the spectres of Rachel Corrie and Daniel McGowan loom behind Mr. Gore, I can't help but wonder why he keeps putting the onus on young people to chain themselves to the construction equipment. Surely he's not afraid to get his hands dirty in order to save the planet? It's time to lead by example, Mr. Gore--and stop placing excessive burdens on future generations. Rather than asking the youth to risk jail or physical harm, wouldn't it be more responsible to encourage them to go see the last of the polar bears, or the few remaining glaciers? Before they're gone?

Let those few baby boomers who have a conscience bear the consequences of sacrifice. After all, this is a cause worth sacrificing for, isn't it Mr. Gore?

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

September 16, 2008

The abortion non-issue

This article in the Economist got me thinking…

The Palin appointment is yet more proof of the way that abortion still distorts American politics. This is as true on the left as on the right. But the Republicans seem to have gone furthest in subordinating considerations of competence and merit to pro-life purity. One of the biggest problems with the Bush administration is that it appointed so many incompetents because they were sound on Roe v Wade. Mrs Palin’s elevation suggests that, far from breaking with Mr Bush, Mr McCain is repeating his mistakes.

Well, it is true that abortion is a very dangerous topic in American politics. Neither major party likes to tolerate dissent on the issue—at least, from spotlight personalities like the presidential nominee. We won’t see a pro-choice Republican ticket any more than we will see a pro-life Democratic ticket.

But what I currently find alarming is the perception on the Left that we are on the brink of overturning Roe v Wade and sending young women to bleed to death in back alleys across America. That’s simply not the case, and the dire anti-abortion warnings about the McCain-Palin ticket are either misplaced or disingenuous.

The Left warned us that a Bush administration would overturn Roe v Wade, and despite appointing two conservative Justices to the Supreme Court, that hasn’t happened and doesn’t appear imminent. Consider also that the Democrats will keep and in fact increase their majority in the Senate this November. You know, the Senate. The body that confirms the president’s appointees with their “consent and advice”... or doesn't?

Who on Earth could John McCain appoint to slay Roe v Wade over a Democratic majority? Who could Sarah Palin ever manage to push through a Democratic Senate, in the event both McCain and Ginsberg (or Breyer or Souter) were forced to leave office?

I don’t believe a majority of people want that decision overturned anyway, and I think Republican politicians realize how it would damage them if they were to pursue Roe v Wade round Good Hope, round the Horn, and round the Norway maelstrom.

And even if they did, that wouldn’t actually ban abortions anyway. It would make the procedure subject to state laws… which would leave abortion legal in 43 states (discussed previously).

Keep in mind how liberal we as a society have become over the past few generations. Forty years ago the nation still struggled with race-based marriage restrictions; today we openly debate gay marriage. No, we will probably never see abortion outlawed in this nation. We don’t want it to be. Despite all of the mystique and emotion surrounding the issue, it actually ranks low on the list of issues weighing on the minds of voters. It falls behind the economy, the war in Iraq, terrorism, health care, energy, corruption, education, and taxes.

At this point, most Republicans do not consider Roe v Wade to be much of a litmus test. It’s okay for Republicans to be wishy-washy on this issue, or even to be openly pro-choice (see Christine Todd Whitman, Rudy Guliani, and Arlen Specter).

In other words, Democrats are only able to make it a rally flag by fear-mongering. The Left’s attacks on John McCain and Sarah Palin are to be expected, and on some topics they are certainly justified, but on the issue of Roe v Wade it comes across as a desperate attempt to scare undecided women voters into voting Democrat. We should have the audacity to hope for better than that.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

A new kind of surge

So by now everybody is aware that last week a SEAL team crossed the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to conduct a raid against Islamic militants, and that Pakistani officials are really angry about this.

What I am not hearing much about (and I would like to make note of) is this:

President Bush has approved a plan that has brought a "surge" of CIA personnel from around the world into the fight along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border,

The LA Times story makes reference to an NPR story that I've had sitting on my desktop for the last week, waiting for me to figure out what I want to say about it. But what is there to say?
- 'Of course we've had some good idea where Osama bin Laden is, but for political reasons we've refrained from killing him'?
- 'Blatently violating Pakistan's sovereignty was a bad idea when Obama said it a year ago, and it was bad when Bush authorized it last week'?
- 'These theatrics won't sway independent voters to support McCain'?
- Or like the source quoted in the NPR story, 'Why wasn't this done a year ago?'

Yeah, any of those would do for now.

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

Congrats Cap'n!

Our good friend Captain Capitalism over at his blogsite just published a fancy schmancy new book. I suggest checking it out.

Good luck with the book Captain!

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

September 9, 2008

Game over, man!

According to a poll conducted by the BBC, everybody outside the USA would prefer Barack Obama to be US president instead of John McCain.

By a 4-to-1 margin.

So, I guess that settles that.

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