Andrew Klavan details the perils of being a conservative.

The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I donÂ’t have to lie. I donÂ’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I donÂ’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I donÂ’t have to say that everyoneÂ’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions are a path to God. I donÂ’t have to claim that a bad writer like Alice Walker is a good one or that a good writer like Toni Morrison is a great one. I donÂ’t have to pretend that Islam means peace.

Of course, like everything, this candor has its price. A politics that depends on honesty will be, by nature, often impolite. Good manners and hypocrisy are intimately intertwined, and so conservatives, with their gimlet-eyed view of the world, are always susceptible to charges of incivility. ItÂ’s not really nice, you know, to describe things as they are.

...

Still, mannerly as we would rather be, truth-telling continues to be both compelling and ultimately satisfying. There is, after all, something greater than courtesy. “Firmness in the right,” Lincoln called it, “as God gives us to see the right.” We find ourselves at a precarious moment in an endeavor of great importance: namely, the preservation of Western rationalism and liberty. It does mankind no good to allow so magnificent an enterprise to slip away merely for fear of saying the wrong thing.

When my friends and family want their egos stroked, they ask other people for their opinions. When they want the unvarnished truth, they ask me. I've never had problems answering the following question honestly: "Does this (whatever) make me look fat?" I realize that it's supposed to be the one question that men are supposed to lie about, but I think that letting my lovely wife go out in something unflattering does her a great disservice. Hence, I tell it like it is.

A good friend - someone I've lost touch with over the years- once criticized me as being "brutally honest". I wear that comment as a badge of honor. For the record, I understand the meaning of the word "tact". Being honest doesn't mean that you have to be a complete dick about things.

Link found via McQ.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 11:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 2 kb.

The party's over.

Looks like California will actually try to ban regular incadescent bulbs. My guess is that people like Bill Quick will order truckloads of the damned things, just to eff with the legistlature.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 11:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

McCain-Feingold to take it on the chin this time? Excerpt:

The Supreme Court has taken up the WRTL case again and the real agenda of McCain-Feingold has been exposed. Senator McCain and the other congressional sponsors argue in their Supreme Court brief that broadcast ads would be “sham,” not “genuine,” if they “took a critical stance regarding a candidate’s position on an issue.” Thus they admitted that stifling criticism of public officials is at the “core” of the “electioneering communication” prohibition.

It is now apparent that the “electioneering communication” prohibition was misrepresented from the outset, that the arguments to justify it were shams, and that its real purpose is to silence criticism of public officials. This is irreconcilable with the First Amendment and with our form of government created by the Constitution.

But what will the Supreme Court do? Oral argument in Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC is scheduled for this Wednesday, April 25, and a decision is expected by the end of the CourtÂ’s term in June.

I will be watching this case with interest. For the record, I will post whatever information about a candidate that I wish to, at any time. If our federal government elected officials disagree with my position, they have my permission to blow me.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 07:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

Then again, based on this ludicrous vote in the Vermont state senate, it's unlikely that any of Vermont's elected officials know how to read:

For its second story at the top of the hour (1PM Central time), NPR just reported that the Vermont State Senate has voted in a 'non-binding resolution' for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Great, now that they've voted for the impeachment, it's time for... umm, what exactly? The Vermont state senate has exactly zero power to affect the current power structure in DC, no matter how much the member might wish otherwise. The US Constitution clearly gives the US House of Representatives the authority to impeach the president. It also gives the US Senate the authority to vote to remove the president from office if he's impeached. Nowhere in my copy foes it say "unless the Vermont senate votes otherwise". Then again, my copy is simply dead paper, unlike the Doctor Frankenxerox creation, which both lives and breathes.

Sure, I know that it's simply poltical grandstanding. I also know that the Vermonters in question wear little cups under their collective chins to catch the drool sure to be dripping out.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 02:07 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

Again. And again and again.

Reprinted from Neal Boortz's website, albeit an entry that has disappeared into the bit bucket:

Message:
APRIL 15th TAX DAY

http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm
From Neal Boortz

"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed."

-Robert Heinlein

"There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man's needs and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is the political means."

- Albert Jay Nock

The income tax is a vicious, inequitable, unpopular, impolitic and socialistic act. The crusade for an income tax is the most unreasoning and un-American movement in the politics of the last quarter-century.

Editorial - New York Times. 1894.

TAX DAY- FOR ABOUT ONE-HALF OF US

It's April 15th. That day is important for just about one-half of Americans; the one-half that actually carries the load for all of us. For the remaining one-half of income earners it's either just another day, or it's a day they revel in their ability to not only avoid paying taxes themselves, but in their ability to loot the pockets of those who do through such gimmicks as the rancid Earned Income Tax Credit.

April 15 is depressing ... and not just because your taxes are due.

OK , I know you've heard this before, but it doesn't do any harm for you to review the facts just once a year.

This is the day when a simple question can lead to the discovery that most people have no idea how much income tax they pay, though this is becoming less and less true as we go along. There is one group that does know how much federal income tax they pay every year, and this group is growing ever larger. It's that segment of wage earners who pay nothing. So, we'll revise this statement to read: "Most people who actually do pay federal income taxes have no idea how much they pay."

For proof, try this little test: Approach a friend or co-worker whom you actually suspect may pay federal income taxes and ask them what their tax tab was. You will get one of two responses. For the majority of taxpayers who actually get refunds, the response will be "I didn't have to pay anything! I'm getting some back!" Taxpayers who actually have to write a check on April 15 will quote the amount of that check as their tax bill.

This is all by design. Politicians know that if those who pay federal income taxes knew what they were really paying there would be an instantaneous and ugly tax revolt. To hide the ugly truth, these politicians have kept alive our wonderful system of withholding. With the magic of withholding, the money is gone before the wage earner even gets the slightest whiff of it. It's almost as if it was never really there in the first place ... so, what's to miss?

Not only do most people not know how much tax they pay, they don't even know what they make!

You've already asked your co-worker how much tax they had to pay in 2001, and they didn't know. Now, ask them how much they make! Most will tell you it's none of your business. Some will respond, though, and their response will begin with the words, "I take home ..."

If you wanted to be particularly obnoxious at this point, or if you fancy yourself to be a radio talk-show host, you could say: "I didn't ask you how much you took home. I asked you how much you made." Then, standby for the inevitable blank stare.

See how well this system of withholding taxes has worked! The majority of wage earners can't even tell you what they earned! Just what they "took home." It's as if they viewed their "take home" pay as their total earnings! No wonder they don't think they paid any taxes when they get that refund check from the IRS!

But --- if you happen to work for youself then it's a good bet that you DO know how much tax you paid. The owners of small businesses, the businesses that employ about 80 percent of the workers in this country ... you know. You are the people who have to sit down four times a year and write a check to the IRS for your quarterly tax payments.

WHY WE'LL NEVER HAVE A TAX REVOLT.

One word. Withholding.

Withholding was sold to the American wage earner as a purely temporary measure to speed up cash flow to the government during World War II. As soon as the war was over, things were supposed to return to normal and the wage earners would get their entire checks, just as before the war.

In case you haven't checked, the war has been over for about 58 years or so, but withholding is still with us. It's still with us because the proliferation of the "I take home ..." workers and the "I didn't have to pay anything, I'm getting some back" taxpayers are such a boon to our politicians. As long as the majority remains ignorant of the extent to which their paychecks are plundered, politicians will be safe.

Now ... get those tax returns completed and then completely forget what they say so that you can join the ranks of the unknowing.

PROTECTING POLITICIANS

I can't let this April 15th go by without reminding you of what a wonderful job politicians, especially Democrats, have done insuring that there will never be enough angry taxpayers to cost them their jobs.

Politicians pay attention to polls. Polls are indications of the presence or lack of job security. When politicians read a poll which says that the majority of Americans (a) don't think they're paying too much in taxes, and (b) don't see any need for a tax cut, they sit back and smile. Politicians, and especially Democrats, have been working for generations to shift the burden for the payment of federal income taxes to a small minority of high-income earners. They have succeeded marvelously. Today the top 10 percent of income earners pay over one-half of all federal income taxes. The bottom 60 percent of income earners, a majority, as you can see, pay less than 10 percent of all income taxes. Even someone educated in a government school can tell you that this leaves politicians free to increase taxes on the upper-income minority and then spend that money on the middle and lower-income majority in return for votes.

AND NOW --- TIME FOR SOME TAX AND SPENDING OUTRAGES.

We begin with a statistic that should jolt you right out of your seat. Have you ever stopped to consider just how many cumulative hours are spent across this entire country every year just handling the paperwork associated with the federal income tax? American businesses will spend about 3.4 billion man-hours doing tax paperwork this year. Individuals will spend another 1.7 billion man-hours. These figures represent 3 million people working full time all year just to do tax preparation work. Now --- get this. It takes more man-hours in this country to pay federal income taxes than it does to build every car, van and truck produced in this country during the same year. (Money Magazine)

Where does your tax money go? Try this:

Between 1986 and 1998 the IRS spent $5 billion of your money on a computer system that they were never able to get to work. Five Billion, that's with a B.

Taxes now comprise 31% of the cost of a loaf of bread, 30% of the cost of a hotel room and 43% of the cost of a bottle of beer. (Money Magazine)

The two major tax writing committees of congress are the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. Money Magazine reports that seven out of ten members of these committees cannot figure out their own taxes. They have to hire professionals.

Your government recently gave $170 million to a group called PSI. PSI was founded by Philip Harvey. Philip Harvey runs a mail-order porno business called Adam and Eve. PSI wants to hand out condoms around the world. They now have $170 million of your money to fund their project.

At a series of employee retreats workers played children's games and sang We are family. They wrote Christmas carols, went on treasure hunts, dressed in cat costumes and talked to imaginary wizards and magicians. It was a team-building exercise for the U.S. Postal Service. Cost? $3,600,000.00.

There are 1.2 million paid tax preparers in the United States. That's six times more than the number of troops in Iraq. These 1.2 million people add absolutely nothing to our quality of life or standard of living.

Do you know what IRS form 8845 is? It's the form you fill out to get your Indian Employment Credit.

In 1969 the congress discovered that there were 155 taxpayers who paid no taxes because their deductions eliminated their tax liability. That's when congress passed the Alternative Minimum Tax, just to catch those 155 taxpayers. Today the AMT nails 3 million taxpayers. Within 7 years that figure will soar to 36 million.

The IRS still insists that the income tax is voluntary.” If you believe that then you believed Bill Clinton when he said that oral sex isn't sex.

THE SOLUTION

The solution is twofold.

First --- reform the tax system by getting rid of the income tax, repealing the income tax amendment and moving to a national retail sales tax. I've been promoting such a system for over 15 years. You can find out everything you want to know by studying the website for Americans for Fair Taxation at http://www.fairtax.org.

Second -- Government must be reduced to its constitutionally appropriate size. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are up to the task. That's why I'm a Libertarian.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 12:06 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1670 words, total size 10 kb.

The drinking age of 18, that is. I've hated and bitched about the federal drinking age since it was instituted. For what it's worth, I was 18+ at the time the law was implemented, so it didn't affect me at all. However, I find the law, as well as the strong-arm tactics of the feds, to be completely at odds with personal liberty. There are even some self-described conservative pundits who want to raise the drinking age to 25 or higher (Ross Mackenzie, I'm looking at you). My reply to scolds like those? Blow me.

Let's examine the things that you can do and are responsible for at the age of 18:

• You can be drafted, if necessary. If not, you can still enlist and go to a foreign land and risk life and limb.
  
• You can vote in pretty much any election in this country, including but not limited to, federal elections, including those for the presidency.
  
• You can -and will- be tried as an adult for any crime that you commit.
  
• You can legally enter into contracts, which are binding(some states may restrict that to 21 in certain instances, I suppose)
  
• You can get a job, work hard and pay taxes.
  
• You cannot, however, enjoy a beer at the end of a hard day.
  

Radley Balko revists the drinking age in this article, which I highly recommend. Here's one of my favorite quotes:

The age at highest risk for an alcohol-related auto fatality is 21, followed by 22 and 23, an indication that delaying first exposure to alcohol until young adults are away from home may not be the best way to introduce them to drink.

Emphasis mine. Notice that the magical age of 21 isn't quite so magical.

Update: Not surprisingly, Bill Quick and I are on the same page.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 12:36 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

From Dean Barnett:

What happens to Nifong?

ItÂ’s hard to imagine he wonÂ’t be disbarred. If he has any brains (admittedly a highly dubious notion), heÂ’ll remove himself from the bar and pursue his lifelong passion of plucking the wings off live butterflies on a full-time basis.

That will have me chuckling for a while. Not as much as a verdict that would allow the Duke lacrosse players to work over Nifong with a tire iron for a few hours, but I'll take what I can get.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 04:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

After the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA should control CO2 emissions unless it finds scientific reasons not to (crikey, that turns logic on its head), our elected officials have started to weigh in on possible solutions to the emission problem. Interestingly, former allies have started in-fighting over the prospect of more nuclear power plants. Excerpt:

The renewed push for legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions could falter over an old debate: whether nuclear power should play a role in any federal attack on climate change.

Congress, with added impetus from a Supreme Court ruling last week, appears more likely to pass comprehensive energy legislation. But nuclear power sharply divides lawmakers who agree on mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions. And it has pitted some on Capitol Hill against their usual allies, environmentalists, who largely oppose any expansion of nuclear power.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Barbara Boxer — Bay Area Democrats with similar political views — are on opposite sides.

Pelosi used to be an ardent foe of nuclear power but now holds a different view. "I think it has to be on the table," she said.

Boxer, head of the Senate committee that will take the lead in writing global warming legislation, said that turning from fossil fuels to nuclear power was "trading one problem for another."

[Editor's note: Like, say, electing one Bay Area brain donor instead of another?]
...
"I've never been a fan of nuclear energy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has called it expensive and risky. "But reducing emissions from the electricity sector presents a major challenge. And if we can be assured that new technologies help to produce nuclear energy safely and cleanly, then I think we have to take a look at it."

The public's attitude toward nuclear power is more favorable when such energy is seen as part of an effort to fight climate change. Polls over the years have shown that a slim majority backs nuclear power, but a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey last summer found that a larger majority, 61%, supported the increased use of nuclear energy "to prevent global warming."

Legislation introduced recently in California seeks to repeal a 1976 ban on new nuclear plants in the state.

I predict that pigs will fly before that last statement comes to pass. San Francisco residents will garb themselves in human excrement to stay warm before they'll consent to using power generated by nuclear power.

On Capitol Hill last month, former Vice President Al Gore, who has become a leading advocate for swift action on climate change, said he saw nuclear plants as a "small part" of the strategy.

"They're so expensive, and they take so long to build, and at present they only come in one size: extra large," he said.

No article on energy policy would be complete without a comment from the Goreacle. However, he does make a valid point, albeit one contained in his usual inanity: nuclear power plants usually come in only the "extra large" size due to several reasons:

1) When a utility has to borrow several billion dollars to build a plant, it will want to generate enough energy during the plant's lifetime so as to ensure an adequate return on its investment.

2) Part of the reason that nukes were so expensive in the past was the ridiculous number of hearings, lawsuits, et al that the utility had to wade through before even breaking ground. A lot of that cost has been eliminated with the combined site permit and operating license process. Now, if a utility builds an NRC-approved design on a site that receives a permit, all systems are go. In fact, the company that I work for will probably attempt to build a monster plant sometime within the next 10 years. For the record, once the construction phase begins, the plant could be completed and go online within about three years, although normal construction delays could add a year or so to that figure.

3) All of the currently approved designs are pretty damned large. The Pebble Bed design has not been approved for construction within the United States. South Africa is working on one, and the US will gain lots of useful knowledge from its operation, which will -probably- lead to that design's eventual approval. You would then have a nuclear plant design that you could build in a modular fashion, where 300 Mw(e) plants would become economical.

We'll see where it all goes. For those of you who are opposed to the generation of power via the burning of fossil fuels, but are also opposed to nuclear power, I have this to say to you: you had better move south, because it gets cold in the winter. Just an FYI.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 03:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 785 words, total size 5 kb.

For the record, they are Fuck and You. I've got your "comprehensive immigration reform" right here. ::pointing to crotch::

Karol manages to not use foul language in her post. I'll confess to being amazed by this.

Update: Allah is not amused, either.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 04:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

Annika and I are on the exact same page.

And when I say scary, I mean scary for Annie. She should see it as a sign of the end times that she and I have the same thought running through our brains. However, since I can only hold one thought at a time in my pea-sized brain, eventually everyone will think like me, if only for an instant.

Seriously though, I've left comments at multiple blogs that McCain will not receive my vote for any reason. If the Democrat nominee is Beelzebub, I might write-in Mickey Mouse. Heck, I think that I'll write in my name. Anyone else want to join in the Physics Geek for President campaign? Unlike Chevy Chase, I'm okay with math questions being asked.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 11:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

But I repeat myself.

The Puppy Blender links to a BoingBoing article which, frankly, I thought was an April Fool's joke until I realized it was still February:

Two Florida teenagers, Jeremy and Amber, ages 17 and 16 respectively, boyfriend and girlfriend -- snapped digital photos of themselves engaged in sexual activity. They were prosecuted under state child porn laws, and convicted. . . . In Florida, Amber and Jeremy did not break the law by having sexual relations -- even though they're both teens -- but the courts decided they were criminals for having documented it digitally.

I think that I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 03:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, it looks like Edwards is about to reach out and tag Jimmy Carter as his running mate. From the original article that Geraghty links:

There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close

John, I know that you're desperately courting the moonbat vote for the primaries, but you might be laying it on a little thick. I'm just saying.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 01:51 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

For those of you who want to blame Bush for the astronomical number of dead US men and women fighting in a war overseas, you might want to see how many soldiers were killed when we weren't at war:

The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

Link via Jonah.

Update: Even more perspective:

Jonah,

You asked for more information on military deaths. Here is a table of all military deaths, broken down by cause, over the 25 year period 1980-2004. This includes all active duty and reservists.

The gist is that soldiers are more likely to die from accidents than hostile action (combat and terrorist actions combined). The death count from accidents has been lower than the death count from hostile action. The fall in accidental deaths is greater than the increase in deaths by hostile action.

Note that there were far more military deaths in 1980, the last year of Carter's presidency, than any year of the current administration. The death rate was, also, higher. This was because of lower standards and less care in training.

The bottom line is that we're fighting this war with lower casualties than that expected from normal training accidents in a peacetime army. You should be embarassed that you didn't know this. It's a testiment to the near universal innumeracy and incompetence of the journalism profession that most journalists haven't even seriously considered looking at basic statistics and putting things in context 5 1/2 years after 9/11.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 01:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

Presenting the Autorantic Virtual Moonbat, courtesy of Sean Gleeson:

I believe that I'll add the smaller version in the sidebar, which differs in this respect from the original:

Unlike the live chat module, which lets you talk back to the robot, the sidebar module won’t let anyone else get a word in edgewise. All you can do is click the “RANT” button and get ranted at. (Although if the robot sits idle for a couple of minutes, it gets antsy and rants without you.)

Cool. It'll be like talking politics with one of my lefty friends. KEEP YOUR PATRIARCHY OFF MY UTERUS!!!(apologies to Jeff Goldstein).

Update: I asked the AVM for some sports predictions. Q&A below the fold. more...

Posted by: Physics Geek at 11:35 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

Don't forget that Daylight Savings Time has been changed for 2007. Now you will spring forward on the second Sunday in March, instead of the first Saturday in April. And you will fall back the first Saturday in November, instead of October.

YOu know what's the best thing about this switch? Ever since Windows 95 appeared, my computer has automatically updated its internal clock for the EST/DSt switch. Now I will have to manually update my PC's clock. It's a trivial problem to be sure, but it still pisses me off.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 12:12 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

I disagree with Reynolds's assessment of John Edwards decision to hire Amanda Marcotte. In fact, I think that it was a wonderful choice because that vituperative harpy probably killed Edwards' campaign before it got fully underway.

Let's be honest: I can't be the only one who wants to know how much the Clintons are paying Amanda.

Update: Quote of the day over at Reason's blog. I'll excerpt a little bit more to put it context:

Not exactly the best defense disgraced Durham DA Mike Nifong has received, but interesting in the same way that ramblings about CIA radio transmitters in your teeth are interesting -- as a marker for raving moon-bats.

So you might be thinking, at last and at least, a presidential candidate has had the balls to hire on a full-fledged, out-front propagandist, someone boldly willing to not just fudge facts, but fuck them in the ass. A Marcotte-led Net communications op may actually give the jaded among us some reason to pay attention to this 08 election-thing -- there'd be no telling what she'd say.

Update: Patterico offers some of his thoughts on the matter:

And there was a post about Katrina looting that termed “racist fucks” anyone appalled by the looting in New Orleans. The post was titled Dear racist fucks who complained about looting, and said:

And as for the racist fucks behind this foot-dragging and lying and all those that support them, I hope that when you get to hell, after youÂ’ve been greeted nicely by Satan and checked in by Ronald Reagan, your punishment is to be drowned over and over and over again until you fucking realize that suffering is suffering, no matter what race or class or ethnicity the people suffering are.

I responded here — and I also detailed the habit of the bloggers on her site: namely, squelching comments that they disagree with, or that make them look bad. Seems consistent with the more recent allegations of Amanda trying to cover her tracks regarding the Duke lacrosse rape case.

But hey — if John Edwards wants to have a psychotic, profane, illogical, man-hating feminist as his chief blogger, more power to him. This is much better for us than if he had hired someone unlikely to embarrass him.

Eh, I don't mean to give Amanda a hard time. It's only 99.9999% of her qualities that give the rest of them a bad name.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 09:40 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.

Dan Riehl doesn't mince words in this post: It's Official: The Press Has Gone To War

And no, I don't think that he's overstating the case one little bit.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 02:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

I hear that Molly Ivins passed away from cancer. As anyone who has read me at all the last 4+ years would know, I'm not a fan of Molly Ivins. However, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. My condolences to friends and family that she left behind.

Update: Dean is on the same page that I am, which should scare the living crap out of him.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 08:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

And to any Kosmonauts that stumble onto this blog, the title of this post does not refer to you.

Anyway, I've followed Michael Graham's career since he had a radio show here in Richmond, VA. His current show isn't available for me to listen to, but his website is. Here are his determinations as to what will happen when the US bugs out of Iraq:

1--The Islamists get another country, and its one with lots of oil generating lots of money to fund lots more terror.

2--America is defeated in the Middle East. We lose, and we lose in a region where the brutal tribal culture values strength over all. People in the region looking to back a winner have yet another reason to back the whackjobs. More whackjobs who want to kill us will have more power, and the moderates will have less. Or be dead. Which brings up point #3:

3--Blood in the streets. LOTS of it. You think 1,000 Iraqis killed in a month is a lot? You're not paying attention. Rwandans died by the thousands per day, and they only had machetes. Imagine how ugly a real religious cleansing campaign would look. Are you prepared to say "Yep, 100,000 Iraqi women and children had to die in 2007 because we weren't sure we could win?"

Go read the rest.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 08:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 1 kb.

I'll take a break from my normal collection of brewing related, computer related, or bad joke related posts to make this political insight: Hugh Hewitt fervent support for both Lott and Martinez will become his Harriet Meirs II moment. Excerpt:

I have to agree with Paul Mirengoff at Powerline about some reactions to the election of Trent Lott as Senate Minority Whip and Mel Martinez as RNC Chair. Both have the potential to be huge wins for the GOP, especially given Lott's command of Senate procedure.

I like Hugh Hewitt. his radio show is one of the better ones on the air, although I rarely get to listen to it. His unwavering support for almost anything that this administration support baffles me at times, especially on an issue which most conservatives oppose. Check out the excerpt from this post:

Regularization of the nation's millions of illegals along common-sense lines such should follow the fence's construction --or at least robust beginning of construction. If the GOP avoids plainly inequitable proposals such as the grant of social security benefits for the wages earned while illegally in the country or a path to citizenship for those who do not return first to their home countries, the comprehensive legislation can be worked out quickly.

Allow me to translate:

Regularization: amnesty for illegals

Comprehensive legistlation: amnesty for illegals

While working in IT the last decade or so, I had to opportunity to work with lots of foreign nationals, most of whom have to jump through hoops on a yearly basis just to guarantee that their visas stay up to date; this includes those attempting to get their green cards. Some of them, from India mostly, go back home for a few weeks each year to work through all of the technicalities at the local consulate. Anyway, that group of individuals is large and well-educated. They are almost unilaterally opposed to this amnesty talk. It pisses them off that some people lolly-gagged their way illegally across our borders and are about to be rewarded for it.

I know what the problem is: Hugh has swallowed the big effing lie that illegal immigration wasn't a winner in this past election. Bill Quick delivers a swift kick in the nads to this bullshit. Excerpt:

Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard makes the case that immigration restriction wasn't a plus issue for House Republicans. In Arizona, with the biggest illegal border crossing crisis in the nation, two loud advocates of immigration restriction and opponents of guest-worker and legalization provisions lost: incumbent J.D. Hayworth in the Scottsdale-Tempe Fifth District and open-seat primary winner Randy Graf in the Eighth, which includes the east side of Tucson and Cochise County, site of most of the illegal border crossings. In 2004, Graf won 43 percent in the primary against incumbent Jim Kolbe, who favored guest-worker and legalization provisions. With Kolbe retiring, Graf won the same 43 percent in the primary again, but that was enough to win a three-candidate race. I tend to agree with Barnes's take. If an anti-immigration candidate can't win in these two districts, where can he win?

Pity. Mike Barone used to be a reasonably honest, reasonably trustworthy reporter, but here, he outright lies by omission.

An anti-illegal immigration candidate did win in both districts.

Here's Hayworth's opponent:

Every sovereign nation has a responsibility to secure its border. In Congress, I'll make it a top priority to secure the U.S.-Mexico border and stop illegal immigration.
...

And here is Graf's opponent's position on the issue:

is "absolutely unfair," she said. Republicans have not done enough to stop illegal immigration, she added, ridiculing Graf's idea that tougher enforcement will lead immigrants to go home.

"I don't believe they're going to stand up, walk home and self deport," Giffords said, carefully adding "I do not support amnesty."

Immigration nerds understand the difference in positions between the Democrats and the Republican candidates, but the average voter probably thought their positions were identically tough. For Barone - and the sleazy RNC hack Barnes - to intimate otherwise is, frankly, nothing more than ideological dishonesty.

Update: Check out Blogs of War for a roundup of the conservative[translation for Hugh Hewitt: not Republican] opinion. It isn't pretty.

Time for the GOP to go the way of the Whigs. The way leadership is behaving right now, I expect the Democrats to own all 3 branches of government in early 2009. Might as well gear up for the revolution now instead of waiting for the self-immolation to be complete.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 01:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 759 words, total size 5 kb.