And now for something completely different

Okay, it's not completely different. Rather, it's a topic that I almost never bring up here on the blog. Megan McArdle has a series of posts on vouchers, all of which you should read. I'll excerpt from a couple. Number 1:

Forgive me--I'm about to get testy again--but this thread on 11D really does seem to me to showcase in stunning technocolor the moral bankruptcy of voucher opponents who have pulled their own kids out of failing inner city schools. They have no good answer for why their choice is morally worthy, but vouchers are horrifying; their response to the deep need of kids in failing schools is a slightly gussied up version of "screw you, I've got mine." Their children's future, you see, is an infinitely precious resource that trumps their principles of distributional justice and community solidarity, but they cannot imagine putting the futures of poorer, darker skinned children ahead of sacred principles such as "Thou shalt not allow children to attend schools run by the Catholic Church" and "Supporting the public schools (even when they suck)". I could do a better job arguing against school vouchers.

Number 2:

How many educated people who:

a) Oppose vouchers
b) Have children who do not attend inner city public schools

would still oppose vouchers if they were the only way to get their child out of an inner city public school? How many of them would accept that their child had to be left in that school because the systemic effects of allowing their child to exit that repulsive school would be dreadful?

Respectfully, I believe the answer is "null set".

And the money quote here in number 3:

Empirically, I may be wrong; vouchers may not work. But we know that the current system isn't working. And poor kids should not bear the burden of making affluent liberals feel better about themselves.

I believe that OUCH is the word you're looking for.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 10:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

A possible future

By Doug Ross@Journal.

These are the politicians that stopped international terrorist wiretaps in a play for political power.

Don't worry: they'll blame Bush. Heck, I always do.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 12:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Quote of the day

And it comes from Stephen Green:

It only took six years of constant, strong growth, record-low unemployment, low interest rates, several years of a housing boom, and new stock market records... for the MSM to finally convince almost half the population that we're in a recession.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 12:34 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

Some common sense

Lots of people talk past their political opponents with regards to the current US troops still in Iraq. Gerard reposts an excerpt from his 2004 pre-election column and adds some more insightful comments. While it's entirely possible for reasonable to read Gerard's analysis and remain unconvinced, he does present a compelling argument for his case. Excerpt:

Given these five reasons derived from the facts on the ground in late 2004, it would be suicidal for the United States to withdraw militarily from Iraq for at least ten years and probably 20. The level of forces needed to maintain control can fluctuate as the situation dictates, but the presence of significant forces is a necessity.

This is not to say that the United States will not withdraw, but only to underscore the price of such foolishness. The United States has, through bad politics, misdirection and clouded thinking, made monstrous errors of judgment in the past and is certainly capable of doing so in the future. It is only to say that should we, through a posturing for mere political power at home, cede military control of Iraq and hence the Middle East before the matter of Islamic fundamentalism is settled, and the Islamic cultures fully assimilated into the 21st century, departure early would only require our subsequent return. And that return will be far more bloody and necessary than anything seen to date in what is still a brush-fire war.

I'm certain that John Cole will posit that this post is more proof that the center/right side of the blogosphere has gotten dumber since he left it.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 11:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

The rich get richer

Colleges and university endowments, that is. Gregg Easterbrook, in TMQ this week, makes one of his usual detours into a non-sports topic and, as usual, makes a pretty good analysis. Excerpt:

At Least Harvard Hasn't Demanded a Seat on the G-8 -- Yet: According to last week's Wall Street Journal, Harvard's endowment is up to $34.9 billion and Yale's has risen to $22.5 billion. To put those numbers into perspective, the Harvard endowment now exceeds the gross domestic product of Sri Lanka or Kenya and the Yale endowment exceeds the GDP of Costa Rica or Iceland.

It's wonderful that such great institutions of higher learning are funded so well, with assets that seem to assure their continued existence for centuries. But as Tuesday Morning Quarterback asked last year when Harvard's endowment hit a mere $29 billion, why does anyone pay anything at all to attend this school?

Conservatively managed investments using low-risk strategies yield 5 to 7 percent per year; federal law requires many types of philanthropies to disburse a minimum of 5 percent per year or lose their tax-exempt status. At 5 percent, the Harvard endowment would throw off $1.7 billion annually. That's $104,000 for each of the 16,715 undergrads and graduate students currently attending the university. Yet according to College Board figures, the average undergrad who lives on campus at Harvard this year will pay $37,900, that being the official price minus average financial aid award. Can Harvard seriously expect us to believe it is spending $144,000 per year per undergraduate? (That's the actual payments from students plus 5 percent of the endowment.) Shifting Harvard's endowment spending from empire-building to reducing tuition -- either lower prices for everyone, or, say, eliminating all costs for students from families that make $200,000 or less -- would be a tremendous progressive step without jeopardizing Harvard's legitimate desire to hold a rich endowment into the indefinite future.

Instead, Harvard just keeps charging an arm and a leg and the endowment keeps empire-building. One result of the extremely high cost of private colleges is that many graduates feel they must go into high-paying professions to justify what was just spent. If Harvard were free for students whose families aren't rich, or cost much less for all students, perhaps graduates would be more likely to become public-school teachers or Peace Corps volunteers or work for the U.S. Public Health Service or in legal-aid settings. Rather than use its colossal financial assets to educate a generation of smart people willing to serve society in thanks for a great education at little cost, Harvard continues to soak parents, teach money obsession and set an example of hoarding.

Update: Uh uh. I bet that Mr. Easterbrook won't be invited to any TNR reunions anytime soon.

Exaggerating the Case Against Bush Only Lessens the Focus on His Real Faults: There's a lot to dislike about the George W. Bush administration -- the Iraq war, lack of action on petroleum waste, wiretapping -- but in the rush to make Bush seem as bad as possible, the establishment media consistently have distorted his domestic environmental record, which is basically fine. Air, water and toxic pollution have declined since Bush took office; all U.S. environmental indicators except greenhouse gas emissions have been positive for 20 to 30 years, which you'd never know from opening the morning newspaper.

A problem is that environmental journalists are genetically programmed to spin all stories as bad news while ignoring progress. A classic example is stories expressing horror and outrage that environmental prosecutions initiated by the EPA or filed by the Justice Department are declining, as they have been since the middle of the Clinton administration. But it's good that environmental prosecutions are declining -- the reason is that pollution is declining! As pollution declines, there are fewer violations to prosecute. If speeding declined, police would write fewer tickets: Would we be glad speeding was declining or express horror over the shocking, shocking reduction in prosecution of speeders?

There the canard was again as the Sunday lead-headline story of The Washington Post: "The Environmental Protection Agency's pursuit of criminal cases against polluters has dropped off sharply during the Bush administration, with the number of prosecutions, new investigations and total convictions all down by more than a third," the story began. Of course environmental prosecution is declining, there is less to prosecute every year! The Post's banner story ran 38 paragraphs but never mentioned that all forms of pollution except greenhouse gases are declining, and because greenhouse-gas emissions are legal, there's nothing to prosecute. Mention that pollution is in long-term decline, and Sunday's front-page banner story in The Washington Post goes "poof."

Honesty. It's something that The New Republic seems to have forgotten.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 794 words, total size 5 kb.

Something stupid this way comes

It doesn't bother me that wrinkled, bitter old Dan Rather filed suit against CBS. It doesn't bother me that he's going to prove ::ahem:: that the documents were, in fact, real. It doesn't even bother me that his partner in crime, Mary Mapes, is going to the mat for Danny boy. After all, her reputation is shit because of this too, so I expect her to stick her fingers in her ears while going LALALALALALA at the top of her lungs. What does disturb me are the bugfuck crazy commenters at the H.R. Puffington Stuff, who claim that -finally!!!- the truth will be revealed. Other than the fact that these loons are overdue for their meds, I mean.

I won't link to the Huff-and-puff-and-blow-your-house-down site, but Jim Treacher does, so go read his post. And especially follow the link to this story as well.

Update: From Slublog's comment in Allah's post comes this link to Jonah. Excerpt:

In 2004, at the height of the Dan Rather Memogate story, I wrote in National Review: “Across the media universe the questions pour out: Why is Dan Rather doing this to himself? Why does he drag this out? Why won’t he just come clean? Why would he let this happen in the first place? Why is CBS standing by him? Why ... why ... why?

“There is only one plausible answer: Ours is a just and decent God.”

Posted by: Physics Geek at 12:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm a state

No, not in a state. I'm actually a physical, got House member voting rights state.

Sound retarded? Well, it's no more retarded than this idea being considered by the Senate.

Let's call this what it is. It's not a measure of fairness; it's not something that's overdue or necessary; it is in fact an act designed to circumvent the Constitution, with the only goal in mind to create more Democratic votes in the federal legislature. Why beat around the bush? Just give the Democrat votes more weight than those of the GOP, say 1.01 for each donkey vote. Every 100 or so Dem votes would be worth 101.

Sure it's ridiculous, but it accomplishes what's desired and it's honest: it doesn't pretend to be legal or constituional.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 09:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

Reality: it's not what you think

Good article by Noemie Emery over at The Weekly Standard. It chronicles at some length the mental game of Twister that leftists have to play for their non-stop parade of anti-Bush assertions to make sense. Excerpt:

God sometimes seems to be toying with the Goracle, scheduling frigid weather and ice storms on the dates of his speeches about global warming, but his fans have an answer for that: all weather changes, if they are dire, come from global warming. Here are some other choice fancies that the Party of Reason believes:

* Global warning causes both hot and cold weather, just as elections are stolen when the Democrats lose them, but are stolen too when they win.

* A country in which dissent is a flourishing industry is on the brink of a great fascist crackdown, as you can tell by all the books written attacking the president, the plays put on that call him an idiot, and the movies that call for his death.

* When exit polls indicate a different result from the actual vote count, the polls are correct and the vote count is fraudulent, a fact covered up by journalists who are (a) Democrats by something close to a nine-to-one ratio; and (b) dying to uncover a huge government scandal, so that they too can be famous like Woodward and Bernstein, make millions of dollars, and be played in the movies by Hollywood stars.

* That the Presidents Bush, from Yale and a long line of Yankees, who made the careers of the first black secretaries of state ever named in this country, are secretly longing to bring back the South of 1859.

* And, that the Republican party, whose frontrunners are a once-divorced actor (just like Ronald Reagan), a Mormon from Massachusetts by way of Michigan, and a thrice-married Italian Catholic from the streets of Brooklyn, is a shrunken husk of a regional faction, punitive, narrow, and wholly obsessed with extreme social mores, relying on extralegal repression to perpetuate itself in power. To the more intense members of the reality faction, all of this makes perfect sense.

Ah, reason! How sweet it is, and to what lengths it can lead you, when you think that you have a monopoly on it. Political parties are coalitions of interests, fighting it out in a series of struggles, in which no side has a patent on wisdom and virtue, and no wins are ever complete. People who understand this maintain their own balance and bearings, but those who insist they are fighting for reason lose what remains of their own.

Over and over, they do what they claim their opponents are doing, want to do, or have done: make vast leaps of faith on almost no evidence, get carried away on large waves of emotion, build towering edifices on small collections of factoids, omit, deny, or denounce all contrary evidence, build fantastical schemes which they project on the enemy, put two and two together and get 384. People are entitled to say what they want, but it takes something other than reason to look at raging debates and discern in them fascistic oppression, to look at large Republican losses (wholly in line with a sixth-year election) and see massive fraud on the part of the losers, to look at today's South and see John Calhoun's, to draft both the Bushes (and the entire Republican party) into the Confederate Army, 150 years after the fact. Facts on the ground have no effect on their fantasies, which exist in a realm of their own.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 07:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 606 words, total size 4 kb.

A worthy roundup

John Hawkins has compiled a list of what he believes are some of Ann Coulter's best lines during the past year. Yes, she says asinine, dick things to promote her books, but she still gets off some of the best one-liners around. Here's one of my favorites:

I'm astounded that debate has sunk so low that I need to type the following words, but: No law is ever enforced 100%. We can't catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists living in the shadows! How about discrimination laws? Insider trading laws? Do you expect Bush to round up everyone who goes over the speed limit? Of course we can't do that. We can't even catch all murderers. What we need is "comprehensive murder reform." It's not "amnesty" -- we'll ask them to pay a small fine.

If Ann would stick with her strength, which includes caustic bon mots, she'd be fine. However, you and I know that she'll say something even more offensive this year, because I'm guessing that she has another book in the works and she'll want to gin up sales.

Note to Ann: Not everything that offends and infuriates the left is wrong. You might check once in a while to see if your ideological brothers and sisters are offended, too. That would be a sign that maybe you are actually wrong.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 12:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 1 kb.

Club versus baby seal

And the winner is... Jeff Goldstein, of course. It helps, of course, that his opponent is an illogical, lying, hypocritical sack of horse squeeze, but Jeff would have whipped his ass anyway. Just my opinion; I could be wrong.

But I doubt it.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 03:17 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

What he said

Bill Quick succinctly states what I believe is the correct position for the US to take regarding terrorists:

What I do desire is that they be so frightened of us that even the thought of attacking us, whether openly or via some terrorist surrogate, causes strong men to dampen their drawers, and women to run weeping from their bedrooms.

I'm thinking about printing the above quotation and distributing 10,000 copies here at work. Better yet, I'll give them out at the local hotbeds of leftism: the universities. The frightened stares from the students will warm my heart.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 10:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

Getting back the conservative soul

Jim Geraghty types a pretty strong essay detailing 10 different principles that, in theory, 90% of conservatives could get behind 9 of, hence the "9 with 90" idea. A lot of interesting ideas and possible policy implementations are contained within the bounds of his post. However, I am a bit troubled by one thing: how is it possible that a political junkie like me has remained unaware of this blog until now?

Posted by: Physics Geek at 07:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

Would that there were more like Kirsten Powers

I know that she and I would disagree on most issues. However, I really enjoy reading and/or listening to Kirsten Powers. She's honest and fair about most things including, but not limited to, the (Un)Fairness Doctrine. Excerpt:

Conservatives long ago adapted to life in a world where watching the network news or picking up one of the major news dailies is a virtual guarantee of having their views mocked, demeaned or misrepresented. If you're a social conservative, multiply the odds by 100.

But some liberals, unused to feeling such stings, view government intervention as a salve.
...
Liberals claim they just want "fairness" - but if that were so, they wouldn't limit their concern just to talk radio, the one area where they've been shut out (by their own incompetence, mind you - Air America, the liberal talk-radio network, was a complete fiasco). They aren't concerned that Americans "get both sides of the story" on abortion or embryonic-stem-cell research or abstinence training. They weren't concerned about "fairness" when Katie Couric blamed evangelicals for the death of Matthew Shepherd.

They protest that the airwaves belong to the American people. They're right - which is all the more reason to keep grubby government mitts off of them. And if we're going to start dictating media content for the good of the proletariat, then there's no reason to stop with radio. (As Fox's Sean Hannity joked last week, "OK, then we want the 'no sex before marriage' channel to balance out MTV.")

In calling for the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine, Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada called conservative talk radio the "generators of simplicity." Presumably this differs from the high-minded debate that occurred over at Air America, where Randi Rhodes liked to say that "Satan is Bush's campaign manager" and routinely claim (why was unclear) that the Bush administration was full of repressed homosexuals.

Look for Kirsten to be savaged once again by the Nutroots for not toeing the party line.

Update: I was waiting for Allah to post something about Kirsten's latest op-ed piece. The wait is over. Excerpt:

Exit question: Who are they going to get to be MichelleÂ’s Democratic opponent on OÂ’Reilly now?

Posted by: Physics Geek at 08:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

One final thought on the immigration bill

I had planned to use the word "shamnesty" to drive John Cole into an apoplectic stupor, but decided against it. Why? Because it is a pretty fucking stupid word.

Could have been worse, I suppose. It could have been "Bennifer" again. ::shudder::

Anyway, here's Lileks' take on the recent attempt by the Senate to legalize their current gardeners and nannies:

The failure of the immigration bill was a remarkable event, I think – but not the first notch in the belt for the new media as some suggest. It’s interesting how many of the big victories seem to have been large bites out of the President’s hide – Dubai, Harriet Miers, now this. It shows the power of a swarm concentrated on a particular thing – a person, a bill, a specific policy initiative.
...
I had fun with the subject on the Hewitt show tonight – Dean Barnett was chowdah-tawkin’ in Hugh’s place, and I found myself describing the Senate as a place where the fizzy effervescent passions of the day are poured into a saucer, where they can go flat and get warm and sticky and attract flies. Good a definition of the Senate as any, I guess. It’s like a bowling alley with no pins, circular lanes, and nerf balls.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 12:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 1 kb.

True dat

Dean Barnett posts a picture that is worth more than a thousand words. Unless, of course, you're a tone deaf elected official sipping lattes up in DC.

Actually, I hope that Dean doesn't mind, but I'm swiping that picture. It's too good not to share.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 10:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

Batshit crazy on display

Jonathan Hawkins links to this Michael Medved piece that, frankly, reeks of an April 1 article. Unfortunately, it's the middle of June, so apparently Mr. Medved is dead serious, which makes him, unfortunately, a retarded jackass. I remember Hugh Hewitt saying that Medved was strongly in favor of the amnesty bill as is; no amendments need apply. I thought that Hugh was kidding, but apparently I was mistaken. Anyway, excerpt:

...Despite the courageous reform efforts of far-sighted Republican Senators and of President Bush, the loudest voices in the GOP currently speak in strident, angry, desperate, uncompromising and unmistakably anti-immigrant tones.

Gee Michael, I'm almost at a loss how to respond to your puerile, insane, retarded, moronic and infantile prattle. Almost. Since reason, logic and, obviously, sanity are strangers to you, I'll make a slight breach in ettiquette by leaping over any factual arguments and going straight for the insults and ad hominem attacks.

You, sir, are embarrassment to conservatives everywhere. Your brain, such as it is, not only fails to fire on all cylinders, it's a wonder that can breathe without wearing a iPod that eternally cycles a recorning of "inhale....exhale". In fact, you are so fucking stupid that I'm convinced that, like the dinosaurs, you must have a brain in your ass to help you take a shit. However, unlike the dinosaurs, your assbrain is the larger of the two, which makes sense, since what comes out of your mouth is more putrid, vile, stinky and worthless than what comes out of the other end. At least your crap can be used for fertilizer.

Frankly, Michael, your act has more than worn thin. I will admit that I used to enjoy your occasional forays into the Attila the Hun chair, when you subbed for Rush. But somehow you mistook your modest talent for actual self-importance. I know, I know: you know so much more than the rest of us. I suppose that we should thank you for condescending to lecture to us about how we should act, or what we should do, or how we should vote. The reality is that most of us think that the fact that you have a syndicated column and a radio show is a sign of the end times. Sure, Err America was even more ridiculous that you. The buffoons on that network at least had the entertainment value of clown repeatedly stabbing himself in the eye. You, as I'm sure you're aware, have no such value. In fact, I swear that what fills my daughter's diaper daily has more intrinsic value than you and your opinions do. And quite frankly, her diapers' content disgusts me far less than you do.

I know what you're thinking: if I'm so bothered by you, why don't I simply ignore you? Well Michael, I think that you and I have finally found a point on which we can agree. Don't be too surprised when other coservatives - you know, the ones that you accuse of hating us some brown people- follow suit.

Enjoy yourself. And remember to keep a spare battery around for your iPod. I wouldn't want you to suffocate.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 11:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 533 words, total size 3 kb.

Fund raising made easy

Iowahawk delivers another classic. Excerpt:

Skip to 7.

7. Now that you know the facts, would you like to reconsider giving a donation?

If "yes," return to 1a; if "no," go to 8

8. Two words: Nancy Pelosi. You at least have to admit we're somewhat better than Nancy Pelosi.

If "yes," return to 1a; if "go fuck yourself," go to 9

9. If I actually did fuck myself, would that help you reconsider giving a donation?

If "yes," describe fucking self and return to 1a; if "no," go to 10

10. All right then. Thank you for your time.

Despite not being a registered Republican, I've received dozens of GOP fundraising phone calls and they seem genuinely perplexed by my hope that the GOP national party should go piss up a rope. However, I'm very polite as I tell them to remove my name from their list, and that I hope the current GOP leadership gets an incurable case of chiggers in their nether regions.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 02:16 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm glad that I'm not a registered Republican

It saves me the trouble of having to re-register under a different party affiliation.

I was so pissed off last night that I everything I thought about posting consisted entirely of Amanda Marcotte type Tourettes style posts:

Fuck-fuck-fucking-duckle-fuck.

Then I waited a while, thought about it some more and became even more incensed. Ace succinctly states what I've been thinking:

Whichever. I'm not voting for anyone supporting this sell-out, and no, I am no longer worried by the threat of a Hillary! or Obama presidency enough to carry the water for the Republican Party. We've done the go-along-to-get-along thing for years, and it has earned us merely greater contempt and scorn and nonresponsiveness from our "leaders."

That's it for me. I don't give a fuck if Hillary is President. At least if a Democrat is pursuing liberal policies I don't like, I'm not responsible for that, and the conservative movement isn't damaged further by acquiescing to them.

If our Republican congressmen and President are carrying out the Democrats' agenda anyway, I say give the keys of government to the Democrats so that at least they'll be responsible for the consequences.

Sometimes a party needs to be brought to the brink of extinction before it changes its policies. After six years of Bush and the godawful overspending Republican Congresses, I think that time is just about now.

Kim du Toit, someone who I respect a great deal has long railed against people who want to teach the GOP a lesson. His point is that you never give control of the government to Socialists. Here's where I think that he misses the point: the GOP leaders are socialists, just a small-s version instead of the big-S version that the Democrats represent. Continually supporting the slightly less liberal Republicans over the Democrats because "the Democrats are worse" is completely the wrong attitude. In fact, supporting the GOP when its leaders are forcing its nominal base to drop trou, bend over and beg for more only emboldens the Republicans to do whatever the fuck they want, which always entails more spending, more government control and more ass-fucking of the the voting base. I waited my entire life for the Republicans to control the House, Senate and presidency at the same time, and all I got was more spending, less border control and more Democrat-style programs. So tell me again why I shouldn't entertain the thought of giving the Republican leadership the finger?

Vox Day made the point during Bush's first term that he thought George Delano™ would do more damage to the Republican party and conservatives than any Democrat could do. It turns out that he was entirely correct.

Update: From Vox:

When Hillary gets elected, I'll be the one pointing and laughing at all of your sad Three Monkey faces. Nice work losing the House and Senate, you politically astute "pragmatists". Well done putting the Lizard Queen on the Cherry Blossom Throne, all you "he's only doing it in order to unveil his double-secret super-conservative plan to save the nation" voters.

Maybe you will all finally see and hear some evil once your party finishes its third trip to the guillotine. I know you'll certainly be speaking plenty of it.
...
Bush is such a disaster, the Democrats don't even want to impeach him anymore. But after the 2008 elections, I bet there will be a lot of ex-Republicans who will wish they had.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 07:44 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 587 words, total size 4 kb.

Quote of the day

Lots of people live-blogged the debates last night including, of course, Stephen Green doing the drunk-blogging version. Great stuff everywhere, but I found a line that will be almost impossible to top over at Alarming News:

8:55pm: McCain loves amnesty for people that broke the law to get into America. He could not be less my candidate if he tried. Which, it seems, he does.

If the GOP is stupid enough to nominate McCain, I will write myself in for president.

Now there's a campaign for you: Physics Geek 2008!

Posted by: Physics Geek at 07:49 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 98 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm so glad that Bush supported his re-election

Orrin Hatch supports giving DC a seat in the US House. Not surprisingly, there's a little backrubbing going on:

Sen. Orrin Hatch should know better: He supports giving the District of Columbia a special seat in the House of Representatives. So does Utah's other senator, Robert Bennett. Their backing has everything to do with the fact that under a deal brokered in the House, Utah would get an additional seat as well. It certainly has nothing to do with the Constitution, which says only states may be represented in the House. And DC isn't a state. Read the NRO editorial, here.

I'm certain that Hugh Hewitt will continue to extoll the virtues of having supported Hatch in 2004. Maybe the sandwich has grown even more tasty over time.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 12:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.