From the Birchers...

Please remind me, why is it we are supposed to think these people are crazy?

Top 10 Inconvenient Truths of 2007
(abridge, click for full article)
By Jim Capo

#10 Al Gore’s Nobel Prize-garnering movie on global warming was produced without scientific review or oversight.

#9 By honest accounting standards the US federal government as well as many American households are bankrupt.

#8 Adultery has destroyed more families in America than homosexuality.

#7 Any border fence capable of keeping illegal immigrants out of the county will be equally effective in keeping legal citizens in the country.

#6 The creation of our money out of thin air by the Federal Reserve is an immensely regressive tax.

#5 A gold standard is no more intrinsically good than a fiat system is intrinsically evil.

#4 The Patriots are not going to beat the Packers in the Super Bowl.

#3 Global warming is population control repackaged.

#2 A pre-emptive/aggressive war meets none of the requirements for a just war in Christian theology.

#1 (looking ahead a few weeks) Ron Paul may or may not win the GOP nomination for president. BUT… not matter the outcome, he will show up at the GOP convention with enough delegates who are actually his supporters that he will be able demonstrate conclusively that our current election process is only slightly less rigged than the one which was used to create the Iraqi National Congress.

The Price of Political Progess

Is it possible that Benizar Bhutto's admirers and detractors are both correct?

Those who have not spent residential time outside of the U.S., may be unaware that peaceful, lasting change only occurs in older cultures, such as Pakistan's, by means of extreme baby-steps. All else typically results in horrendous violence and eventual regression. Further, in most such cultures it is impossible to work from within existing systems without accepting a certain level of corruption; and working outside of those systems can mean almost certain death (either politically or literally).

For a true Mr. Smith going to Washington--or Ms. Bhutto going to Islamabad--politics is as much a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation as one could expect to find.

Even in the U.S., we see this.

Ron Paul, running as a Libertarian (outside of the system) received little attention, but his current campaign, as a Republican (within the system) is having a significant impact on the American political debate. Ron Paul, when campaigning on his non-corrupt voting record, is often accused of being ineffective; at the same time, in the few areas where he has worked within the system (for instance, on securing earmarks for his districts), his detractors accuse him of corruption.

Compared to Pakistan, the level of corruption found in Washington is only slightly greater than that found in the checkbook of a church organist.

No American can comprehend the danger and difficulty of a political career in Islamabad, especially for a woman. Nor can we appreciate what may be necessary in order to survive. When the vast majority of those around you are accepting of a belief that it is god's will that you to be owned, or stoned, because of your gender, one cannot afford to be squeamish about defending yourself against threats.

Not having your enemies killed is a luxury one can only afford in a society where your enemies are not allowed to kill you. This is a luxury that Bhutto clearly did not enjoy.

The Bhutto family has certainly paid the price for their efforts to modernize Pakistan. Yes, they have probably done some nasty things along the way, possibly some very horrible things, but it is the way in which they are headed that is important. In this regard, Benazir Bhutto may have been as close to a Thomas Jefferson as one could expect to find in such a backwards, repressive, and violent culture.

There is no purity in the world of successful politics, most certainly not in a place like Pakistan. The only “purists” are the fundamentalist religious fanatics who have had historical control in Pakistan, and we can only be grateful for the degree to which they are corrupt. As America heads into an election season with the possibility of religious leaders on its own presidential tickets, Americans would be wise to remember Pakistan.

Is there a place for those who support more radical modernization than Benazir Bhutto? Certainly there is. They make politicians such as Bhutto seem moderate, and therefore more acceptable. However, in societies where moderation and toleration are considered dangerous sins against god, those who take such stands, outside of the system and beyond cultural tolerance, are rarely effective--or even long-lived.

Even in the U.S., there is no possibility of being elected, or of effecting change, if you are marginalized because your platform is too far beyond the mainstream of cultural acceptance. The powerful momentum of cultural institutions, even of those that have lost their evolutionary purpose, is a part of the human condition. It is indeed a tragedy that most of us are not capable of making a logical choice to evolve beyond the anachronistic behavior of our past. None-the-less, we do have to deal with such cultural physics.

Perhaps there is a better way than Benazir Bhutto's, or even Ron Paul's, however learning what there is to be learned of that better way can only be accomplished from the playing field. Criticizing from the safety of the sidelines accomplishes less.

William of Ockham on Politics

Far too many Ron Paul supporters think that the "mainstream media" is out to get Ron Paul. They take examples of distortions, such as reports that Paul doesn't believe in evolution (after Paul, who has a PHD in science, stated that evolution is a theory) as evidence that media is intentionally smearing Paul at every turn.

There is a simpler explanation, that being that many Americans are simply too poorly educated by our pubic schools to understand that real science asserts no facts. Such cognitive abstraction is simply beyond them.

Another example of this limited intellectual discernment is this week's press revelation that actor Will Smith believes Adolf Hitler to have been a "good" person. What Smith acually said was, "Even Hitler didn't wake up going, 'let me do the most evil thing I can do today. I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good.'"

Shockingly, even amongst the educated, many can't discern the difference between either of the two statements.

Will Smith proves that some actors are much smarter than we give them credit for, when he insightful observes that the incident, "... speaks to the dangerous power of an ignorant person with a pen." That is true, as far as it goes, but the journalistic freedom that the Internet provides to the masses is a big part of what is driving the Ron Paul "r'evol'ution."

In a free society one has to accept the sweet-with-the-sour, although that is probably of little consequence to Mr. Smith this week.

From the Modesto Bee, letters to the editor...

Where are others' backers?
December 26, 2007

Why Guiliani, Duncan, Tancredo, Romney, Huckabee, McCain, Keyes or Thompson? I have seen so few support letters for the other Republican candidates compared to those for Ron Paul. I urge The Bee to solicit letters from supporters of these other candidates, if any there are.

What is it that supporters of these gents deem worthy of support?

Being a member of the Stanislaus GOP myself, I know a number of my fellow Republicans favor Fred Thompson (a former actor). Good Lord, please write and tell us all why. If you are unwilling to do so, then how deep and genuine does your support really run?

This election cycle we, as a nation, stand at a crossroads. Surely, all politically astute Republicans understand this. I refuse to believe we have that many "globalist elite" in our wonderful county. Why so silent?

Try to explain how your candidate's appeal is sufficient to be able to defeat Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama in the general election vs. Ron Paul.

ARTHUR MURRAY
Modesto

The Penny Ante Candidate

Most candidates receive their contributions from a collection of big corporations and wealthy contributors. You can bet that Ron Paul isn't getting a lot of corporate contributions consider his comments on Meet the Press (see below).

It hardly matters, in the fourth quarter Ron Paul is leading all the candidates with over $18.5+ million received 200,000+ donors of mostly small ($100 or less) contributions. This is real grass roots stuff folks.

Crumbling Foundations

CNNMoney reported last week that home prices fell 6.7 percent in October, the largest drop in 16 years and the 10th consecutive monthly drop. Some U.S. cities are experiencing declines in single family home values of as much as 30 percent. Only three cities in the entire country are showing positive growth.

But hey, the economy is fine -- just ask the Bush administration.

Merry Christma...

Many commentators are pointing out the hypocrisy of a "Christian" nation spending hundreds of millions of (inflated) dollars on commercial items to celebrate the birth of a man who advocated poverty and charity as first principals. Least we forget, it was not so long ago that Christians celebrated the Prince of Peace in quite a different fashion. Mere crass commercialism is something of a relief.

According to historians, while on their nine Crusades, Christians slaughtered well over a million people, perhaps as high as five million. During the first capture of Jerusalem alone, an estimated 40,000 men, women, and children were murdered -- basically for sport. There are chronicles written by the Crusaders themselves boasting of ankle deep blood in some areas of Jerusalem.

Most of history's victims of Christianity were Muslim, gays, indigenous peoples, or uppity women who refused to be taken as property, but also many were Jews. Many also were simply too young to conceptualize religion at all. The number of children slaughtered in the Jerusalem massacre alone would have been over 10,000. And yes, slaughtering the "Christ Killers" has been a popular Christian sport throughout the centuries -- one that only, sorta, ended during the lifetime of your parents or grandparents.

The Crusaders killed an estimated 8,000 Jews in the Rineland before they even left Europe, which was probably a bigger percent of the European Jewish population at the time than Christians would slaughter in another few centuries after they changed their attire from cross-ed tunics to swastika-ed brown shirts. Between the two events, the incidence of Jewish massacres at the hands of Christians throughout Europe and western Asia are too numerous to list. Even the incidence of synagogue burning, with the worshipers still inside, is too frequent to recount.

So, was 9/11 really blowback for CIA involvement in the Middle East since the 1950s? Or due to U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia since the 1980s? Hardly. The blowback originated centuries earlier. It continues to originate today as the "Christian" president of the "Christian" nation with the support of the nation's pulpits continues to attacks a Muslim country that had no connection to 9/11, no weapons of mass destruction, or indeed any provable connections to terrorism on our shores.

So, on this bright, sunny Christmas day, as Americans greedily open the millions of gifts they give to each other, the death count in Iraq continues to climb. Given the millions of dead throughout history, a mere 100,000 non-combatent men, women, and children killed in the name of Christiani.., (oops) I mean, Democracy, doesn't seem likely to produce any moral pause on the way to the wrapping and the bows.

So, Merry Christma, (oops) I mean, Happy Holidays.

Our so-called free society...

Why did it take 57 years for America to find out that the FBI has had a secret, unconstitutional plan to intern American citizens that is deemed political threats?

Have Grandpa & Grandma and Pa & Ma been asleep at the wheel for the last five decades, or have they been complicit?

Who says, "It can't happen hear"? Apparently it has -- or at least it's been planned for.

What happens when you waterboard yourself?

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for bringing this to broader attention. Click here for the entire post; the highlights are below. Posted by Scylla on The Straight Dope:

So much talk of waterboarding, so much controversy. But what is it really? How bad? ...I determined to give this a try... Torture, or not? ... These are the results of my research and experience: ... The idea is that you wrap saran wrap around the mouth in several layers, and poke a hole in the mouth area, and then waterboard away. ... It took me ten minutes to recover my senses once I tried this. I was shuddering in a corner, convinced I narrowly escaped killing myself.Here's what happened: The water fills the hole in the saran wrap so that there is either water or vaccum in your mouth. The water pours into your sinuses and throat. You struggle to expel water periodically by building enough pressure in your lungs. With the saran wrap though each time I expelled water, I was able to draw in less air. Finally the lungs can no longer expel water and you begin to draw it up into your respiratory tract. ... I have never been more panicked in my whole life. Once your lungs are empty and collapsed and they start to draw fluid it is simply all over. You know you are dead and it's too late. Involuntary and total panic. ... At the time my lungs emptied and I began to draw water, I would have sold my children to escape. There was no choice, or chance, and willpower was not involved. I never felt anything like it, and this was self-inflicted with a watering can, where I was in total control and never in any danger. And I understood. Waterboarding gets you to the point where you draw water up your respiratory tract triggering the drowning reflex. Once that happens, it's all over. No question. ... So, is it torture? I'll put it this way. If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I'd take the fingers, no question. It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse. I'd prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again. I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything. The Spanish Inquisition knew this. It was one of their favorite methods. It's torture. No question. Terrible terrible torture. To experience it and understand it and then do it to another human being is to leave the realm of sanity and humanity forever. No question in my mind.

Bill Kristol Says Many Americans Don't Matter

Are you a disaffected voter? Do you think both parties have been corrupted and captured by corporate interests? Unhappy with how America has been governed over the last century? Against the war and for peace? Are you Ron Paul supporter?

Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, says in this Fox News interview that what some Americans think doesn't matter at the end. He means you.

In light of such a comment, Ron Paul's concerns about the rise of fascism in America appears decidedly less academic.

More from Sinclair Lewis

Sinclair Lewis was the first American to receive a Nobel Prize for literature. He is little read today, largely because his writing is incomprehensible to those educated under the current American education system. That Lewis was a widely read popular author in the 1920s, tells us something about just how far the U.S. education system has fallen.

Awhile back (see post below), a Fox & Friends reporter put Ron Paul on the spot regarding Mike Huckabee's Christmas "cross" video. Paul, who is amazingly erudite, quoted Lewis on fascism and the cross, and left the reporter stammering. It was quite impressive.

Facism in America wasn't the only concern of Lewis' that is appropriate to the contemporary dialog.

From It Can't Happen Here, 1935:

I know the Press only too well. Almost all editors hide away in spider-dens, men without thought of Family or Public Interest or the humble delights of jaunts out-of-doors, plotting how they can put over their lies, and advance their own positions and fill their greedy pocketbooks by calumniating Statesmen who have given their all for the common good and who are vulnerable because they stand out in the fierce Light that beats around the Throne. -- Sinclair Lewis

It is as though Lewis were writing about the media's treatment of Ron Paul from a vantage point seven decades distant.

The war on Big

Disappointingly little has been written in follow-up to the Russert-Paul interview. Most of it hasn't even been interesting: whining about fairness from Paul's supporters and gnashing of teeth from mainstream media apologists for the status quo. Only one article has highlighted what was significant about the interview, that being Paul's declaration of war on the corporations. One might expect The Hill to be this astute, but it is rather sad that everyone else seems to have missed it.

Paul: Country is moving toward fascism
By Klaus Marre
December 23, 2007

White House hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Sunday that the U.S. is moving toward fascism, stating that corporations are increasingly “running the show” and citizens are being deprived of their liberties.

Paul clarified that he did not refer to the type of fascism that Adolf Hitler practiced in Germany. “We’re not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we’re moving toward a softer fascism,” Paul said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business.”

The lawmaker said the U.S. is moving toward “corporatism.”

Meet the Press

Tim Russert hosted Ron Paul on Meet the Press this morning. It was vintage Russert, hard hitting, relentless, not entirely fair. Paul held his own quite well though, better than might have been expected given the radical nature of Paul's positions within a corrupted culture. Paul made a master stroke at the end of the interview, by equating big corporate control of Washington politics with a "soft" form of fascism -- and thereby appealing to disaffected liberals who are disgusted with the Democrats for having climbed into bed with big business, big media, and big money. Unlike many libertarian apologists for big business, Paul sounds like he may actually understand that being pro capitalism and being pro corporation are not the same thing.

The Green Fairy's Return

After being outlawed for more then a century, the wormwood-based liquor absinthe is once again being legally manufactured and sold in America, sort of.

Recent studies have demonstrated that absinthe's reputed hallucinogenic effect, which had lead to its ban almost a century ago, are purely the psychosomatic effect of absinthe drinkers' expectations. As a result of the studies, absinthe bans in many countries have been overturned outright. (Switzerland even amended its constitution to legalize the stuff. A few of the more rational countries, including Great Britain, Australia, and, surprisingly, Spain, Portugal, never banned the stuff in the first place.)

Is outright legalization the case in the U.S.? Unfortunately not. (America isn't a country often willing to admit its mistakes.) For the time being, U.S. sales are limited to absinthe that can be shown to contain less than 10 parts per million of thujone -- which is the ingredient from wormwood that the studies have shown to be non-hallucinogenic.

For reference, nearly half the weight of sage oil, a dietary supplement commonly used to boost short-term memory, is thujone -- however sage oil is perfectly legal in the U.S. What is the effect of thujone that justifies the continued restriction on absinthe? Supposedly reduced attention span.

R.A.H.

...secrecy is the keystone of tyranny. Not force, but secrecy... censorship. When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything - you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him. -- Robert Anson Heinlein (If This Goes On)

Reconstucting Huckabee

The mainstream media (MSM) has been hollering about Ron Paul having refused to return an isolated contribution from Don Black, a white supremacist with a website. Paul is clearly not a racist and has never had any association with Mr. Black.

The media gave quite a different treatment to Mike Huckabee following the discovery that he had at one time suggested that AIDS victims should be "isolated" (i.e., quarantined (e.g., interred in camps)). That news was treated as passé, even though Huckabee refused to recant the statement and it is not at all clear that Huckabee is not a homophobe. Quite to the contrary, he has been hanging out with homophobes as recently as this week.

On Tuesday, December 18, Huckabee flew to Houston to attend a fund raising event hosted by Steve Hotze, a leader in the Christian Reconstructionist movement. The Reconstructionist are decidedly scarier than any of Don Black's friends, largely because they have real organizations and real followings. (Many are probably white supremacists as well though, so perhaps they contributed money to Don Black -- who foolishly then sent it on to Ron Paul. That would be a great amusement to the rest of Paul's famously tolerant libertarian supporters.)

Who are the Reconstructionist? They are a movement founded by Rousas John Rushdoony (Gary North's father-in-law), with the aim to make America literally a Christian nation. How's that you ask? How is indeed the question. Of course they typically avoid discussion of methods, however their ends could only be accomplished by replacing the Constitution and establishing a police state to impose their version of "god's law" onto the rest of our pluralistic culture. They are, in short, a home-grown, Christian-variety of the Middle East's Islam-o-fascists. The Reconstructionist are all about implementing a society based on Biblical (Mosaic) law. For just a hint at what this would mean, imagine an America that allows for the keeping of slaves, beating of wives, stoning of homosexuals, and a lot of other scary things approved of by the god of the Old Testament.

What has been the reaction from the mainstream media in response to this revelation? So far, not much. Robert Novak wrote about it yesterday, and Brink Lindsey blogged about that on Cato@Liberty, but so far it hasn't made the front pages. By the standards of the mainstream media, a $500 check from a lone racist is news, but participatory fund raising efforts in cooperation with people intent on overthrowing the Constitution is barely worth a mention. And we foolishly think of the media as "liberal"!

There have been isolated rumors and reports that the Christian Reconstructionists already have their tentacles in Washington, perhaps even in the White House. What is interesting about this week's news is the open manner in which the Huckabee fund raiser took place, and that Huckabee himself felt that it politically safe to attend. Apparently the Reconstructionist are feeling secure enough to come out into the open. That may indeed be a safer place for us to have them, however it doesn't speak well of the current social climate in America.

The Reconstructions, no matter their beliefs, do have a right to participate in the political process. There is a big difference, however in a candidate's acceptance of donation and the candidate's active participation in a fund raiser. The latter clearly implies some degree of reverse endorsement. Imagine if Ron Paul had attended a neo-Nazi fund raiser to benefit his campaign, rather than merely cashing a single check from one individual? That news would rightly be plastered all over America's editorial pages. Instead, we have Mike Huckabee attending fund raisers hosted by the Christian Taliban.

Where is the ink?

The Editorial Between the News Lines

On December 19 the Associated Press put an article on the wire by Brian Skoloff regarding Ron Paul having refused to return a campaign donation from a contributor with white supremacists affiliations. The piece not so subtly implies that those with unpopular beliefs should not be allowed to participate in the political process. This is an idea that normally could be dismissed to the ranting of a fascist crank, if it had been presented in an opinion editorial. The Associated Press item was released as a news story however, and therefore its editorial subtext demands a bit more scrutiny.

The campaign contribution was made in late October. Ron Paul's position on the issue was made public and has been widely discussed since November. So here at the end of December, why does the Associated Press even consider the issue to still be news? Is the AP merely a month behind everyone else? Are they trying to influence the electoral process by repeatedly broadcasting old news? Or are they simply not paying attention to what is going out under their name?

It is annoying enough that journalist of the day don't seem to grasp the difference between reporting the news, creating the news, or waxing on about their own opinions. When their employers start letting them mix the three, we should start paying very close attention.

Unclear on the Concepts

During one of the Republican debates, Mike Huckabee both claimed to have theology degree and also refused to (or couldn't) provide an answer to the question of whether Jesus would support the death penalty. Now it turns out that Huckabee doesn't have a theology degree, but rather an undergraduate Bachelor of Arts in Religion (he majored in speech and communications). He apparently dropped out of seminary after only a year in order to go to work for a televangelist.

Since he is presuming to be the candidate of America's Christians, we should be asking ourselves: other than "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not bear false witness," how many other of the Commandants is MIke Huckabee unclear on?

Talk about quick on the draw...

STEVE DOOCY: Mike Huckabee has started running an ad in Iowa, where you're at right now, also in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and in the back, it's a windowpane but it also looks a lot like a cross. And, and, we had a guest a little while ago who said it was inappropriate to be using religion for political purposes. Congressman, I'm just curious what you think?

RON PAUL: Well, I haven't thought about it completely, but you know, it reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said, he said 'when Fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.' I don't know whether that's a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross like he is the only Christian, or implying that subtly. So, I don't think I would ever use anything like that.

Thank you Mr. Sullivan

Over at The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan has endorsed Ron Paul for the Republican presidential nomination. Sullivan's endorsement comes in the form of a thoughtful post explaining his conversion from a pro-war McCain supporter. It is inspiring to see a man put his reputation on the line for the good on the nation. It's equally depressing to notice that so few of our home-grown journalists are still willing to risk as much.

Insight from the Forums

The Authoritarians have Giuliani, the Capitalists have Romney, the Evangelicals have Huckabee, the Libertarians have Paul, the Zombie-Reaganites have Thompson, the Militarists have McCain. And they all hate each other. Is good, is good. -- Posted by MattF

Whose big government?

In response to Huckabee's growing poll numbers, the best thing that could happen for America would be for Huckabee's GOP competitors to paint him as a tax-and-send liberal. That might convince voters that if they are stuck with a choice between a tax-and-spend liberal Republican (in the Bush mold), or a tax-and-spend Democratic (in the Clinton mold), that they may as well vote for the Clinton. The economy was in a lot better shape under Clinton, and it was Clinton, after all, who declared the era of big government to be over. Bush has only done his best to undo that.

If This Goes On

Over sixty years ago, Robert Heinlein warned of the consequences of mixing politics and theology. There is no reason to think that Heinlein was less prescient about the dangers of putting a preacher in the White House than he was about the other things. Let's hope that before the election someone in Hollywood can produce a television or film version of If this Goes On. Are the Wachowski brothers available?

Not really a computer at all...

Over at Salon.com, on the Machinist blog, they are trying to figure out which political candidates are Macs and which are PCs. It is hard to justify equating any politician to something as useful as a computer. They simply don't provide the same utility. Perhaps a better analogy would be with a computer program?

• Given the recent news about Huckabee's desire to "isolate" AIDS victims, he is clearly an anti-virus program with a quarantine feature.
• Mitt Romney would definitely be a word processor. That's exactly the program you need if you need to keep editing your positions.
• Clinton would be one of those old programs that has been rebranded with a new interface --but which still does exactly the same thing.
• Giuliani would be a version of SimCity that has a really bad infinite loop bug.
• Obama might be one of those trendy productivity packages that sounds really great until you get it installed, after which you discover you can't figure out what it actually does.
• McCain would be a game of solitaire.
• It is not clear what Thompson would be. (He probably doesn't knows either.) Whatever it is, it would have shipped late. I'd suggest Vista, but Vista looks better than Thompson and runs faster too.
• And Ron Paul? He is a system integrity utility with a full "Constitutional" restore button. You know, one of those really great programs you never think to buy until after your system has already crashed.

Aping Mitt

Mitt Romney may assert for the fundamentalist crowd that he is now a born-again pro-lifer, but he is likely counting on more liberal Republicans to remain convinced that his change in position is merely political pandering. There could be more than one candidate who is hoping to convince voters that what he really believes is different than what he is publicly stating on the campaign trail.

To that end, the Huckabee campaign may have themselves strategically leaked the information about Huckabee's 1992 questionnaire answer suggesting internment for AIDS victims. Huckabee is safely in the future, where he can protest that society now knows it can afford to be compassionate, but he has still sent the message to the homophobic base of the fundamentalist movement that he is the kind of man who wouldn't hesitate to put fags in a pen. This would explain Huckabee's surging poll numbers in Iowa and the southern states.

A Huckabee nomination is likely to ensure that the Democrats take the White House, however, if it doesn't, gays better be ready to move to Canada.

What did Maher have to say?

Alan Takes a Shot

As Alan Reynolds observes in the Wall Street Journal, the markets sure seemed to think that Bush's plan was a bailout. Yet Reynolds' editorial doesn't clearly elucidate any obvious transfer. For everyday people to understand this "fix" to be just another corporate welfare bailout, and not an example of big government successfully working successfully, it has to be reduced to a simple black-and-white illustration of government stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Reynolds doesn't really accomplishes that. Of course, the everyday people weren't who Reynolds was writing for in the Wall Street Journal. Has anyone else successfully undertaken the task for a broader outreach? The Snarkmeister wants to know.

The Essence of Class

"The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle, that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends." --Ron Paul

IBG-YBG

Bush's Teaser-Freezer plan is more of what caused the problem in the first place: the "I'll be gone-You'll be gone" (IBG-YBG) approach that collects payments in the present and pushes costs into the future. The underlying weakness has not been addressed, it is merely being deferred through obfuscation and subsidy until the current generation of political and business leaders is able to retire without having to bear responsibility for a coming reevaluation that remains inevitable.