This ain't even my desk!

Please visit me at http://volunteervoters.com/

Clearly

It appears that men are smarter than women. I knew it all along.

Just kidding. Actually, I thought it was probably about equal. My thoughts had always been, yes, men have a slightly higher proportion of the "geniuses" but we also seem to have a higher proportion of the extremely dull and the mentally handicapped. Women on the other hand seem to have less variation. Not as many geniuses, but not as many at the lower end of the spectrum either, so it pretty much evens out. I still think that's probably pretty much the case.

Where I do think the study is probably right on is when it says, "that at the same level of IQ women are able to 'achieve more' than men, 'possibly because they are more conscientious and better adapted to sustained periods of hard work'." This is undoubtably true. So, any actual IQ gap that may exist would likely be closed in practice by this reality. An interesting study though and fun to think about.

The big question is: Do these researchers have wives and/or girlfriends? And, if so, don't they essentially disprove their thesis by actually publishing their findings?

Jean-Charles de Menezes was an illegal alien

Interesting fact that I hadn't heard before: Jean-Charles de Menezes was an illegal alien. The native Brazilian, mistaken for a "A-rab" terrorist and thusly gatted out trying to board the subway in London, was not a British citizen, nor was he in the country legally:

[H]is visa to remain in the UK having expired in 2003. It was also later reported that a stamp on his passport showing that he had 'indefinite leave to remain' in the UK had been forged.

This does not mean he deserved to be shot nor does it relieve the police of their responsibility. Their shoddy police work and "shoot-first" tactics should be roundly denounced and I do denounce them. However, the de Menezes family is seeking monetary compensation. Are they entitled to the same compensation that the family of a British citizen would be? After all, the fact remains that he shouldn't have been there. If he had not been breaking the law, he would still be alive. Something to think about.

Where the Grass is Green and the Green is ALL MINE!

I had always wondered what old Axl Rose was up to these days. Apparently, he's been up to naming himself sole administrator of Guns N' Roses copyrights and snaking royalities from Slash. The article also mentions that Axl is "is the only member of the band who retains the right to perform under the Guns N' Roses name." Well, that should come in handy.

Put it in the Hopper

Pat Buchanan says:

Well, we are being invaded, and the president of the United States is not doing his duty to protect the states against that invasion. Some courageous Republican, to get the attention of this White House, should drop into the hopper a bill of impeachment, charging George W. Bush with a conscious refusal to uphold his oath and defend the states of the Union against "invasion."

Indeed. Why people keep calling Bush "conservative" is beyond me. As a conservative, you are supposed to envision a small, decentralized role for the federal government -- save a few areas. One of those areas is PROTECTING THE DAMN BORDER, MAN!

Bush is spending all sorts of money and expanding the government while ignoring the one thing he's obligated to do. He is derelict in his duty. Impeach him.

Flickred with his pants down

Miss Thao Nguyen engages in a little subway vigilantism, Flickr-style (courtesy of the Daily Eudemon). Behold the power of Flickr.

Lillpop of Immigration Reform

Sounds like a plan.

Rape and Consequences

Yesterday, BrittneyG-of-the-NiT seemed quite taken aback by a study that indicated that 35% of men would rape a woman if they were "assured of not getting punished." This is surprising to some, I suppose. Not to me, just another reminder of the fundamental baseness of humanity. We all like to think that evil is kept at bay because we are "good people" or because of "our closeness to God." And that may be true, for some. But for most, I suspect fear is what prevents them from being wicked and, unfortunately, not fear of God or some final judgment.

Most people fear punishment in the here and now. Fear of retribution, sure. Fear of incarceration, definitely. But not just that. Fear of exposure. Fear of societal censure. It's not any basic goodness or god-fearing. How many times have you heard someone say, "Oh, I can't do that, wear that, drink that, etc. -- someone from my church might see." Someone from your Church might see? Well, God goes to your Church, don't he? What is He blind today? Fear of immediate censure and punishment is what stops most of humanity from doing those evil little deeds that bubble beneath the surface of the cerebral cortex.

This base nature is in most of us to one degree or another. We should be aware of it and fight it but this reality should not cause us to lose perspective. Brittney is scared that the aforementioned study could mean that it's not just "the crazies" that might rape but also any number of "normal" men. This revelation doesn't make all men potential rapists any more than it makes all people murders or thieves. Remove consequences from the equation and anything becomes possible. If people were given one "free murder", how many would have to strain to think of someone they’d send to meet the Lord sooner rather than later. How many wouldn't play Robin Hood and embezzle a few dollars for their selves and their loved ones.

Well, not me, you might say. Possibly, but because any number of consequences are in place we’ll never know for sure, will we? It may be unfortunate and depressing to think about but consequences is what keeps most of us in line. Some of us are genuinely good people and some are very close to God but I would say, for a majority, consequences are what keep us from acting poorly.

Because Brittney fears that this study somehow impugns a significant portion of the male gender, let’s go ahead and flip the script on the very same issue: rape. How many women have fantasies of being raped? How could I even ask a question like that? Well, it’s done. I said it. The subject is on the table. Let’s discuss it.

We can argue about how large or small the number, but there are women who fantasize or have fantasized about being raped. Now, these women don't want to “actually” be raped any more than all those men want to perpetrate rape -- because of the consequences (i.e. pregnancy, diseases, serious injury, societal scorn, etc.). Take away the consequences and how many women might not enjoy an encounter that was less than "consensual”? These women who fantasize about a “risk-free” rape would never really want to something like it to happen -- because in the real world there are consequences. Just like all those men in the study wouldn’t really rape because of the consequences.

Take away consequences and all bets are off. That's why we have them. People -- men and woman -- would do any number of sick and evil things in a world without consequences. Rape is just one of them. It is not that we need to fear that men might be closet rapists. We need to fear human nature itself.

Pants on FIRE, Preacherman!

Pat Robertson just lied his ass off about endorsing the assassination of Hugo Chavez. Today he says this:

Wait a minute, I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should, quote, "take him out," and "take him out" can be a number of things including kidnapping. There are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time.

Two days ago, he said this:

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.

This is amazing. Its not as though this was a long time ago and he may have forgotten exactly what he said. This was TWO DAYS ago. There is VIDEO. Paddy Rob, what are you trying to pull here, Chief? You endorsed, essentially, murder and then LIED about. You are caught. I'll pray for you, buddy.

********************UPDATE 08/24/05 4:30PM********************
Pat Robertson decides in the end to go with an apology instead of an outright denial since, ya know, there's footage and everything.

...And You Let Them

Pat Buchanan reminds us that the bloody hands are not only on one side of the aisle:

They failed in their duty to do due diligence before transferring the war power the Constitution invested in Congress to President Bush. Like the Enron and WorldCom boards of directors, they failed to monitor the executive over whom they had oversight authority.

Coveting an Ass

Pat Robertson, two thirds of the way to a hat trick, proclaimed that the United States should disregard more Commandments:

Speaking on the television program he hosts, “The 700 Club,” Mr. Robertson lashed out at the Venezuelan strongman once more, telling his audience, “It’s high time that the United States coveted Hugo Chavez’ wife.”

Warming to his topic, the opinionated preacher added, “And while we’re at it, we should covet his house, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox and his ass, for that matter.”

Mr. Robertson indicated that all of the coveting he referred to would not require a war, arguing that it could be all done through the use of covert operatives within Venezuela.

“We could send some special ops guys down there, and bang-bang, covet all of that stuff,” Mr. Robertson told his audience.

*Yes, I am aware this is satire. Thank you. Well, not so much, now.

Say hi to the White Guy

The brainwashing has backfired! Kevin Carter tells the tale of his college conversion to paleoconservatism.

Economics 101

Are tariffs the most regressive tax? I don't think so. Regressive or progressive, all taxes are punitive and, therefore, bad. They are a necessary evil, however. Government needs to make that money like everyone else. The "how" is what's important and, personally, I see tariffs as a great way to do it.

Income taxes are bad for many reasons. Not only do they tax work or labor, in essence punishing that action, they tax individuals. Individuals have to either become accountants or hire them. Individuals are forced to spend time and money doing their taxes and/or maneuvering around them.

Sales taxes are better. They tax consumption. Punishing consumption is infinitely better than punishing work. The paperwork for sales taxes falls to businesses who already have accountants and bookkeepers. Yes, the taxes get passed on to the individual consumer but not by force. Don't want to pay as much tax? Buy less stuff. Also, businesses are constrained by the marketplace. It is in their interest to pass as little of the tax on to consumers because, if they fail to, someone else will.

The best tax, however, is the tariff. Not only is it essentially a consumption tax, it is a tax on foreign goods. It punishes not just consumption, but a specific kind of consumption. It punishes companies that take advantage of relaxed regulations and cheap labor in other countries to undercut American goods. We should want people to buy American goods. When they do, not only do they get the goods, they are helping another American get paid, have a job, or make more jobs. If you want to buy foreign, that's fine. But the value to the national economy that is lost by buying foreign should be compensated for. With tariffs, it is -- through the additional tax revenues. It seems perfect to me.

Yes, it goes against the conventional wisdom of free trade and Economics 101. A lot of crap I learned in school turned out to be BS, why should Economics 101 be any different.

You ever caught a body, Preacherman?

Pat Robertson, host of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club and founder of the Christian Coalition of America, called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez today:

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.

...This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly.

Regardless of whether this is bad policy or not, it makes me uncomfortable that Robertson would say this on the air. He is not a pastor. He doesn't have a church. He's not really even a televangelist in the traditional sense, but he is still a spiritual leader to many, many people. He is not on TV supporting a war cause. Pat Robertson is calling for the body of one man. This is not the place of a spiritual and moral leader. If this is something Robertson really feels strongly about, he should pick up the phone and call the President and talk privately. Men of God calling for bodies on television is just unseemly.

You can't assassinate world leaders. It not only invites, but essentially justifies, attempts on your own leader's life. Also, the aftermath cannot be controlled without further intervention. If you just eliminate a bad leader, how do you know someone worse won't take his place? The amount of intervention involved in guaranteeing a result would require, more or less, a wartime scenario. Assassination, doesn't prevent wars, it starts them. Archduke Ferdinand, anyone?

Now, the Monroe Doctrine is excellent and a term that should have been ringing out much more than it was when we were dropping bombs on Bosnia and invading Iraq. I'm more likely to support an intervention in our own backyard than halfway across the world. Still unlikely, but I'm more willing to hear the case. The Monroe Doctrine is a great foreign policy tradition, but a license to go around picking off South American dictators, it isn't. Robertson is wrong on this. Morally, politically, and tactically -- he is wrong.

A Jewell

Now, a few words on looking for things. When you go looking for something specific, your chances of finding it are very bad. Because of all the things in the world, you're only looking for one of them. When you go looking for anything at all, your chances of finding it are very good. Because of all the things in the world, you're sure to find some of them.

-- Bill Pullman as "Daryl Zero" in The Zero Effect

The Hard Right NiT Digest

I was this past weekend's guestblogger at Nashville is Talking, the WKRN News2 "blogwatching" blog. These were my contributions (in reverse chronological order):

The Dramatical Conclusion
Don't Take Any Guff From Those Swine
Eastside Brittney
Hageling a New Foreign Policy
Conservativeville, TN
This Mall is No More -- It Has Ceased to Be
Peppers and Onions
I'm Too Sexy for my Face
Foodstuffs in Da 'Boro
Areligion a Religion
I Know That Name, It's Political
Tighten it up there, Taxman
Pump Your Brakes -- You're Speedin', Money
Practical Sanctioning
A Lott of Bitterness
Becoming a Woman
Sheehan is Anti-Semitic for Rizzell says Frizzell
How bout this heat?
Deep Sleep
Go 'head Envy Me, I'm Playgirl's MVP
Blogging for Beavers
Unwept, Unhonored, and Unsung
Nice Digs
Viva la Shelbyville!
Pinch-hitting for the American Republic...
Get You a Gatt to Take Care of That
You a Slave to the Meter Now, Boy
Squatting in Pearltown
My Class Two Blogging License

Focus on the Marketing

The Christian Science Monitor on selling the Savior:

"The church in more ways than not is mirroring Wall Street and the world and Madison Avenue," says H. B. London, vice president of pastoral ministries at Focus on the Family, a national resource network for evangelical Christians. "We're [lagging] behind them to a certain degree, but we're using all their techniques.

***********************UPDATE 8/19/05************************
BrittneyG on the comments section of this post.

I like the insanity...

Me, I like the insanity. I like the pain. I like the misery. I like this world!

-- Clifford Smith

Can't we all just get along...and keep out illegals?

This is unfortunate. Despite what you might think from watching the news and absorbing popular culture, blacks have become quite upwardly mobile and there exists a large and growing black middle class. That being said, there is still a good chunk at the lower end of the spectrum who are in direct competition with illegals for jobs. When jobs are lost and wages decline, quite often it is the black man who suffers. The "racist" charge has thus far prevented blacks from getting together with white immigration restrictionists on any meaningful level. This is sad because if we could get together it would be a formidable coalition.

Blue horseshoe loves illegal immigration

You've heard of War profiteers, yeah? Well, there are immigration profiteers, too. Banks have started giving loans to illegal aliens. That is money laundering, pure and simple. The Feds need to put these banks together with my friend, Rico, if you know what I'm sayin'.

An illiberal triumph of anti-social subcultures

Chris Roach waxes eloquent on the "Libertarian Self-Delusion":

So to imagine that the libertarian dream world will be a world of wealth maximization, commerce, all night raves, parentally chaperoned keg parties, tolerance for homosexuals, and enlightened views is an aesthetic kind of argument, the chief libertarian vision, and not one that will likely result. It will just as surely conssit of Branch Davidian compounds, all white clubs, racial discrimination in most employment, and mistreament of children by their parents without legal recourse. Incidentally, that world may well be preferable to the one we live in [on balance], and I understand the von Mises/Rothbard arguments about subjective values and voluntary association. But it does seem to be a bit phoney to imagine that the libertarian world would not involve any coercion and that also people's voluntary choices would not lead to some unpleasant, ugly, and downright immoral outcomes that even the most staunch libertarian would be a bit ashamed to defend. The painting always of a very pleasant picture and the refusal to recognize the prepolitical preferences--for race, tribe, nation, religion, modesty, chastity--that will shape such a world does evidence an 'unconstrained' vision.

Don't hate the standard

BrittneyG-of-the-NiT has a beef with the differences in the sentences of Mark Schiefelbein and Pamela Rodgers -- both serving time for sexual offenses against minors. Brittney juxtaposes the two cases and then asks, "Can we say super-duper big time double standard?"

We certainly can. We can say it, write it down and take a picture and it will still be as right as snow on Christmas.

First of all, the cases are not even similar enough to make the case she is attempting. An 11-year-old female gymnastics student is most likely frail, small of stature, and prepubescent. Hell, even 19 year-old gymnasts look prepubescent. This is pedophilia -- authentic.

What Miss Rodgers appears to have engaged in is more aptly described as ephebophilia. The boy was a 13-year-old basketball stand-out athlete. He was likely taller and more physically developed than his classmates. Probably more socially adept and mature as well, as team sport athletes are likely to be. Thus, Brittney's comparison is, at best, imperfect.

However, let's assume the cases were more congruent. Women and men are different. Our sexuality is different. There is a different dymanic at work and it is one deeply ingrained in human nature. I wouldn't want to live in a world where a little girl's sexual purity was not more treasured than a little boy's. Would you?

I understand fairness but do we really want true sexual equality in this particular area? It seems like, in pursuit of fairness, feminists forget what they have to lose. A lot of these double standards are because men put women up on a pedestal. Men seek to be their protectors -- punishing those who transgress against the female far harsher than they would someone transgressing against their own gender. Double standards can be completely good, natural, and beneficial to women. Do we really want women to step down off that pedestal and become "equal"?

**************************UPDATE 8/18/05************************
BrittneyG posts of my response. Good disscussion in the comments.

Sterilization doesn't make me sick

Quite the contrary, actually. First of all, it is a completely voluntary private enterprise. If a private citizen wants to pay drug addicts to get sterilized, what's the problem? You can pay a surrogate mother to carry a child -- why can't you pay someone not to? As for not getting them treatment instead, well, there are many organizations that do that. If you don't believe there are enough, start one. These people are simply attacking the problem this way. If someone goes to treatment, there is no guarantee of sobriety. In fact, the success rate is quite low. You shoot someone up with Norplant, they will almost certainly not get pregnant.

I actually think the government should do stuff like this. I have always said if ran for office of any sort this would be one of my top platforms (which is why I never would). I had always thought welfare, not drug addicts. A similar principle is at work though. There is nothing wrong with society providing some basic safety net to the downtrodden. If you are a struggling single mom, there should be help for you. There is no right to welfare, however. The State should not have to subsidize subsequent pregnancies. It is not in the State's interest, nor the mother's. So in exchange for the check, you get Norplant. You don't want the Norplant? Fine. No check. Easiest thing in the world and completely constitutional, in my opinion, although no modern court would ever uphold it.

In need of a tune-up

Man, if it had been me, I don't believe the man's inhaler would have done a bit of good for his breathing.

War is Hell

Well, maybe not. King-sizes and internet cafes? Heck, the War in Iraq doesn't even seem to rise to the level of purgatory.

This guy makes a lot more sense to me in this context.

The only prescription for a fever

Epstein Barr

If you look over to right you'll see a bunch of links with various headings. The "Fab Five" are five of the greatest syndicated columnists of the modern age who most influenced my world view. Located underneath "The Five" I have "The New School." "The New School" are five young conservative writers who I believe have the talent to pick up the torch for the Fab Five when they are gone (sadly, one, Sam Francis, is already no longer with us).

Marcus Epstein is one of the members of my "New School." He just graduated from college, I believe, but his name's been ringin' out on various websites for a few years so he must have started writing when he was like eleven. Apparently, he's having trouble getting his stuff published of late so he's released three of his unpublished works on his website. I invite you to read those superior scribblings here, here, and here.

On the Waterfront

They say immigrants do jobs natives won't do, but that need doing. So how do countries without an abundance of immigrants keep up? Well, I'll tell ya. ROBOTS!

While I certainly would take robots over an influx of immigrants, I'm not too sure I want to live in a cyborg society. I would prefer native humans do the work now done by illegals. Higher wages will have to be paid, but it's a small price for quality of life. Also, immigrant labor has displaced many jobs teens used to do. We can put them back to work instead of going all Terminator and stuff. If robots are the only answer, then bring on Skynet. But, I suspect mechanization isn't the only solution.

You're talking history, right? I'm talking now. Because down here, it's still "Who's your old man?" 'Til you got kids of your own and then it's, "Who's your son?" But after the horror movie I seen today... Robots! Piers full of robots! My kid'll be lucky if he's even punchin' numbers five years from now. And while it don't mean s**t to me that I can't take my steak knives to Dibiago and Sons, it breaks my f***ing heart that there's no future for the Sobotkas on the waterfront!

-- Frank Sobotka from "The Wire: Season Two"

A versatile solution for modern living

I'm thinking seriously about this for my new couch:














Believe it or not, FedEx is actually suing the guy who made this. FedEx needs to seriously overhaul their PR department because this guy should be doing commercials. Some voiceover while the guy jumps up and down on his FedEx box bed. It's got potential, I'm telling you.

Let her play

Bill Hobbs issued an open invitation for "political bloggers" in Nashville to attend a special lunch" August 29 with state Sen. Rosalind Kurita, a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Brittney Gilbert, a blogger for WKRN News2 in Nashville, asked to attend. She was denied. Why? She is not primarily a "political blogger."

What's the criteria here? Brittney posts plenty of politics. She posts a lot period. She probably posts 15 or more times a day -- at least three or four of them are political. That's likely an equal or greater amount of posts per day than many "political bloggers" Hobbs will have in attendence. So what, Brittney gets penalized because of the additional stuff she posts? Are we judging by some sort of percent post ratio, or something? She posts political content and she works for a NEWS organization. Brittney Gilbert is a political blogger. I say, B-Ho, let her go.

Now wait a minute, there's no reason to get ugly. There's just a misunderstanding going on here. You said this bar is for truckers and bikers, Well, I'm a truck driver. If you look outside your door, parked in your parking lot, you'll see a big ass recreational vehicle. That's mine. In order to drive that legally, you need a class two driver's license. That is the same license that the DMV requires truck drivers to carry in order to drive a truck. That is me, and this is my class two license. This is a truck driver's bar, I am a truck driver, and these are my friends.

-- Harvey Keitel as "Jacob" in the film "From Dusk Til Dawn"

***************************UPDATE 8/12/05*************************
Not only did Miss Brittney link to this post but I also got picked up by Knoxville blogwatcher Michael Silence. And, Mr. Blake Wylie thinks I do one heck of Chris Farley impersonation -- at least in print.

Nazis. Always, there are Nazis.

The immigration reform movement always has and always will have a problem with extremists. If you have a shaved head and a heavily dogeared and highlighted copy of Mein Kampf, chances are you are for less immigration. The problem is immigration restrictionists need all the voters and activists they can get so they tend to be hesitant to exclude someone who may have extremist views or associations.

Immigration is not an explicitly racial issue. But if someone says, "Listen, this country was founded by White Europeans. We have always been a majority. It seems to work well that way. Let's not mess too much with it." Why exclude them? Some might think someone with such a view is racist and, who knows, they may very well be. To me, it's an entirely reasonable position and no reason for exclusion. What is a reason for exclusion is when you go to a mainstream rally where people are FILMING and bust out a swastika. Yeah, thanks fellas, but you really aren't helping.

I don't understand this even from the National Socialist perspective. Let's say you just straight-up hate Mexicans and I mean hate -- like cross the street, wash your hands after you shake hands-type hate. You want less Mexicans in the country, right? Then what the hell are you doing scaring the crap out of white non-racists and minorities who might very well be inclined to help you in your quest to maintain a European majority? Running around like a smacked ass with your shaved head, your bright red Doc Martens, yellin' "Heil Hitler" only results in more immigration, not less. Are you really that stupid? Either put on some normal clothes, stash the flag at home, and keep your mouth shut or stay home and read Mein Kampf for the 14th time and leave us out of it.

Blair Witch meets Apocalypse Now

I had never heard of the Septem8er Tapes before my friend recommended a very good documentary he had just seen on DVD. Of course, no more than a few minutes in are you aware that the film is not a true documentary.

I am surprised I'd never heard of it. The film is at least interesting even if you think it (and the internet chatter and reviews do seem to be quite negative) poorly performed, exploitive, or contrived. A reasonable case could be made for any of the three. I, however, give it my highest recommendation.

The only beef I had was that the end's "big reveal" had been telegraphed early on. I had a strong suspicion almost from the outset and what should have been "the first clue" served only as proof-positive confirmation for me. A good DVD nonetheless.

Hate

Always remember others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.

-- Tricky Dick

fotonovelas

Denver librarian Rick Ashton sparks debate over immigration by catering to the needs of Latino library-goers. Apparently, their "needs" involve Mexican porn.

Terrorists among us

But if terrorism is the massacre of innocents to break the will of rulers, were not Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism on a colossal scale?

-- Patrick J. Buchanan

You like Sausage?

So what are we saying exactly? Land grabs, sprawl, and the destruction of local business and small town life is okay because poor people can pay 8 percent less for their sausage biscuits? Is that what we're saying?

No consensus. None.

Daniel Drezner notes that Miss Tamar Jacoby seems to think there is a consensus in this country on immigration:

[E]ven with politicians as diverse as President Bush, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and Senators Kyl, Cornyn, McCain, and Edward Kennedy weighing in--there is much more consensus on immigration than is generally recognized.

We're not quite at the point yet where, as is said about the Israeli-Palestinian problem, "everyone knows what the solution is--the only difficulty is getting there." But there is increasing agreement about the contours of the problem and even about critical elements of the solution.

The emerging consensus starts with a shared grasp not just that the system is broken, but also why its breakdown is unacceptable to Americans: because of what it means for the rule of law and for our national security.

Gone are the days when one side in the debate was concerned about immigrants and the other about angry native-born voters--when one side wanted expansive annual quotas and the other wanted tighter control over the system. Today, reformers as different as Kyl and Kennedy (cosponsor of the McCain legislation) recognize that robust immigration is a boon to the U.S. economy, but that we must construct a system--a more regulated, orderly system--that permits foreign workers to enter the country in a lawful manner. Both sides recognize that we need immigrants and the rule of law--that we need foreign workers, but also control.

Miss Jacoby, you've gotta be kidding me. I don't even think she really believes this but in case she does, let me go ahead and let her know. These angry native-born voters, we're still here -- and we ain't going nowhere. Consensus? Among the political and economic elite, maybe. Democrats want more minority voters to vote for Big Government and Republicans want cheap labor for Big Business. That's your consensus, Miss Jacoby. And quite frankly, it sucks.

The evolution of VDare

VDare is one of my favorite websites. It's absolutely great -- as is the fact that John Brimelow, big bro to VDare top dog Peter, apparently drops in here every now and again. Anyway, a fellow VDare fan wrote in recently to complain about the site's loss of focus. You see VDare is a site primarily concerned with the issue of immigration or the "National Question".

Mr. Brimelow has created a nice little editorial collective at VDare of Immigration Reform writers. These writers, however, do not write about the nuts and bolts of immigration all the time. Occasionally, they get into areas that are only ancillary (or at least seem to be) to the National Question and sometimes there are articles that have almost nothing to do with immigration at all. Apparently, Mr. Brimelow gets quite a few complaints about this.

The free-trade immigration restrictionists don't want to hear from those with a more protectionist view. The anti-war immigration restrictionists have a large-type beef with the pro-war immigration restrictionists -- and so on. This is stupid.

The entire political and economic elite of this country is pro-immigration. If a writer has enough fortitude to buck the elite why shouldn't VDare provide an outlet for his work -- all his work. Immigration restrictionists need to recognize that immigration is a big issue, literally and figuratively, and everyone comes to the issue from different routes with different perspectives. Not only is it part of what makes the site interesting, but is a reminder of the fact that the only way to ever move the immigration issue forward is to build coalitions.

These coalitions will require us to work with people whose views on other issues -- important issues -- are diametrically opposed to our own. So what. Maybe we learn something; maybe we agree to disagree. The point is VDare is an editorial collective organized around immigration. It need not be shackled to it. I guess what I'm saying is that I like VDare just the way it is and that those naysayers who lack a little imagination need to go ahead and put a sock in it already.

Stooksbury's Index of Leading Economic Indicators

The economic indicators are reasonably good, but I see too many check cashing businesses, rent-to-own stores, signs offering to buy homes quickly and places where you can borrow money on your car title; to believe that the economy is genuinely healthy.

--Clark Stooksbury

Goldie Hawn Jr. on Monogamy

Interesting post at the Daily Eudemon on actress Kate Hudson's views on marriage and monogamy:

‘’I don’t believe [monogamy] is realistic. But I believe that we, as people, have the power to make it happen.” She added: ‘’I will not disrespect my husband and stray.” ...Asked if she believes [her husband] has remained faithful, Hudson said, ‘’If for some reason, that’s what he has to go do, I just don’t want to know. As long as things are good in our house, just please, don’t get caught.”

When she says monogamy is "not practical", I believe she means "not natural." Which is true, it isn't. It takes an enormous amount of discipline, but it is achievable. Hudson's views here are entirely healthy. It is important to recognize that the institution of marriage is a constant battle against biology and human nature. If one fails to acknowledge this, they can't possibly forge the weapons needed to fight the battle.

Where Miss Hudson's views become unhealthy and where her acknowlegement of the difficulties of monogamy become moral surrender is in her explicit endorsement of a Hillary Clinton/Carmela Soprano "don't ask, don't tell" policy on marital fidelity. Many women, especially among the affluent, have some fashion of this policy with varying degrees of consciousness.

If a man keeps his wife happy (i.e. keeps the money coming in, cares for his children, attends to his wife's sexual needs on at least a basic level), he can get away with a moderate amount of discreet infidelity. It's not that these women don't care or don't suspect. They simply aren't going to look that hard. A happy woman is simply not going to go on the hunt without reason. However, start neglecting your children, stop holding up your end in the bedroom, fail to keep enough steaks in the freezer and you will get caught. Highly immoral and sad, but it is reality for many, many people.

Border patrol agent smuggles in illegals

Oh yeah, he is one, too. You heard me. An illegal immigrant had the stones to march into an immigration office and apply for a job as an agent. What kind of circus are we running here? Beam me up.

*************************UPDATE 8/11/05************************
My man was apparently an honorably discharged US Navy Vet, too. Very nice.

Feets of Egyptian Cotton

After reading this, it occured to me how funny it would be if guys applied the same concept to their feet that women do to their chest. The results would be quite humourous. A bunch of guys waddling around and tripping over stuff because they bought themselves a pair of big ole clown shoes and stuffed a whole mess of cotton in the front.

Just another victim

Excellent article in the Nashville Scene by their resident conservative/libertarian Roger Abramson. I would like to see a follow-up outlining alternative tactics to limiting the societal decay that "victimless" crimes inflict (a la The Wire: Season Three).

I agree that government should not (and cannot) eliminate vice. However, it can subtly (and it must be very subtle) manipulate how and when people do their dirt and who is negatively effected. Keeping vice away from children and "respectable" areas of the community is important. The government should not engage in rigid prohibition, but it cannot shirk its responsibilty to those citizens who want nothing to do with vice.

This might answer your question

People always prefer honesty. The area of race relations seems to be no exception. It appears that blacks would rather interact with less tolerant individuals than those with more accepting views. That is to say that a black would be more likely to accept the race realist who does not deny obvious racial differences than the racial utopian who pretends to live in a world that deep down he knows does not exist. It makes sense. How can you respect someone who is not honest with themselves? Brings to mind specifically, the very-white (considering their politics) Green Party and Green-leaning Democrats who talk racial harmony more than they walk it.

Call me a homo all you want...

..but I still won't support the Iraq War. I would've thought pickup though, not SUV, but what do I know.

There are no heroes anymore -- only men who follow orders

"Armageddon Gets No Press" by Paul Craig Roberts:

The mainstream media has been co-opted as propaganda organ for the Bush administration. How did this come about?

It came about through media concentration. There are no longer independent voices in the mainstream media. American news reporting is a corporate operation run with a view to advertising profits and the accommodation of government in order to protect holdings of valuable federal licenses. For reporters and editors, knowing what to say and not to say is the main qualification for job security.

A person who wants to find out anything must go online and spend time learning the sites that are trustworthy.

The Internet, thought invaluable for spreading news, hasn’t the impact on the public of a story pounded over and over on TV news or newspaper front pages. Exposure on the Internet doesn’t have the same embarrassment factor as exposure on TV news and the New York Times front page.

Nah...Nope...Nein...Nyet....Non...

See Danny Boy Flynn on the "Just say No" tradition. And here is some knowledge from my man, Mr. AuH20:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests, " I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

-- Barry Goldwater

Tag Team

"Old Timey" Congressmen Ron "Dr. No" Paul and Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee break down the War in Iraq paleo-style.

The Expiration of the Patriarchy

I found this post from the illustrious "egalia" (who has me seriously contemplating the pseudonym "thoritario") via BrittneyG-of-the-NiT. I have many beefs with the post but I'm gonna focus primarily on her first bullet point: "Promoting the Expiration of Patriarchy."

Now, I am often guilty of extremism (albeit in the other direction) and eccentric phrasings but who exactly are we trying to convert to feminist causes using terms like "expiration of the patriarchy"?

Leaving the pompous phrasing aside, do we really live in a patriarchy? Do men really control and dominate all aspects of life? I don't see it. "Egalia" can see me as obtuse, close-minded, and ignorant for believing this, but I really don't see it. Maybe in the past, but not today.

Women have enormous amounts of power in modern society. Statistics say that women don't make as much money as men. Maybe, but who controls the money and on whose happiness is the money spent? Wives, daughters, not to mention mistresses and girlfriends quite often reap the rewards from a male paycheck. It is rarely the other way around for extended periods of time. It does happen, yes. But to say women don't have economic power in this country is ludicrous. Many an advertising dollar is spent in pursuit of women. They may not have the income but advertisers know who is the shot-caller when the time comes to write the checks and swipe the cards.

Many women make conscious choices to pursue career paths that are less lucrative. This is not due to an oppressive patriarchy or a lack of ability. This is due to choice. Women are just as powerful and capable as men. However, women wield their power differently and thus it manifests itself differently. The problem with feminism is that it measures female power by male criteria. Thus, women fall short.

Women can throw a man out of his own house at just the accusation of abuse. Male possessions and offspring can be taken away at whim by a woman in this society. A women can sue for child support from a man even when the child isn't of his line.

I simply don't see how one can look around modern America and say that women lack power. Women pull just as many strings as men, if not more. They are just different strings. There is no patriarchy. None. Not no more.

I'm blowin' up

Hard Right was on the idiot box. Go here and click on "News 2's resident blogger works within new world of information." Just after the one minute mark, they do a little show-and-tell about this post. Don't blink.