• Abortion,  Politics

    An anaology I intend to steal

    From this post about abortion on the primary feminist site; it captures my feelings on the political matter more or less

    Not to beat this horse to death, but let’s use the 1st Amendment as an analogy. Everyone would agree it’s none of the government’s business if I choose to practice Islam. So what would you say if the government, while keeping it legal to practice Islam, nevertheless decided there were too many Muslims in this country and therefore decided to spend taxpayers’ dollars educating people on religions other than Islam. I assume you would find that completely unacceptable. I don’t see the difference between this and abortion. If it’s none of the government’s business whether women have abortion, then the government shouldn’t be in the business of discouraging abortions. What am I missing?

    Comments Off on An anaology I intend to steal
  • Funny,  Quotes

    Laughing out loud

    From Overcoming Bias

    “As for the little green men… they don’t want us to know about them, so they refrain from making contact… then they do silly aerobatics displays within radar range of military bases… with their exterior lights on… if that’s extraterrestrial intelligence, I’m not sure I want to know what extraterrestrial stupidity looks like.”
    — Russell Wallace

    Comments Off on Laughing out loud
  • Patrick Lang

    Perfectly put

    From Col. Lang

    Tom Brokaw made a reference on MSNBC today to the “commander in chief of the United States.”

    NO!

    The president is commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States, not of the country. We have no emperor. To think of the president of the United States as commander in chief of the country is to make this person the sovereign and we his subjects.

    Comments Off on Perfectly put
  • McCain,  Obama,  Politics

    Palin the tethered goat

    It seems to me that the McCain campaign is using Sarah Palin to draw out the worst of the democratic leaning population, which will cause the not that interested voter to associate the Obama campaign with the Move-On/Cindy Sheehan crowd, and hence be turned to Obama. Pretty clever.

    On another note, isn’t Palin a wonderful blank canvas on which people can project their hopes and desires? She’s the equal of Obama in that regard.

  • McCain,  Obama,  Sarah Palin,  Tribes

    North To Alaska!

    Sarah Palin was a good choice. Why?

    The voters have made it clear that they do not care about experience this year. If they did, then the election would be between Richardson (governor, former cabinet secretary) and Romney (former governor, businessman and olympic organizer). Nor do they care about ideology, if they cared about that, the campaign would be between Fred Thompson (remember him), the closest follower of Reagan running in 2008, and Clinton, who basically (along with Bill) defined the modern Democratic party.

    Instead it’s a contest of tribes.

    The Republicans quickly split off into the evangelicals (with Huckabee as their champion) vs Everybody Else (featuring St John of Arizona).

    The Democrats presented a more interesting conflict. They split off into the Black vote, the white working class vote, the over 35 woman vote, the progressive (aka elitist) vote, with a little “Return to Normalcy” tribe (sort of like the Druse or Mormons) sprinkled in.

    The Black and Progressive tribes roped in the Return to Normalcy tribe and triumphed over the over 35 woman and white working class tribes, and annointed their chosen one. (On a side note, isn’t tribal warfare in America better than in other countries?)

    McCain accurately saw the rules of the game as they are currently defined and saw a chance to pick off the dead enders in the WWC and over 35 woman tribes, and took it. I still think Obama is going to win in November, but it’s going to be much closer than it would be if he nominated, say, Romney or Ridge.

    Comments Off on North To Alaska!
  • David Friedman,  Obama

    A good Obama post from David Friedman

    David Friedman makes this well put observation about Obama, to wit:

    His supporters interpret his decision to go into community organizing instead of joining a law firm as evidence of his good moral character. In fact, it is nothing of the sort. For a young man aiming at a career in politics, especially a black man in an urban setting, community organizing is an investment, a way of building up contacts and other resources that will be useful at the next stage of that career.

    To be fair, I should also say that considering Obama’s behavior as that of an aspiring politician weakens the argument being made by some on the right about his past association with people on the left, in particular William Ayers, an unrepentant ex-Weatherman. The Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, which is where I grew up, is the sort of place where an ex-Weatherman can easily enough be a prominent figure. You don’t start a career in politics by going out of your way to refuse to shake the hands of people who lots of your constituents respect, or even refusing to sit with them on a board of directors or share a platform with them–not, at least, unless you are aiming at a deliberate political gesture. And making a point of how hostile you are to left wing radicals, while it might be useful for a Democrat running for President, would not be prudent for a Democrat seeking political support in Hyde Park.

    I’ve often thought the Rev. Wright thing was overblown too. Is it imaginable that an up and coming politician would pick a fight with a popular minister in his district? I’ve never heard of it happening anywhere else. Local politics is simply not a principle game, and Obama is a politician.

    And the Democratic convention can be summed up with “I think the stripper really likes me!”

    Comments Off on A good Obama post from David Friedman