Free Market Gun Control

WordNetDaily.com has a very interesting article about Credit Card companies that will no longer allow charges for a particular gun dealer. Now, since I hand carve all my muskets including "Mickey," "Annette," and "Minnie" this won't affect me, but while I was a smokin' my corn cob pipe at the ol' waterin' hole it occurred to me that this here's a right interestin' idear.

Rather than try to go through Congress and mess with that pesky Second Amendment, use the market. See, while this particular throw down is between Citi Merchants and Texas' own CDNN Sports and their head honcho, Charlie Crawford, the precedent is very intriguing. No way, no how do I support an intrusion on the Second Amendment, but I also no way, no how have a beef with a company electing to not extend credit services to merchants who sell guns. That's the market. So to my friends who favor stricter gun control I offer this suggestion, rather than fight the US Constitution, why not work with sympathetic companies to try to find your solution? Credit card companies, per this example, have massive power to legally restrict gun sales, use it. Stores run on credit, that leverage gives the credit issuer the ability to restrict sales in general, restrict sales in particular or outright stop them.

Granted this is not a slam dunk, but at least you can take your fight to the market, build support, gain funding, etc all the while leaving the US Constitution alone. Not only that, but any success is direct and immediate. Fighting your cause this way also takes people like me out of the "opposition" side and may even get some who don't like guns but like the US Constitution on your side. In either case, you've decreased the number of those who oppose your goal. That's good right?

Now I got to get back to the still...

Foreclosures Silver Lining

Looking beyond the Silver Rainbow *(you won't know if you're coming or going) at foreclosures, sure they're killing the economy, yes they're up 75% (hey, at least some segment of the market is up, right?), sure you lost your shot at the American dream, OK you have to move, yes now you're credit is ruined and the cross default provision in your credit card agreement is killing your interest rate, but don't be so "me" oriented.

One man's trash is another man's treasure! First, a little back story. WJS asks how to recession proof your job. Interesting reading, and they left of the tried and true, "Be an apple polisher " (we're a family blog, you can use another term if you wish). But the WSJ left off a biggie...

Work for the Government. Yup, can't beat working in an industry with unlimited revenue. No one says, "ooooh, times are tough, where can we cut back. OK, we'll set the thermostat to 68, only go out to dinner twice a month, and go with basic cable. Oh, and lets not pay taxes. There, now we can keep the house." Which brings us to Colorado's latest move (and finally, the point of this little post).

Due to the high number of people losing their homes, how very inconvenient for everyone, the Colorado Senate has decided to give those poor saps who handle foreclosure auctions** a raise. Hooray! Foreclosure's bad for you, but good for the person who deals in your misery. See, like Jerry Seinfeld, it allllll balances out. So when you're thinking about how bad things are for you, get off the "me train" at big picture station and rest happy (but not in your home) in the idea that you created the extra work that led to the extra pay of another person. It's like Christmas (but again, not in your home).

But, just for kicks lets look back at that WSJ article and compare private industry tactics with Government work.

• WSJ says, "work harder." Government says, "working harder, poor little fella, here's a raise."
• WSJ says, "be a good sport. Do extra work." Government says, "doing extra work, well surely you need extra pay."
  
• WSJ says, "take a pay cut." Government says, "hah, what are you kidding me? A pay what? Here, take more money."

Wow, I knew Murdoch would hurt the WSJ's reporting but this is ridiculous. They missed the easiest and most surefire way to not only survive a recession but to actually prosper. Go to work for the Government. Look around, who else is talking about raises in this economy? Looks like I owe my more liberal friends and apology, Government really is the answer.


*Only you know if you should be pumped or sad if you actually knew this reference...

**A free subscription to the H-Blog to any reader who can tell my why the State of Colorado handles these auctions and not the private market anyway.

1-888-Biz-nezz

I'm setting up a business advice hot-line. As a teaser, once again I'm putting out some free advice for big business. Last time it was Detroit, but they didn't listen.

Now I'm going to try to help Sony and Toshiba and their Blu-Ray, HD DVD format battle. Let me look into my crystal dollar bill. Lets see...Oh I see it. My advice? Sell, sell, sell the technology to whatever sucker you can find. Pssssst, call Detroit, they're alway looking backwards.

Why you ask? Simple, DVD's are a dead technology. Whoever wins the format "battle" loses. Apple TV, Amazon Unbox, Netflix direct and the rest are all going to stream movies directly to the consumer's TV. There's no way to make back the development and marketing costs as this whole thing has maybe, maybe a two year window.

Which means dear consumer, don't waste your hard earned dough on this new technology. Wait just a sec and you'll get HD movies via the internet, format be damned.

Cool huh?

Weekly Round-Up

Interesting week.

Mitt "He just looks Presidential" Romney hears voices. During the GOP debate, debate fans (Freaks and Geeks?) heard a voice from beyond give Gov Romney a "prompt" when answering a "trick" question from Tim Russert. Lots of ideas, Huffpo gets huffy, but me? Well, I'm going where no one dares go (I mean, this is what you don't pay me for right?). I say it was one of the Latter Day Saints. An unidentified whisper helping out Mormon Mitt? Gotta be. Poor Huck. He had to be there wondering why the Former Day Saints let him down. And by "down" I mean both financially and with the votes.

Feeling heady with the Big Guy in his head, Mitt of Arc then spouts off with,

Well, I'm not concerned about the voters.

Which is only fair, because it looks like the voters are less and less concerned with him.

Someone who won't be hearing from the Spirit in the Sky until she makes a "sorry" is ESPN Hostess with the Mostess (booze) Dana Jacobson. At a Celebrity Roast for Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic (its OK, I'll wait while you read that again...yup, not a misprint, I know, go figure) Ms Jacobson said some naughtys about Notre Dame, Touchdown Jesus, and the actual Jesus. Could it have been the booze talking? Here are some pics, you decide. Yup.

Big deal in the Big House. The Supremes rule that inmates cannot sue for lost property. So what if Hacksaw Jones can't sue to get his shiv back you say? Read the comments.

The confusion in the courts comes because the immunity is mentioned in a section of the law that blocks lawsuits against the government over the "loss of goods, merchandise or other property" detained by customs or excise officers. The law then adds "or any other law enforcement officer."

"Congress could not have chosen a more all-encompassing phrase than 'any other law enforcement officer' " to show that it intended broad immunity, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. Therefore, the law "forecloses lawsuits against the United States for the unlawful detention of property by 'any' not just 'some,' law enforcement officers."

That's right folks, according to Clarence "Strict Constructionist" Thomas, "any" law enforcement officer can take anything from you and you have not right to recourse. Now, I'm no legal scholar (I roll with the illegal scholars), but I thought I read somewhere about an Amendment that prevents just such a thing. But wouldn't a Supreme Court Justice know that? Lets see...its somewhere around here...what did I do with my pocket Constitution? Oh, that's right I lent it to Ron Paul when he crashed on my couch awhile back and we were rappin 'bout evolution. Hold on, I'll Google it. Here we go, Find Law says,

blah blah blah...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Oooooh, I did, I did, I did taw a Fit Amentment. To my astigmatic eyes, it looks like you cannot just take something from a prisoner without due process, and private property cannot be taken "just 'cause," even if there's just cause. Seems to me that if Congress says "any" law enforcement officer can take anything with immunity, a "Strict Constructionist" should say, "nice law Congress, but take it back for a do over." Why not here? Maybe "Strict" is one of those slang words like when "bad" means "good." See, then it makes sense. "Strict Constructionist" means "Constitution don't matter." Who knew the Court was so hip?

Hip hurtin'? Got a script for your "medical" marijuana? Still gonna git the pink slip. And no I don't mean 'ludes (are those even still around? I'm way behind in my cool drug references).

Clearly someone was abusing their "medical Mary J" when they came up with the Britney Industrial Index. Single greatest economic idea I've ever heard, and yes McGinty that includes your idea in the 90's to move towards a "beanie baby based economy." I figure the Unknown Blogger Industrial Index is a solid $1.25, but once you factor in paid subscriptions to the H-blog, it skyrockets to $1.25.

All those "prescriptions" for wacky weed are making things hard for everyone (takes a lot of water to fill all those bongs). Nuclear power (siiiigh, again, the most expensive form of energy...ever) is once again in the news. Apparently those reactors are facing water shortages and may have to shut down. New cost, on top of the crazy, insane amount it costs already?

"Currently, nuclear power costs between $5 to $7 to produce a megawatt hour (ed note, no, no, no!)," said Daniele Seitz, an energy analyst with New York-based Dahlman Rose & Co. "It would cost 10 times that amount that if you had to buy replacement power — especially during the summer."

Now that gets me steamed.

Truth Abuser

The euphemism of the month is "truth abuser". The second runner up is "not factually accurate". The game is, "How to call a liar a liar without saying 'liar'". Kerry calls Bill Clinton a "truth abuser". Kerry is calling Bill Clinton a liar. Barak says Bill Clinton's statements are "not factually accurate". Barak is calling Bill Clinton a liar. Politics is professional wrestling for people who can read newspapers. Nothing is at is seems by design. Or if it is then we call it something different to add another warm blanket between us and the cold truth. The truth is that most if not all politicians lie. However, not all do it with as much shamelessness or gusto as the Clinton's. Even some democrats now are admitting what the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy brought to light over 10 years ago...the Clinton's lie, it's what they do. No matter what you call it. If the Clinton's capture the White House again it will mean that America has become unrecognizable to the people who once believed in the simple decency of her citizens.

I Am Sub-Prime

The sub-prime meltdown and the ensuing tsk-tsk's started me thinking (good thing I had my Excedrin handy, thinking always gives me a headache). The general attitude seems to be "well, the borrowers should have known better" and, "obviously, borrowers should have known that those rates weren't forever" or even, "you simply cannot get a house for free."

OK, I hear and understand all of the above. But here's the thing. In a very real way, we are all sub-prime borrowers. Not because of any fallout regarding mortgages. Nope, not that simple. We're all involved because we, as voters, have all bought into the GOP notion that "deficits don't matter." (Well not all Americans. H-Blog readers are well aware of that this GOP notion is utter nonsense-quick examples here, here, here, and here. Two, four, six, eight, who do we appreciate? H-blog, H-blog, yaaaaaaaay H-blog!).

For example, when we fund a multi-gazillion dollar war solely on debt, we're signing on the "no money down" line of our nations mortgage loan.

When we continue to borrow, and assume that we will aways grow our way out of our debt payments, we're committing the "I'll always get raises to cover my spending" mistake that leads to taking on more debt than our nation's household can reasonably sustain.

When we continue to borrow thinking that we can always get others to finance our spending, we're committing the "Las Vegas homes will always go up in value" mistake of the real estate speculator who does OK in good times but goes busted in bad.

So before anyone gets too high and mighty on those who are going busted in sub-prime, I suggest taking a good long look in the mirror. By default, you're in just as deep (I say deeper) and you've fallen for the same "it will all work out, sign here" scam as those who bought their house with too much leverage. You bought the same, "it will cost you nothing" argument, the same, "you can always make the payments" argument, and the same, "someone will aways be there to buy it at a profit argument" argument. In the end, you accepted the same, "it all makes sense in the math, just sign here" argument. Why? Because you really didn't understand the math, because you trusted "experts" who were conflicted because they were profiting on our signature, and most importantly, because we wanted to. So show a little sympathy for the busted homeowners. You're heading in the same direction.

Bush's real, lasting, legacy will be that of the mortgage broker who got the nation to sign away the house.

Slate Readers are Soooooo Behind

Congratulations again, dear H-Blog reader, for being ahead of the MSM (here meaning "Mighty Slow Media").

Main article of Slate.com has an article about Gov Mike Huckabee's comments on South Carolina's affection for the Confederate Flag. The writer was one Mr Christopher Hitchens. Why am I boring you with this?

Wellllll, Hydrablog covered this subject over a YEAR ago. Long time readers (Hi Ma) have known the ins and outs of this topic way before the pointy headed geeks who read Slate. Proving that Hitch steals from us while dissing Huck,

The political flag of the Confederacy—the so-called "Stars and Bars"—is one thing. The battle flag of the Confederate army, the most militant symbolic form that secession and slavery ever took, is quite another. Under this fiery cross of St. Andrew, the state of Pennsylvania was invaded and free Americans were rounded up and re-enslaved. Under this same cross, it was announced that any Union officer commanding freed-slave soldiers, or any of his men, would be executed if captured.

Hmmmm, excellent point. Let's see if the H-Blog picked up on this a YEAR ago.

Here's my issue. The battle flag of the Confederacy is an open sign of rebellion, of violence against the state. Its also a symbol of division and a flag under which many people killed and died in an effort to forcibly divide the Union....Thus I suggest that SC fly the actual national flag of the Confederacy at the memorial. It honors the soldiers, keeps history alive, educates folks, yet doesn't suggest that violent hostility towards the Nation is good, and it doesn't give the KKK and WS' anything to brag about.

Oh, goody, we did.

An asterisk somewhere noting H-Blogs groundbreaking analysis of this issue would have been nice.

Obama hearts Reagan

Sen. Barack Obama is taking heat from Sen Hillary Clinton (and the the inverse of "Behind every great man is a woman" Bill) for his recent quotes about President Reagan. Here's the actual transcript if you're bored enough to read it (hey, if you're reading this blog, you have to be close right?). Mostly Obama correctly identifies the GOP 'sascent, the problems with the Dems, the GOP's current problems and gives credit to Reagan for rallying the nation back in the day.

Interesting strategy on Clinton's part. Most polls show that voters don't really like either party, are fed up with the status quo (read, interparty fighting), and want change (read, from interparty fighting). So what does she do, attack the idea the the Stalin's Hero (where a then chubby VP Bush was famous for "I see noe-thing, I know noe-thing" and and younger hipper Cheney always said, "Staaaaaalin"), may have been an OK President, and that the GOP came to power. Yes, yes, the best way to show that you can work with the other party and move our nation forward is to attack the GOP's Father Figure ( That's all I wanted, something special, Something sacred in your eyes, For just one moment, to be bold and naked
At your side) (creepy how well that fits, right?).

As for Obama, I think he should stick to his guns (if the Dems didn't hate them and want to pry them from your cold dead hand that is) and keep on praising the Gipper. See, there were loads of Reagan Democrats back then and hey, they're queer*, they're here, deal with it. Not only does it potentially reignite that base, but it also reinforces his "See, I can work with the Republicans" message. It makes him less of a partisan. Normally that's a fatal move in the primaries, but again, not a lot of love for either party and the hackery that keeps coming down that pike. This particular election cynical (oops, I mean "cycle"), that may be the exact right move.

Quick side notes from the last debate. When did the debates become so filled with lame cliche's. To wit (or not to wit, that is the question).

Obama told the former first lady he was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."

And,

Clinton said that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

Awesome. I respectfully suggest next they go with,

I forgot more about how to move this nation forward than you'll ever learn.

Or,

I'll take you down Senator, take you down to China Town.

Ahhhhh, election season. Enjoy.




*queer (kwîr)adj. queer·er, queer·est

1. Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.

What? What did you think I meant?

Outsourcing Immigration

No cool links here. Just pondering, while watching another GOP debate, the immigration issue. Long time readers of the H-blog (Hi Ma!) know that I'm pro immigration. Not that I'm a pro at immigration, honestly I've never even immigrated before, not once. More that I'm all for free trade and that I'm all for allowing people to pull an Eddie Murphy.

But what made me stop and say, "STOP THE PRESSES!" is "Outsourcing." Remember when that was the big danger facing our country? Remember all those books? How it was destroying the economy, killing off jobs here, making the poor, poorer and the rich, richer? How if it kept up America would fall into ruin and we would be owned by India? Funny how none, and I do mean none of that happened. Funny also, how during this Presidential Election Cycle I can't find a single candidate staking his (sigh, or her) election on this most pressing issue. This catastrophic event was something like two years ago, and now its dead. We're all OK, no bill were needed, no new laws, no...nothing.

Could it be that the same thing is happening with Immigration? I'm pretty sure that there's some saying about "those who don't learn good from history* stuff, make it all bad again."

Could it be that we're a nation of lemmings? Following whatever latest "America Destroying Danger" the politicians come up with to run on?

Nawwwwww?


*How come the feminists haven't jumped all over HIStory like they did Womyn?

Twas SWAT, it twas

Interesting news going on in Colorado. World Net Daily report on a Garfield County Sheriff's use of SWAT to break into a home and take a boy, Jonathan Shiflett, from his parents to receive medical care.

Gist of story, some kids were playing, and the young by slipped and hit his head. His father, Tom Shiflett, a former paramedic immediately took the boy inside and checked him out. Decided he was OK and gave him ice and pain relievers (remember this plot point). A neighbor called 911, and according to the article,

The paramedics were allowed to see the boy, and found no significant impairment, but wanted to take him to the hospital for an evaluation anyway. Fearing the hospital's bills, the family refused to allow that.

Paramedics told two friends, who told two friends and so on, until Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak decided to issue a seizure warrant. SWAT was called. Then hilarity ensued.

Oops, my bad. Not so much hilarity, as bungling abuse of power. According to the Mother, Tina, what ensued was,

One (officer) grabbed my daughter Beth (18 years), who also had a gun to her face, slammed her down and kneed her in the back and held her in that position… My sons Adam (14) and Noah (only 7) lay down willingly, yet they were still forced to put their hands behind their backs and were yelled at to keep their heads down.

"My daughter Jeanette was coming out from the back bedroom when she was grabbed, drug down the hallway, across a couch and slammed to the ground," she said. "The officers then began throwing scissors and screwdrivers across the room (out of our reach, I suppose) and going through our cupboards.

"I asked if I could make a phone call and was told, 'no.' My daughter asked if that wasn't one of our rights. The reply was made, 'That's only in the movies,'" she said.

While I like He Said/She Said as much as the next guy, that's not really the point of this post. I just have the following questions.

One, if you're forced to get medical attention, do you still have to pay for it? By the way, and this is important, the net result for the boys medical attention? You guessed it, ice and painkillers. This is important. According to the article, the Paramedic's called in to the scene, were satisfied that the boy was OK, but wanted to give him a ride to the ER for evaluation anyway (look above for the quote silly). At this point I have two sub questions. On who's dime is this "what the heck" evaluation made? Two, the net result of all this is that the Paramedics essentially ordered Tom to allow them to take his child to the ER (with the now implied use of force to back up this order). Do we really want Paramedics to have that kind of authority? Shouldn't the parents have that authority, with the Paramedics giving recommendations?

Two, was SWAT really necessary? According to the Sheriff, Lou Vallario, what prompted him to call in SWAT was Mr Shifletts comment to "bring an army" if the cops come back. Really? Are we now at the point where "you and what army?" isn't really a cheap boast, but a command? (Yes, Mr Shiflett also allegedly chased someone with an ax years ago, but there was no arrest). OK, but SWAT? Busting in the house and taking the boy at gun point? Guns and confinement for the other children? Really? Aren't we supposed to trust our safety professionals to find better solutions, especially solutions to problems that didn't really exist?

Three, why does Garfield County even have a SWAT team. Must be the incredibly high number of violent crimes in this county of 44,000. What's that? 130? Per day, right? No...that's for all of 2004. Hmmmm, well no wonder they called in SWAT. Those SWAT guys must be bored out of their feakin' minds. I'm surprised they don't get called out to deliver parking tickets.

Four, I wonder if a mandatory ER trip and psychoanalysis was ordered for the other kids after the invasion?

Bottom line? I have great respect for our police officers. I dig being safe, a lot. And I absolutely know that without the police, that would not be the case. I also don't claim to know exactly what happened here. But this whole incident seems rife with individuals wielding outsized power with outsized toys. This event should have been left to the parents. That's what parents do, decide what's best for their children. There was no prior indication of abuse, nor was there an immediate indication as the Paramedics only advised a trip to be sure that their initial examination (which agreed with the parents) was correct. It's not like the the boy was delirious, paralyzed or bleeding out. A parent and a homeowner has rights. Even, ultimately, the right to be wrong.

Disorderlies?

A Pennsylvania man was charged with "Disorderly Conduct" after writing the "f-word" (I won't write it here, I have a clean record and want to keep it that way) on the Memo line of a check he used to pay a parking conduct.

The man, David Binner, later apologized, and charges were dropped. OK, except I don't see how writing the "f-word" could possibly be considered "Disorderly Conduct." From the all powerful Wiki Disorderly Conduct comes when,

A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:

(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;

(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or

(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

I don't see any of the above in writing a bad word in the Memo section of a check. Not even a little. In fact to me, and lets face it, that's all that really matters, it seems like a valid, if ineffective means of protest.

Also, what adult could really, honestly be insulted by some random person writing "f" in the memo section of a check? I mean, enough to file charges insulted? Sticks and stones and all that right?

So to recap, a man immaturely vented, someone immaturely claimed to be offended, the man was falsely charged with a crime, the man was either forced to apologize or did so honestly, and all is well.

The larger question, is why did anything happen besides cashing this man's check?

Whatch U Tonkin 'bout Willis?

OK, I'm no conspiracy buff (but really, can you be a "buff" of conspiracies? Wouldn't you be more of a conspiracy...monger...zealot...or even devotee?)...wait, where was I? Oh yes. I don't normally buy into conspiracies, especially the governmental kind (here's another aside. Who put the "mental" in "Governmental?")

OK, I've totally lost my point. So now I'll go directly to the post. A group called "The Federation of American Scientists" has just put out a press release claiming that they have proof the the Gulf of Tonkin Incident never happened.

Says Steven Aftergood,

What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It's a dramatic reversal of the historical record.

OK, OK, I admit it. I don't have a larger point to this post. I just thought of the headline when I read the article and had to use it. I also liked "Jive Tonkin."

Maybe I should just quit now and go to work for the National Enquirer?

And justice for all? Only if its convenient.

Wednesday night quick hit.

I was perusing this article about The Supremes (Robert's called Diana-which totally pissed off Thomas-who looks A-mazing in sequins) questions about an Indiana's voter ID law.

Here's the part that caught the eye of el-bloggerino. From Kennedy,

You want us to invalidate a statute on the ground that it's a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters?

Now, I'm no Constitutional Scholar (but I do play on on the blogosphere) but I thought that Ross and Co don't decide law based on "convenience" but rather the other "c" word. Yes, "Constitutionality." From where I sit (brown couch, flannel bunny pj's), if said law is "Unconstitutional" it shouldn't really matter if it's convenient or inconvenient. Right? Isn't that the whole point of the "Constructionist" view of the US Constitution? Isn't that their job? If it's Unconstitutional for one person in the 300 million of us, then it should go away. For, by and of and all that.

Anyway, from the article it looked like the judges were more concerned with turning this into a convenient/inconvenient debate, rather than a debate about the Constitutionality of the Indiana Law. Just a touch troubling in the one building on the planet that's supposed to be devoted to that cute little document.

Pauly Sure?

I know my esteemed colleague M.C. Ginty already wrote about this, but being the spotlight hog that I am, I wanted to put in my own post.

I was a Pauler, not to be confused with the much more attractive Paulettes. As long time readers (Hi Ma!) know, I'm a small "g" government guy. Mr Paul was getting that message out, and, joy-o-joy's it was not only heard but cheered.

Then it came out that Mr Paul's wrote some letter's that nobody should cheer. So now I'm a Paul Bearer.

Lot's of hand-ringing going on in the strange world of Libertarian politics. Reason's folks go into it, and even cover some other's so I'll let them do it.

If you don't feel like clicking the link (odd how those new "lost body fat" commercials don't show blogging-I wonder how many clicks per pound?), I'll summarize. Mr Paul couldn't write that, TMR could be lying, doesn't detract from the message, old news, the Newsletters had his name but there's no proof he wrote them-lots of newsletters had ghost writers, blah blah blah.

Bottom line? Newsletter had his name on the top, its his mess. You can't run for leader of the free world and say that you couldn't even control what was going on in your own newsletter. If he didn't do it, he certainly didn't fire whoever did. That's what you do when you're the bossman and someone does something that appalls you (you even do it if it apples you). By not doing it, he condoned and in my humble opinion pushed the message. At that point, I don't care if you say it or not. It's on you.

It is for that very reason that today, officially, I'm done with Pauly. I don't support that message, so I cannot support that man. Yes, regardless of how appealing his other message is. I'm tired of playing the "support the bad guy to promote the good message" game. I don't support bad guys, no matter the message. No knots for me.

I do hope that the message that was well received doesn't go down with Mr Paul. Hopefully some non-homophobic, non-racist, non-lots-o-things will look around and think, "The small government message, strong it was. Too bad it is that young Paul took to the Dark Side, Hmmmm?" Then after that* Star Wars Geek gets trounced, hopefully someone normal will take up the message and we can all win.

Sorry M.C. (which, sadly was my rap name back in the day), didn't mean to "post you up," but I wanted to get my reaction directly on the record.



*Yup. Three italicized "that's." in one post. Now That's Incredible.

APAULed

Tough break today for the libertarian "message," thanks to the "messenger." Being an exceedingly cynical "small-l" libertarian means never having to say I'm sorry for Ron Paul.

But regrets? Some of them have a few. Andrew Sullivan, Arnold Kling, and Matt Welch at the bottom most closely share my sentiments.

Election fallout, of course, will be zilch, as was the Paul candidacy as anything other than a freewheeling vehicle into mainstream cluck-cluckery.

Here's hoping the message has stronger and longer legs than the messenger; but that should have been the hope all along.

"Changing the 'Establishment'"

Saturday night the candidates--especially the Democrats--seemed to sing those empty words loud and long. Me? I was changing the channel back to Jags-Steelers. Anyway, here's George Will, calling it like I see it:

Huckabee fancies himself persecuted by the Republican "establishment". . . .
Huckabee says that "only one explanation" fits his Iowa success "and it's not a
human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and
five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people." God so loves Huckabee's politics that
He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should someone so delusional control
nuclear weapons?

Speaking of delusions, Edwards seems unaware that the world market sets
the price of oil. He says a $100-a-barrel price is evidence of --surging demand
in India and China? Unrest in Nigeria's oil fields? No, "corporate greed." That
is Edwards's explanation of every unpleasantness.

Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to change
Washington's culture, each would aggravate its toxicity.

Each overflows with and wallows in the pugnacity of the self-righteous
who discern contemptible motives behind all disagreements with them and who
therefore think that opponents are enemies and differences are
unsplittable . . . .

The way to achieve Edwards's and Huckabee's populist goal of reducing
the role of "special interests," meaning money, in government is to reduce the
role of government in distributing money.

Chris Rock, Political Genius

Chris Rock makes a point about Presidential hopeful and NY Sen. Hillary Clinton.

I think America's ready for a woman president . . . just not that woman. Being married to somebody doesn't make you good at their job. I've been with my wife 10 years now. If she got up here right now, y'all wouldn't laugh. At all. You get on a plane tomorrow, you want the pilot's wife flying you?

Hard to argue against. We got our current President because he was someone's son. And look how great that turned out.

I mean think about it, just because Stalin's my friend doesn't mean he's a devastatingly handsome, witty, charming, smart and humble man like me. Would you trust him as your political guide? I think not.

Hmmm, can it be that Dynasties are actually bad? Should it be that you have to earn the Presidency?

Nawwww, just give me people I'm familiar with. Then I feel like I'm in the club.

Ayuh

From Dave Barry, "Swarming in the Land of Snow and Donuts," at miamiherald.com:

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- And so the eyeballs of the world turn to New Hampshire,
a tiny, flinty, gritty, Dunkin' Donuts-intensive state located mostly inside the
Arctic Circle. On Tuesday, the voters here will troop to the polls, where -- as
they have done every four years since 1952 -- they will turn around and troop
back home, because the polls, like virtually everything else here, are under 23
feet of snow.

But a few people, the truly flinty ones, will manage to actually vote,
and they will determine the course of this presidential race -- and, yes,
America's future -- for approximately two news cycles. Then the eyeballs of the
world will turn to either North or South Carolina (nobody is sure which) and the
people of New Hampshire will go back to their traditional flinty New England
lifestyle of sitting around eating doughnuts and waiting for the August
thaw.

When One Head is Better Than 50

Continuing my trek through the Bizzaro World that is the modern two party system, I stumbled upon this quote from allegedly Republican President George Bush regarding how the US should deal with greenhouse gasses.

The question is how to have an effective strategy. Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy?

Funny, I thought Republican's believed that the Great American Experiment was having 50 states trying 50 things and seeing what works best. Yes, yes McGinty you're probably right. W was trying to help the GOP distance itself from that well known disgrace Ronald Reagan who famously catered to the KKK when he made a speech referencing "States Rights." Whew. Now that the GOP is in danger of losing the White House, I guess it makes sense to try to out Democrat (another slur) the Democrats and get as far as possible from the RR (Granted, some might say that W already took the long walk off that short pier). Talk about two hearts living in just one mind. Just one mind, just one mind. Good to know that the Republic is dead, long live whoever holds the keys to the Federal Offices. Well, unless you're not quite born, then its all about giving the States the right to choose (see below).

Honestly, I have no idea what's the right thing to do with these gasses. For all I know, maybe we need more of them. I mean, isn't everyone always complaining about the lack of gas in America? Maybe W has a crazy solution to both problems. However, if the good people of California want to ignore the mad genius that is W and desire a tougher standard than the national one, I say let 'em. Then we can all see how it works out for them.

Now for some irresistible quick hits.

One, hearing W talk sincerely about the need for effective strategy is like hearing Brittney Spears talk sincerely about the need for effective family values.

Two, isn't W the same guy who says that the best way to handle the abortion issue is to let each state decide what's best for its citizens? Sooooooo, if you're keeping track at home (and if you're reading this blog you probably are, heck right now I'm in my jammies), that means that according to W, the need to protect the environment demands a sound national strategy, while the need to protect unborn children specifically doesn't require a sound national strategy. And I thought Gore was the one who was over the top on Global Warming. Poor Stalin. What to do when your hero W tries to out Gore Gore. Now that's...gory (ohhhhhhh, even I'm embarrassed by that one).

Three, I was trying to find a way to work C&C Music Factory's "Things That Make You Go Hmmm" into this post. But I was honestly embarrassed by the opening verse.

I was at the crib, sittin' by the fireplace
Drinkin' cocoa on the bear skin rug.

This is a rap song mind you, and this guy is boasting about sitting by the fireplace drinking hot chocolate on a bear skin rug. And you thought Barry Manilow songs were gay.

Fix Fact

From Radley Balko, "Death by Drug War," at The Agitator:

Washington State has a law allowing prosecutors to impose a special
homicide charge on people who supply drugs to overdose victims. The problem is
that the law itself may be causing more overdose deaths.

The state of Washington’s position is clear: If someone calls 911 whena
friend is overdosing, not only does the witness risk charges for possessing
or selling drugs (which 911 callers in these situations have feared since
the passage of the Controlled Substances Act), but he or she could be charged
with homicide, too. The end result? Overdose victims—who might survive with
promptmedical care—may be abandoned and left to die.

When you think about how the law would be applied, it’s far more likely
to catch teens and college kids who share illicit drugs with friends making
just such a decision than it is to catch any major drug dealer. I doubt many
peopleoverdose with their dealers . . .

And it makes another case for legalizing the possession and sale of drugs. There's no upside for any drug dealer, let alone a legitimized one, to let customers fix under his roof. Dope and coke ain't alcohol; fiends and base heads, they ain't Otis Campbell, coming or going, so a dealer's going to get them in and out fast, and let 'em get back to wherever they'd be, being who they choose to be, laws or no. Just with a lot less drama on the street.

Where to start?

Some quick hits to get us out of the gate.

Pope Says Gays are bad for peace. I don't know about that, haven't really seen the studies. But I do feel the need to point out that a German Pope is saying,

that a traditional family led by a husband and wife instilled values that promote peace.

Now, I don't want to point out the obvious, but I'm pretty sure Nazi Germany had a high "family rate" and they were definitely hostile to the gays, but oddly, not a lot of peace. In fact, as I review my history, lots of wars started by lots of nations with lots of families. I'm just not sure that gays are the big threat facing the world today, maybe we should focus our attention elsewhere. On a roll, he says,

Those who are hostile, even unknowingly, to the institution of the family ... make peace fragile for the entire national and international community.

He's looking at you New Hampshire and you're gay love...love. Not only are you on the forefront of determining the next "Most Powerful Person in the World*" but you're also at the forefront for the next World War! Lots of pressure on the Granite State. My protest sign? Civil Unions=Civil Wars!

Speaking of War, McCain pulled an Unknown Blogger and returned strong for 2008! How'd that happen? Latest poll has them at a tie. Clearly the fine people of NH don't read the H-Blog. If they did, they would know that we declared McCain yesterday's news way back in July 2007. Come on people pay attention, I'm prognosticating here.

In other election news, Mike Huckabee has decided that wrapping himself in the flag is soooo tacky. The Cross is much, much better. Between ads with not so subtle "God's Behind Me!" themes, and "Take a knee for me" slogans, Ol' Mike is not so much asking for the Religious Conservative Vote as begging for it. Maybe that's why he's on his knees so much. No push back from me, I'm a big fan of free speech, and talking about religion is clearly speech so I say, Keep on Truckin'. But, as a voter, I'm a bit weary of Christ as the new Flag.

Did you say Fag? Looks like gay couples get "divorced" too. And when they do, not so fun. Welcome to the club boys (and girls). My advice? RUN! You can cheat nature, but you can't cheat the statistics.

Just ask Olympic Champion Justin Gatlin who tried to run and cheat nature, but he too got caught (who knew sprinting was so gay?). Busted for doping, the Gold Medalist is out for Beijing. Again, I renew the call for The Unknown Blogger's Simple Solution For Cheating (and cure for Ricketts). It's right there folks, yours for the taking. Maybe if I could get some media attention.

Me and Ron Paul. FOX News, "Fair and Balanced" unless you annoy us is not allowing Mr. Paul to play with the other kids at the big debate. Something about polling numbers, but wait, Mr. Paul is polling better than former Belle of the Ball Fred Thompson who made the cut (sort of like the number one draft pick who's clearly a bust but teams keep bringing him in because "Hey, he was the first pick in the draft! Maybe he'll turn it around for us.") There's also a rant about the power and danger of media control and the new FCC arguments for rules allowing for more consolidation. Oh well, given how we all love and trust the media, its all good right? For the record, I think FOX caves and Mr Paul makes the list.

In other news, the Unknown Blogger promises vows to create policy that will insure that the sun will rise tomorrow. Mike Huckabee vowed a defense build-up that would produce

"a military of sorts that no one on earth would want to take us on."

Really, does he feel like that's not the case now? Who's looking to take us on? I love it when a politician creates a controversy around something I already have, then promises to give it back to me the way it was before he created the controversy. Especially when it will cost billions. If you're keeping track at home, we already have an untouchable military. Unless he's saying that it's no longer untouchable, which then seems like a direct attack on the Bush Administration.

Really quick...Hillary and Obama neck and neck. Guiliani in a free fall. Romney, up down, all around, getting dogged, and spending loads, but still the front runner.

Whew, that's the US update. I think some things are going on elsewhere, but that doesn't really matter anyway...right?

*Can't even say "Most Powerful Man in the World" anymore thanks to that woman Hillary Clinton.

Hydrablog's New Year's Present to all

Happy New Year reader (Hi Ma!).  As a gift, and offering, for the new year, Hydrablog has brought back the internet's most sought after blogger.  That's right folks, The Unknown Blogger has returned! Like Mac Arthur to the Philippines, or Stalin Malone to the Red Lobster Shrimp and Lobster Fest, I'm back.

So for all of you who have been following those "other" Unknowns, rest assured that only Hydrablog has the original.  All those other dopplegangers are but pale imitations.  As you could clearly see if I wasn't "Unknown" I'm simply much, much better looking than the others.  At least according to the Carthart Scale of Attractiveness, where I'm a solid 70-105 Wellots above the rest.  And Stalin, don't even bring up the Nelpert Scale of Looks.  Everyone knows that Nelpert omits "Animalist Mysteryism" which you have to take into account to get any semblance of hotness.  So dear readers, if you see a blogger claiming to be the Unknown Blogger who isn't a solid 1, 245 Wellots on the Carthart Scale, its not me.  It's why I have to wear the bag, keeps the ladies in check.

So, taking a quick review of the blog since McGinty and I had our little "altercation."  (I'll never forgive you McGinty, never.  That was my Eggo, damnit!).  Apparently we're heading into an election year, only from the looks of things it.s 2000 because Stalin's on some kind of full out attack on Al Gore.  It takes real insight to wade into the 2000 Presidential Election in 2008 Stalin, keep up the good work!

So happy reader (Hi Ma!) get ready to hunker down and ride 2008 with the Hydrablog crew.  Election season, gotta love it.