Infinite Monkeys
"...a sparkly blog..." - James Lileks"Read them only with extreme caution."- Hugh Hewitt
Infinite MonkeysSeriously, is there any commercial on the air that's creepier than the one where the guy wakes up in bed with the plastic-faced "Burger King"??? How much do you have to drink to wind up in THAT situation?
Previously, I've attempted to make the case that Rep. David Dreier is unserious on the question of illegal immigration and needs to be booted from office. I don't give a damn if he does have an "R" after his name and if he is chairman of the Rules Committee. If I still lived in his district, I'd vote for Dreier's Democratic challenger, a garden-variety, nasty left-wing lesbian who is actually running to his right on immigration. But, the truth is, I'm a puny voice in this argument. At the forefront of the broad-based "Fire Dreier" effort are a pair of obnoxious, L.A.-based radio talkshow hosts who have attracted substantial national attention for their crusade.
John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou are the number-one afternoon-drive time hosts in Los Angeles. I don't think they would object to being described as "rabble-rousers." When it comes to promoting a political cause, they have an impressive track-record. When they get upset, their listeners get upset, and things get done. Whether it's leading the charget to oust a pedophile judge, helping to depose a spendthrift governor, or, lately, exposing the GOP's weakness on illegal immigration and border security, John and Ken know how to move public opinion.
Which is probably why the National Republican Congressional Committee wants the federal government to throw them in jail.
What's that you say? First Amendment? Free speech? What rot!
In a complaint to the Federal Elections Commission, the National Republican Campaign Committee accused radio station KFI-AM (640) co-hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou of "criminal behavior" for attacking Rep. David Dreier, R-Glendora, and endorsing his Democratic opponent, Cynthia Matthews.By criticizing Dreier's positions on immigration, promoting a "Fire Dreier" campaign and making on-air appeals for voters to elect Matthews, the NRCC said, the hosts gave Matthews an unlawful corporate, in-kind contribution of more than $25,000.
"This behavior is illegal and must be appropriately punished," the NRCC charged, noting violation of the law carries a penalty of fines and jail.
(Here's the text of the complaint, if you care to read it. It's a PDF.)
Let's dispense with the niceties and get right to it: this brand of hypocrisy would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. Shame on the Republican Party! After all the hemming and hawing the party did over campaign-finance reform generally and McCain-Feingold in particular, it comes down to this? Stupid GOP! Stupid, short-sighted GOP! If I didn't believe otherwise, these charges almost make me think that Dreier is in bigger trouble than the numbers would otherwise suggest.
Apart from that, though, I shudder to think what will happen to Rush, Hugh, and the rest of the vast-right-wing media conspiracy if the Republicans' precedent-setting complaint succeeds and John Kerry wins the election.
Others opining on the NRCC's complaint against John and Ken:
It's not even 6:00 p.m., and we've already had about 25 kids. Early returns suggest that witches and pirates are the favorite, although we have also seen a number of Disney princesses, a couple of "Scream" guys, a vampire, a hobo, and one very lonely clown.
Update: By 6:00 p.m., we had two more witches, another vampire, and a couple of kids who were dressed as... themselves! I never quite know what to make of such cases. Should I say something mocking? That's an invitation to vandalism. Or, I imagine a pitiful reply: "Daddy's out of work... I... I couldn't afford a costume this year!"
In other news, the Redskins lost today. Uh oh.
Current song: None... we're watching the "SpongeBob Halloween" DVD.
Update 2: The boy is Spiderman this year. One of an army of about 50 million Spidermen, I reckon. (Although we've not had a single Spiderman at the door this year—so far.) Wife is a witch. That's not an insult. She's got a great big black-and-purple hat and purple hair. Striking. It's 6:20 and they've just left for the big candy run.
Current song: "No Costume, No Candy," by the Swinging Neckbreakers.
Update 3: They're coming in large waves now—half-a-dozen or more at a time—but I'm prepared. I laid in gigantic stores of Skittles, Starbursts, and Tootsie Rolls. I've lost count of the numbers. An educated guess? Easily more than 60 since 6:00. I had three more in the middle of typing that last sentence.
I've seen two Spidermen, several gangsta wanna-bes, a dozen more princesses, a gaggle of lil masked slashers, an Insane Clown, a puppy, a shark, and maybe another half-dozen kids with no proper costumes at all. One young lady, whom I mistook as a chaperone of a group of small kids, said as I was shutting the door, "What? I don't get any?" Stunned, I dropped a fistful of Starbursts in her hand. In retrospect, I felt like saying "No costume, no candy!" I guess I'm getting soft.
But easily the most terrifying thing I've seen tonight is the boy in the "Michigan Womyn's Music Festival" t-shirt. A batallion of Jasons and Freddies couldn't top that.
Current song: "Barnstorming" cue from the "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" soundtrack.
Update 4: Mama and the boy have returned. Mama announces, "I'm done!" and heads off to the bedroom, from where I expect she will emerge wearing sweats momentarily. My little Spiderman filled his spider-bucket nearly to the brim. A good haul for a two-year-old. Mama says, "You know you've trick-or-treated enough when your son says, 'No more trick-or-treat, mama. I need to go home and go night-night.' Yep, we're done."
And so am I.
Update 5: Lileks recounts his evening in a far more interesting and amusing way. The bastard.
I just talked to Dr. Monkeystein. He's been in the hospital for a week, after blacking out in his local pharmacy (this was a particularly fortunate place to black out, as opposed to, say, the subway). He had pneumonia. He should be discharged tomorrow, and hopefully will be joining us for election night blogging, when I expect he'll have something to say about health insurance...
I thought Mrs. Heinz-Kerry was nutty, now check out her son, Chris:
"We didn't start out with negative ads calling George Bush a cokehead,' he said, before adding, 'I'll do it now.' Asked later about it, Heinz said, 'I have no evidence. He never sold me anything."
and
"One of the things I've noticed is the Israel lobby - the treatment of Israel as the 51st state, sort of a swing state."
Isn't he precious? I'll bet his mom is so damn proud.
(I seem to remember the late Senator John Heinz being a class guy. I feel bad for him now)
Thanks to Captain Ed.
Kerry has been beating George Bush over the head this presidential campaign for his "rush to war." I believe it was a thirteen month rush to war, but to Johnny, I guess that's a rush to war. For Kerry, each and every step must be painfully, tediously, scrupulously investigated, talked about, "summitted", and so on. UNLESS, it is a lie in the NY Times or on CBS about George Bush. Then, he is perfectly willing to leap in front of the cameras and atack, attack, attack.
George Bush is criticized by Osama bin Laden and Michael Moore for collecting his thoughts and not wanting to panic a bunch of school children (for which the Democrat school principal remains grateful) for seven minutes on 9/11. Yet Kerry will not hesitate for a second to jump to a conclusion and rush to the attack. Me, I prefer cooler heads.
I wonder if OBL paid for his copy of F-9/11, or did Moore give him one for free?
A few days ago there was a pretty heated debate about the "crushing of dissent" in this election. I got in some trouble for arguing that it was not both sides, but that the vast majority of the campaign intimidation was directed at Republicans.
Well, Daniel Hymans of "No Tinfoil Hats" has put up some interesting numbers on his blog, showing that, by his tally, the acts of violence are 76 against Republican HQ's and 14 against Democrat HQ's. He has links to back it up as well.
One comment by "Mr. Right" has added a slew of links to other stories, so the landslide margin might get bigger. Interesting.
Hat tip: Polipundit
Walter Cronkite sees the job opportunity left by Pierre Salinger's death, and jumps into it.
Forget "bloggers writing in their underwear..."
German archaeologists say they have discovered the toilet on which Martin Luther wrote the 95 Theses that launched the Protestant Reformation, reports the Daily Telegraph.Perhaps he should have posted his theses under the assumed name of "The AnonyMonk."Luther frequently alluded to the fact that he suffered from chronic constipation and that he spent much of his time in contemplation on the lavatory.
Experts say they have been certain for years that the 16th century religious leader wrote the groundbreaking Ninety-Five Theses while on das klo, as the Germans call it. ...
"This is where the birth of the Reformation took place" Stefan Rhein, the director of the Luther Memorial Foundation said.
"Luther said himself that he made his reformatory discovery in cloaca (Latin for "in the sewer"). We just had no idea where this sewer was. Now it's clear what the Reformer meant."
What makes the find even more fitting is that at the time, faecal [sic] language was often used to denigrate the devil, such as "I shit on the devil" or "I break wind on the devil".
Prof Rhein said: "It was not a very polite time. And in keeping with this, neither was Luther very polite."
I know some hard core Christians are opposed to Halloween as a Holiday because of the whole Satan/Devil thing. I think
But now the witches are opposed to it? Because it is disrespectful to them?
Honestly, WTF? Isn't it their holiday?
And, well, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS WITCHES, GODDAMMIT!!
I got nothing else.
Maybe I'll just stay out of this, and let the "Big L" libertarians argue the point.
From The American Spectator:
"Hey, Big Spenders", by Jeremy Lott, who opens with "Small government conservatives and Republican leaning libertarians face a difficult choice going into the polls this year."
versus
"The Libertarian Menace", by John Tabin.
Mr. Tabin takes a rather harsh look at the wrong direction he thinks the Libertarian Party has gone in (What? You could tell that by the title of the article, "Libertarian Menace"??).
Tabin's observations on the "Big L's" foreign policy stance is worth reading.
A few days back, one of the Real Monkeys posted some critical comments about Congressman David Dreier and his seeming efforts to undermine effective border enforcement. I just heard Hugh Hewitt defend Dreier (whom I normally like, and would vote for in any event), and criticize his radio competition, John & Ken in Los Angeles, for attacking Drieier on the issue, saying that they (John& Ken) are not sincere on this.
I'm a Hugh Hewitt fan, but I have to be fair to John & Ken on this. While I am unable to listen to them in Northern California, I have heard them enough to know that they hit the drivers licenses for illegal alien issue real hard, even organizing and leading caravans up to the State Capital in Sacramento to protest. So I don't think it fair to them to say they are insincere on this issue.
Politically, rightly or wrongly, immigration has now become the new "third rail" of politics for the GOP.
Today's Best of the Web Today (second item) expresses one of my fears: that the terrorists in Iraq will attempt a Tet-like offensive this weekend to sway the election. Like Taranto, I hope that's not true.
Just saw this one come across my headlines.
Lame-ass excuses about why 100,000+ civilian deaths are justified in 3...2...1...
Kind of a weird, tragic, and unnecessary thing, this girl getting killed in Boston last week. Makes you wonder if the British aren't on to something when they don't allow their cops to carry weapons.
Here is an article in the Boston Globe written soon after the incident. The interesting statistic to me is this: 60,000-80,000 fans, only 8 arrests.
Yet the police found it necessary to start shooting indiscriminately at the crowd with a supposedly "non-lethal" projectile weapon. Here's a little bit of info about this weapon, along with a photo of one of the Boston police aiming at what appears to be head-level in the crowd.
Best wishes to Atomizer at Fraters who is joining Monkey David in the ranks of the condemned and getting married tomorrow. I understand the ceremony is at 6:45 pm so The Elder can make the Gophers Hockey game at 7:07 pm.
But Honeymooning in San Francisco? Who does that?
Deuce has a interesting "photo and quote collage" exploring curious quotes about the manipulation of reality by government.
Warning: Includes a Himmler quote.
Vox Day has a good, principled description of why the GWOT is not "conservative" in any meaningful sense of the word, as well as a more realistic explanation of why we haven't been attacked since 9/11. It's not very long, so read it all.
UPDATE: A little further down, he takes a nice jab at Victor Davis Hanson and makes a Lovecraft reference at the same time. Go Vox!
Tough shit, Yasser. Here's hoping it's stomach cancer.
Funny, he looked just fine on The West Wing tonight. Leo's looking a little iffy, though.
Forget the darkness, this bunny has restored my faith in the world. (hat tip: Lileks).
It's the most wonderful animation I've seen on the Web since this.
Threatening to kill your girlfriend because she's voting for Kerry?
Least accurate line in the story: "Soper, who will enter the Marines as soon as he passes the GED test..." First, what are the odds this idiot will pass his GED? And after this, the Marines probably won't take him...
I'm a First Amendment fanatic. I usually agree with the ACLU on First Amendment issues, and while it drives me nuts when people misunderstand the First Amendment (no, you idiots, you don't have a First Amendment right to post whatever you want on someone's blog comments), I support expression pretty much everywhere (I don't think I've ever deleted a non-spam comment or post here, for example). I'd rather let someone express himself, then point out why he's a moron.
Because of that, I'm particularly sensitive when people cry "wolf!" and say dissent is being crushed when it is not. For example, when some goofball goes out and tries to prove his thesis that "It's been my opinion that George Bush has stifled dissent," and then acts shocked when he is barred from a campaign event--well, that's just absurd. That's not book burning. In fact, since there's been a lot more people trying to be disruptive and supress freedom of expression at GOP events than vice versa (remember the conventions--how many anti-Kerry protesters tried to stop speakers from having their say? How many did it or tried to at the GOP convention), it's not unreasonable to be concerned about why someone would want to attend a Bush rally in a Kerry t-shirt.
That doesn't mean I support trying to stop dissent, just that I think it's important to keep a sense of proportion. Firing shots into a GOP headquarters (in West Virginia) or vandalizing them (in Washington, California, and...I can't even keep track anymore) or warning a thater owner against showing an anti-Moore film--that's real crushing of dissent.
I do think it's occuring on both sides, but it's clear that it is much, much worse on the Democrat side. That's not really surprising, because they are the ones who are most frustrated right now. When Clinton was in office, there were certainly enough wack jobs after him (and they managed to drown out meaningful dissent, by the way, something the Democrats would be wise to remember).
My real fear is that this cycle will continue--I think some of the Nixonian crowd justified their dirty tricks with the fact that the 1960 election was stolen, and a lot of Democrats justified dirty tricks after Watergate. After the 2000 election, the Left particularly felt aggrieved and felt that they needed to beat Bush by any means neccesary. I fear what both sides will do in the years to come if this election is tainted by fraud or even violence. That's when the real crushing of dissent will be rampant.
P.S. For a far funnier t-shirt experiment, check out Slate.
I'm WAY to giddy too be articulate about this, so I will compose the rest of this post in Frat Boy:
Red Sox!!!!!
Whooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
Yeah!!!!!!
Red Sox!!!!!!!!
I see that the Boston Red Sox won the World Series. Of baseball. Contrary to my worst fears, the skies have not turned permanently black (though it is night-time), nor have the clouds rained down locusts, nor has the Earth split in two.
But what does this mean for the Kerry campaign? Has the good will of ... what? Massachusetts? Major League Baseball? been spent on the Sox? Or is there something left for the liberal senator from the Bay State? Stranger things have happened...
I have an extreme aversions to Hitler anologies. I even bit Robb's head off for doing it. I don't mind comparing Bin Laden to Hitler, but I don't like comparing those who differ with me politically to evil dictators.
But...there's something going on that feels very, very bad. I'm a big fan of the novels of Alan Furst, many of which are set in the days before the Second World War. There is a similar feel in the world right now--propaganda films like Michael Moore's, attacks on campaign headquarters, widespread fraud being attempted in the election, and always the dark threat of terrorism looming behind everything. I believe in America and our ability to get through this, but it is a dangerous time.
There are too many people in the world right now who believe that the end justifies the means, and the end of changing American foreign policy justifies any excess. Will it get better or worse after the election? I'm not sure, and I'm not sure who wins will change the overall dynamic of this rising hatred.
"Peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
(Ronald Reagan, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981)
Forty Years ago today, on October 27, 1964, Ronald Reagan gave one of the most memorable political speeches of the century on behalf of the ultimately unsuccessful Goldwater presidential campaign: "Rendezvous With Destiny", more popularly known as A Time for Choosing.
On the day Ronald Reagan's died, I listened to "The Speech" again. More than once. And I was struck by how much of it still rings true today. Yes, thanks to President Reagan, we did win the struggle with Communism. But we are now engaged in a titanic struggle with Islamofascism (excuse the melodrama, but it really is such a struggle).
During the Cold War there was a certain "rationality" to the Soviets. The doctrine of "Mutual Assured Destruction" prevented what would, in all likelihood have been a suicide attack. The Soviets had a rational aversion to killing themselves in their quest to spread Communism. This is demonstrably not true of the Islamofascist terrorists. "Mutual Assured Destruction" is their tactic of choice. Free people cannot reason with such a irrational and inhumane thought process.
Like the 50 year Cold War struggle, the War on Terror is one we cannot afford to lose. And like the Cold War, we cannot afford to be irresolute and weak, which is really all that John Kerry offers us today. Indecision, summits, meetings, global tests, the United Nations, and appeasement. For the past thirty years, John Kerry has shown us where he stands. For John Kerry, his fellow servicemen were war criminals. For John Kerry, the Reagan Presidency was a period of "moral darkness."
Human nature is such that we all too often rely on our leaders and our soldiers to show courage, strength and resolution. But sometimes, the American people need to step up to the plate, and make the right choice. This is such a time.
November 2, 2004 is, once again, "A Time for Choosing" for all of us. Choose wisely.
"A Time for Choosing"
Ronald Reagan
October 27, 1964
I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good."
But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.
As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down -- [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."
Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming -- that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.
Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.
At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.
Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how -- who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.
Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.
They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer -- and they've had almost 30 years of it -- shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.
Now -- so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -- and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs -- do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.
But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things -- we're never "for" anything.
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?
Barry Goldwater thinks we can.
At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.
In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?
I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.
I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So.governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.
Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.
Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.
Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.
But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died -- because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.
Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.
Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men -- that we're to choose just between two personalities.
Well what of this man that they would destroy -- and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.
This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.
An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.
During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.
We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.
Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.
You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.
Thank you very much.
I was in the salad palace doing my regular family thing tonight. Across from me I noticed a guy wearing an obvious campaign tee shirt. Then I noticed that the exhortation across the top of the red white and blue graphic was to "Vote Dirty!" Naturally, I thought this must be a frank admission of the tactics being more and more boldly advocated by hard left activists and some Democratic operatives.
My mind immediately flashed to John Fund's new book Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy, among others I would reference as I explained the cavalier incitement to my folks. But as the wearer sidestepped from the spring mix and veggies to the dressings, the rest of the shirt came into view. It read, "O.D.B. for President." Who's ODB? How can I put this delicately? Remember Wu Tang Clan? He was the one whose chosen moniker was Old Dirty Bastard. For more on his character and credentials (and aliases to rival P. Diddy) see this public service agency's nonpartisan fact sheet. And look, if you're following a link about a rapper named Old Dirty Bastard, you know... there's old dirty language involved. Word.
The faithful are starting to get nervous.
With good reason. It will be an interesting election night.
Yes, after months of faux agonizing and soul searcing, Andrew Sullivan has finally come out of the closet and endorsed John Kerry.
Duh.
Who'd a thunk it?
From Tuesday's Wall Street Journal: "in order to win a war, you have to have the vision and determination to fight it despite setbacks and political difficulties. Americans should be wary of politicians who promise more 'competent' leadership in a war that those same politicians say they'd rather not fight."
What's James Lileks got that we ain't got? Talent. A command of the English language. And now, evidently, the imprimatur of the Washington Post. As a crazy* former boss of mine often liked to say: Don't get the big head, James. Don't get the big head.
*Crazy like a fox, that is! (Please don't sue and/or kill me, sir!)
But SOMEBODY snapped this candid photo of me with our new puppy. I make no excuses.
So Arnold's actually going to Ohio for Bush this week. That's not news. What is news is Hugh Hewitt's magic alma mater - John F. Kennedy High School, which, as he says "opened 40 years ago."
Wouldn't that have been after he graduated from High School?
. . . or, more Kerry making shit up.
Kerry lies about Bush having a "secret plan" for a draft
Kerry lies about Bush having a "secret plan" to privatize social security.
The Washington Times reports tomorrow that Kerry lied about meeting with the UN Security Council.
Now before you get confused, these aren't the Four Star restaurants that Kerry says you can go to and trip over world leaders. No, this was an actual meeting that lasted for hours. Hours, dammit! With the UN Security Council. Of course, according to Mowbray, there are no records of such a meeting, and none of the ambassadors for five members of the Security Council ever attended any such meeting.
The Kerry camp has back-tracked without admitting they are backtracking. First, insist it's true. Then, insist it's mostly true, and ignore what Kerry said entirely.
How bad is it? Even the FRENCH ambassador says it never happened. The French!!!
Hat tip to "Redstate", where the tip to the story first surfaced (I think) and Captain Ed, who seems to have beat everyone to the punch with his post. (Bastard!)
And Bill at INDC Journal has some great links to Kerry's actual statements about these fantasy meetings. Fantastic stuff.
You know, it's getting difficult to keep track of Kerry's secret plans to end the war in Iraq, his secret trips to Cambodia (and his magic hat), his secret military records, his secret discharge, his secret restaurants meetings with world leaders, his secret security council meetings, etc. etc.
But Bush is the one with all the secret plans?
Did you ever get the feeling that you miss Bill Clinton?
From the Boston Globe (via Polipundit):
“Secondly, I spent a lot of time before the vote looking at this issue. I went up to the United Nations at the request of some friends. And I met with the entire Security Council in a room just like this at a table like this. I spent two hours with them. (inaudible), just me and the Security Council, asking them questions. The French ambassador, “Is there a time when President Chirac would be ready to come on board? What do we need to do to move the French people to a place where they understand the stakes? Are you prepared to spend money? Do you believe we might have to use force in order to disarm Saddam Hussein? At what point would you be ready to do that?” I went through that with all of them. And I left there convinced that the U.N. was prepared to be deadly serious about this.”
From the WaTimes story:
"Jean-David Levitte, then France's chief U.N. representative and now his country's ambassador to the United States, said through a spokeswoman that Mr. Kerry did not have a single group meeting as the senator has described, but rather several one-on-one or small-group encounters.'
Of course other ambassadors said they never met with Senator Kerry.
From Captain's Quarters:
"With the same energy ... I put into going after the Viet Cong and trying to win for our country..."
Though I think Captain Ed is being a little hard on John the Cong Hunter. He did hunt down the Cong: in Paris. When he met with "both side" - the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. While he was still a commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve.
So does this mean he will hunt down terrorists and ...... negotiate with them?
Monkey David's plaintive pleading for someone who actually might represent him in Congress got me to thinking about Tom Daschle of South Dakota. Seems Daschle has a problem with his South Dakota residency, since he has claimed the District of Columbia as his primary residence.
Now Congressman John Thune, his opponent, has a great commercial, showing Daschle saying proudly, and with big smile, "I'm a D.C. resident".
Gee, David, do you think the people of South Dakota would like someone to actually represent them too?
Hat tip: Daschle v. Thune
Off to my second wedding reception (the first, with family, was last Saturday; tonight's is with close friends).
I promised to blog on all of this in the next few days, including some wine blogging for Professor Bainbridge .
My doorbell rang a few minutes ago, and I opened it to find a good looking man handing out flyers. This usually isn't what you want to see on a Saturday (they usually want to talk to you about Jehovah), but he introduced himself as Darin Hunzeker, the Republican nominee for U.S. Congress in California's 53rd district.
I told him I'd love to spend some time chatting with him about politics, but he had my vote, so I didn't want to take his time. Hunzeker has a a tough race against incumbent Susan Davis, in a ridiculously gerrymandered district (you'd think La Jolla would be a safe GOP stronghold, but it includes the University of California San Diego, and then the district goes inland to pick up some more Democratic areas).
I have enormous respect for candidates who spend time walking the precincts, and I hope Hunzeker defeats one of the more annoying members of Congress (Davis voted against tax cuts, against securing our borders, and even believes the the F-grade should be eliminated from public schools). I'd like to have someone representing me in Congress who, well, represents me.
Is Minnesota about to become Bush Country?
Blame Jesse Ventura.
Im am sure Jesse's most loyal minions are stunned and disillusioned.
So except for the esteemed and reclusive Dr. Moneystein (who, rumor has it, paces his monkey den with kleenex boxes on his feet), there has not been much Monkey activity here lately.
Angry Monkey is still apoplectic that no one but him will vote for Loser-tarian Bednarik.
Married Monkey is still milking the whole "I just got married" thing. Please.
And Monkey Ben is still trying to think up an original Judge Dredd joke.
Okay, this is a tough call for me (so what, who cares). But I am pretty sure that I pretty much despise Arlen Specter (RINO-PA). Normally, I do buy into Hugh Hewitt's drink-the-Kool-Aid argument and vote for the Republican that can win, and then vote for the Repubican in the general election. Yeah, in the long run, that may be pretty good advice, especially when the movement conservative has less than no chance (i.e., Arnold v. McClintock in California).
But not in Pennsylvania. The GOP had a chance to nominate a real Republican (Toomey), who had a good chance at winning. But they betrayed their base for someone who truly is a back-stabbing weasel: Arlen Specter.
Now there are Kerry-Specter signs around in PA. Specter is also said to be snubbing the base. And, of course, within days of defeating Toomey for the nomination, he stabbed Bush in the back. Surprise.
So, here's my advice to Pennsylvania Republicans. You want to make a point? Vote for George Bush, and whoever the goober Democrat for Senate is. Maybe, just maybe, if Bush wins and Specter loses, the message will be sent.
God knows, I hate doing this. I am a Party Animal. But Specter truly has betrayed the Republican Party and the conservative base in Pennsylvania. Screw him, the horse he rode in on, his mother, and everybody who looks like him.
I actually don't love technology. I love some technology. I don't love fax machines, voicemail, cell phones or any of those other things that have made 21st century work life almost completely interrupt-driven with instant responses expected to everything.
But I do like these things: my iMac with iTunes connected to my stereo (I used to have my Sony CD changers at this point on my list), my iPod, my broadband Internet connection, and my Tivo. That's about it. My XM Radio in my car almost makes the list, but not quite.
Then I saw this story, about XM possibly introducing a wearable device, with the tantalizing phrase: "...thinking about future combinations of IPOD/TIVO-like satellite radios..."
Now if only XM would dump Savage and put Hugh Hewitt on...
From Boston dot com
"This weekend -- less than two weeks before the election, typically a time for frenzied barnstorming -- Bush is planning to spend two consecutive nights far from any battleground, at his ranch in Crawford, Texas."
Why????
Yeah, Karl Rove is an evil genius. This is just plain stupid.
UPDATE: Maybe not such a dumbass?
We should all pray the Boston Red Sox don't win the World Series. Those people will burn the town down, and the governor will have to declare martial law and call up Mass. National Guard-- oh wait they're in Iraq. For the sake of public safety in Boston, let's all hope the St. Louis Cardinals win.
Well, another Monkey who shall remain anonymous forwarded this link. Warning: Link destination uses the word "fuck" repeatedly. So if you don't want to read the word "fuck" or any variation of the word "fuck", such as "fucking", for example, then you may not want to follow the link.
Our friends from the Northern Alliance will be hosting the Hugh Hewitt radio program today.
Check local listings.
Honestly, who do Kerry and Edwards think they're fooling? Suddenly Kerry is a man of deeply held faith? A man who will bring his faith to the White House? And is an avid hunter ("can I get me a hunting license here?")? And John Edwards is pandering to...snowmobilers? In Minnesota?
Umm, guys? Did you forget that your party is (a) anti-gun (b) anti-hunting, and (c) anti-snowmobiling in national parks. (I guess that's why the NRA and the Minnesota United Snowmobilers Ass'n have both endorsed President Bush. Memo to Edwards: read your own website.)
I suppose pols gotta pander during election season, but why is it that Kerry-Edwards can pretend to be what the Left accuses Bush of being? Honestly, Kerry holds friggin political revival meetings in churches, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State says....nothing? And the gun control people? The environmentalists? Nothing.
I just want to know. Why is it a winning formula for Kerry and Edwards to pretend to be conservatives?
No, not the Red Sox. Bush.
The Kerry campaign was trying to use the same spin a few weeks ago ("No one has lost all three debates and won!").
The Red Sox lost three games and won. Robb, do you think Bush will?
Hi folks this is Dr. Monkeystein here and today we have an exclusive interview from the Netherworld with Hall of Fame baseball player Babe Ruth!
[applause]
It’s nice to have you here brother.
It’s nice to be here Dr. Monkeystein.
So, how does it feel to have The Curse finally broken?
Well, I was pretty upset. Even more upset than when that asshole Roger Maris broke my single season home run record.
So, what did you do last night brother?
I drank a whole bottle of whiskey, smashed up my apartment real good, and then I cried like a baby. I was despondent. But then Mickey Mantle, Flip Wilson, Billy Martin and Rick James came over to my place to console me. And we snorted we snorted some fine Colombian blow. After that, we went out got some lap dances and screwed some hookers. I felt a lot better after that-- a lot better.
Well that’s good to hear brother. So... you know Rick James-- the funk star?
A hell of guy-- he just got here-- he taught me how to smoke this white stuff out of a metal pipe.
Crack cocaine?
Yeah, that’s what he called it. Let me tell you kiddo, one hit of that stuff and you feel like you’re in heaven!
Uh brother, you’re already in heaven.
Oh yeah, that’s right I forgot. Well, one hit of that pipe will do that to you. Make you fell like you're heaven-- a better heaven than the one you're in!
Well, that’s all the time we have for today, remember kids, be cool and stay in school.
This is fun! Reason quizzed a bunch of "policy wonks, journalists, thinkers, and other public figures in the reason universe" about their votes, and got some interesting responses.
Let's all play the game, shall we? It's a four question quiz. Here are the questions and my answers:
2004 vote: Michael Badnarik
2000 vote: George W. Bush
Most embarrassing vote: See 2000 vote
Favorite president: Thomas Jefferson
(hat tip: Badnarik's weblog)
Every time you say you don't believe in a Free Iraq, an Iraqi dies. All you need is trust people-- and a little bit of pixie dust! Donit you understand Iraq, you mean more to me than anything in the whole world! I'll teach you to ride on the wind's back Iraq, and away we go! So come with me my Arab friends, where dreams are born, and time is never p