tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67672742583533452512024-03-12T19:20:17.262-07:0024 Carrot BlogCrusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-46179841795656972092010-11-16T15:43:00.000-08:002010-11-17T11:31:22.716-08:00Don't Quote Things You've Never ReadDespite his every effort to delay the process, the House Ethics sub-committee hearing the charges against Rep. Charles Rangel (<span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">D</span></span>-NY) finally ruled today.<br /><br />Rangel, who chose not to be present for the final sub-committee proceeding now claims that he was denied the right to counsel which he claims existed "ever since <span style="font-style: italic;">Magna Carta</span>".<br /><br />Video <a href="http://video.foxnews.com/v/4421708/rep-charlie-rangel-unfair-process/?playlist_id=86858">here</a>. The money quote is around 3:25.<br /><br />Bad news congressman: the right to retain counsel is not contained in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta"><span style="font-style: italic;">Magna Carta</span></a>. Do you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about or our you just trying to make yourself the object of pity? Is that the only defense you have for your egocentric sense of entitlement?<br /><br />Never mind that you weren't denied the right. YOU CHOSE not to exercise that right, slimeball.Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-2380818744953902462010-11-12T13:57:00.000-08:002010-11-17T11:30:32.846-08:00How Not to Write a Constitution: Part II - RightsPrior to World War II most Americans understood the word "rights" in the Jeffersonian-Madisonian construction of what are now called "natural rights". These are liberties that all human beings are understood to be in possession of by the fact of being. No other conditions need exist.<br /><h4>"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."</h4><br />In my life time, the meaning of the word "rights" has been confused with the Marxist conception wherein a person is somehow entitled to receive some good or service from another person. These are very different from rights. The so-called "right" to "health care" is one of these. This can't come from nature, because you don't necessarily possess it. Rather, to get "health care" you have to live in civilization and there has to be someone knowledgeable enough to provide it. That is, health care is a service. You don't have any more right to it then you would to a Rutti-Tooti Fresh and Fruity breakfast at IHOP. You can get one, but they aren't required to let you have it for nothing. You get one by making a contract with IHOP to trade it to you for some money.<br /><br />Moreover, as preconditions, you have to be in an IHOP. If there's not one near you, there's no imperative someone transport you to one, nor to build one conveniently located for your dining pleasure. In other words, it is a precondition to obtain this good that you have to live in a place where someone can actually own and operate such an establishment. They must necessarily have access to electricity, water, sewer service, trash removal and food distribution. All of those goods and services have to be bought as well. None of it adheres to anyone in the chain of transactions as a fact of nature.<br /><br />Likewise for "health care". A lot of people have to do and have to possess a lot of goods and knowledge to provide it. They might occasionally provide it as a charitable gift, but if they are not in general, being compensated for their efforts then there will be no health care for you to partake of.<br /><br />Anyhow, in today's America, when you talk of "rights" you have to make this distinction. Too many people have grown accustomed to the phrase "I have a right to" being applied to things that, without a doubt, Jefferson not only never conceived of, but would not have agreed met the definition. The left has, predictably, developed a very self-serving terminology for the distinction. They term natural rights as "negative rights" and stuff the government is supposed to give you in its eternal benevolence "positive rights". A more accurate way to say it to call natural rights "rights" and the other kind as "not rights". Think of it this way: the eternal benevolence of government is the empty set. So if "positive rights" is the set of things you can receive from that set then it is likewise empty. Ergo, there is no such thing as a "positive right".<br /><br />The easiest way to tell the difference is this: if a person has to give it to you or trade it to you or you have to take it from them (steal it in other words) then it's not a right. If you can do it without taking from anyone else and the only question is whether some force is going to act to prevent you, then it's a right.<br /><br />Alright then, what does it matter? Well... let's have a look at the constitution of a failed state. One of the most notorious kleptocracies in the Western Hemisphere.<br /><br /><blockquote style="font-family: arial;">ARTICLE 22:<br />The State recognizes the right of every citizen to decent housing, education, food and social security.<br /><br />ARTICLE 23:<br />The State has the obligation to ensure for all citizens in all territorial divisions appropriate means to ensure protection, maintenance and restoration of their health by establishing hospitals, health centers and dispensaries. </blockquote>According to Wikipedia this document is modeled on the US Constitution. Apparently the person who wrote the Wikipedia entry as well as the editors who ultimately control content never read Jefferson or Madison. Perhaps when they say "modeled after" they mean "someone took the time to write it all down in one place."<br /><br />So everyone in this country has the "right" to food and health care. The place must be paradise on earth, n'est-ce pas? Mais, non désolé! Considering their geographic location, and that they've been a "free" country for nearly 200 years, there's really no reason other than a faulty political philosophy for Haiti to be as broken as it is. <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/constitutions/haiti/haiti1987.html">Their constitution</a>, I argue is the key.<br /><br />When the government is under a constitutional mandate to provide a service, it is necessarily under a constitutional mandate to confiscate the means of providing it. It's a perpetual justification for theft, and the government of Haiti indeed excels in that. Yet, does this government ever succeed at providing the mandated service? No, and it won't. It's not in the interest of those in power to succeed at that. They have a monopoly, and a mandate to steal in its name. You get what you get and they can always cry "we need a bigger budget, so we need to raise your taxes." Sound familiar?<br /><br />Haiti is by no means unique in this either. <a href="http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html">The Soviet Constitution of 1936</a> makes a few high-minded promises as well. This was written by Stalin's administration. Yes, the same one that purposely starved the populace of its biggest food-producing subject nation. Did they create paradise? Um... no.<br /><br />The founders of our nation understood that government is ultimately the use of force. Consequently the main thing you have to compel government to do is leave people alone. People are quite capable of and quite motivated to provide for themselves and others. That only breaks down when a more powerful force than the individual interferes, for example by setting up a monopoly by force of law.<br /><br />The last things you want your government to be are: unrestrained or a service provider. Even when the intent is completely honorable the results are ultimately foul. Governments just aren't good at the whole "service" concept. In part it is because governments do not perceive themselves as mortal. Customer complaints don't appear to endanger the livelihoods of people in government. So they go mostly ignored, or else they serve as an excuse to rob your neighbors to serve you better.<br /><br />FedEx provides superior service without having to rob from the treasury. This isn't by accident. The owners of FedEx understand that their customers could go somewhere else, and as such, they have an incentive to provide a good value and good service. If a FedEx employee ever treated you with the disregard displayed in the average post office he'd be out of a job. Only government "enterprises" can stay open without serving their customers well or courteously.<br /><br />It is the nature of the beast. It is the fundamentally about incentives. The post office doesn't get budget increases by working within its budget. No government operation does that. In government you get budget increases by doing your job poorly. Private enterprise works on the opposite proposition. Do your job poorly and or inefficiently and you drive the money away.<br /><br />Given the choice between a government employee and someone who gets paid more if they do their job well, who would you rather have take you to the hospital when you're bleeding to death? Seriously, if the number of people who die on the way to the hospital is an incentive for a bigger budget to a government agency, there will be a lot of bleeding to death. Whereas if people are competing for the privilege, the one whose customers don't die so often is the one you're going to hire.<br /><br />Knowing that, a rational people would never transfer responsibility for any good or service to the government unless there was some compelling reason why it couldn't be done any other way.<br /><br />Our founders understood this, and generations before mine did too. Now we all need to start making ourselves so well informed. We who are living today need to understand where all these ideas came from and reject the bad ones. At the same time, people wrongly described as "constitutional scholars" are trying to tell us that our constitution is incomplete because it does not address "positive rights". Make sure you understand what they mean when they say that. The life you save could be your own.Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-17723339604593144132010-11-10T12:16:00.000-08:002010-11-12T12:58:56.925-08:00How Not to Write a Constitution: Part I - Freedom of SpeechSee my <a href="http://24carrot.blogspot.com/2010/10/keyword-search-this.html">previous post</a> for the full text of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. (The one that does not contain the word "separation".)<br /><br />Now have a look at this from another constitution. This is not the original text, but the closest thing to an "official" translation to English (found <a href="http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/nl00000_.html">here</a>).<br /><br /><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica;"><b><a name="A007_"></a></b></span><blockquote><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica;"><b><a name="A007_">Article 7 [Expression]</a></b><br />(1) No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law.<br />(2) Rules concerning radio and television shall be laid down by Act of Parliament. There shall be no prior supervision of the content of a radio or television broadcast.<br />(3) No one shall be required to submit thoughts or opinions for prior approval in order to disseminate<span title="ICL-Key: 6242"><a name="Key_6242" href="http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/xr00000_.html#6242"></a></span> them by means other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law. The holding of performances open to persons younger than sixteen years of age<br />may be regulated by Act of Parliament in order to protect good morals.<br />(4) The preceding paragraphs do not apply to commercial advertising.</span></blockquote>See the problem?<br /><br />It only protects from <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Prior+Restraint">prior restraint</a>. It lacks any clause about abridging the free practice.<br /><br />Consequently, all that this protects is a person's right to physically speak the words without clearing it with the government first. It does not prevent the government from enacting arbitrary penalties based on content.<br /><br />This is the reason why a man speaking truthfully about islam can be hauled before a tribunal in Holland. The government has made it a crime to hurt the tender-feelings of islamists. Don't call them "violent" or they'll riot.<br /><br />In a similar way this doesn't cut it either:<br /><br /><blockquote style="font-family: arial;">2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:<br />(a) freedom of conscience and religion;<br />(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;<br />(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and<br />(d) freedom of association.</blockquote>Why not? Well, without being a lawyer and without being well-versed in the circuitous mass that is <a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/ConstDoc.html">this particular constitution</a>, I nevertheless observe that there is no text which prohibits limitation or abrogation of these rights. Now there might be text somewhere in this constitution that does that, but it is demonstrated that such a clause is regularly ignored if it does exist.<br /><br />My evidence for this is that so-called "Provincial Human Rights Commissions" in the country from whose constitution that is taken have tried and condemned Christian ministers for teaching parts of the Old Testament and roundly harassed columnists and publishers for quoting muslims on the subject of muslims. Again this was done on the justification that one must not hurt the tender feelings of islamists.<br /><br />The underlying point is that you can't trust governments to restrain themselves. The restraints have to be explicit and proximate to the language regarding that from which you wish to restrain them. Otherwise the the most inspiring statements about what rights citizens possess eventually become just worthless ink on worthless paper.<br /><br />More Examples:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf">Germany</a><br /><blockquote style="font-family: arial;">Article 5<br />[Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]<br />(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate<br />his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and<br />to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible<br />sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting<br />by means of broadcasts and fi lms shall be guaranteed.<br />There shall be no censorship.</blockquote>...so far so good.<br /><blockquote style="font-family: arial;">(2) These rights shall fi nd their limits in the provisions of general<br />laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons,<br />and in the right to personal honour.</blockquote>Doh!<br /><br />I'm sure they meant well here, but the problem is that they created an ambiguity that can be, and in fact now is being abused. This is actually one of the better ones out there, but unfortunately, it was apparently not written by people who understood the how and why of governments becoming tyrannical.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp">Here's one of the worst</a>:<br /><blockquote style="font-family: arial;">Statutes shall guarantee the expression of diverse opinions and the equitable participation of political parties and groups in the democratic life of the Nation.</blockquote>So only by statute is there any guarantee at all, and what you're guaranteed is some statutory definition of "diversity". There is no guarantee that <span style="font-style: italic;">you</span> will get to express <span style="font-style: italic;">your</span> opinion unless some bureaucrat decides it fits within their understanding of the statutory definition of "diversity". The very idea should make you sick to your stomach... and that my friends, is just one more reason why France is most assuredly <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> the pinnacle of Western Civilization.<br /><br />Here are some more links for further reading:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.senado.es/constitu_i/index.html">Constitution of Spain</a><br /><a href="http://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/conteudo/files/constituicaoingles.pdf">Constitution of Portugal</a><br /><a href="http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Erv/ERV_1930_1/ERV_1930_1.pdf">Constitution of Austria</a> (horrible)<br /><a href="http://www.h-net.org/%7Ehabsweb/sourcetexts/auscon.htm">Austria's "Bill of Rights"</a><br /><a href="http://www.re-constitution.org.uk/">(British) Constitution Society's Webpage</a><br /><a href="http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html">European Convention on Human Rights</a> (orig. 1950)<br /><a href="http://www.hrad.cz/en/czech-republic/constitution-of-the-cr.shtml">Constitution of the Czech Republic</a><br /><a href="http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____5562.aspx">Constitution of Sweden</a><br /><a href="http://www.stortinget.no/en/In-English/About-the-Storting/The-Constitution/The-Constitution/">Constitution of Norway</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitutional_Act_of_Denmark,_5_June_1953">Constitution of Denmark</a><br /><a href="http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/440c19285821b109ca256f3a001d59b7/57dea3835d797364ca256f9d0078c087/$FILE/ConstitutionAct.pdf">Constitution of Australia</a><br /><a href="http://cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/">Constitution of New Zealand</a><br /><a href="http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf">Constitution of India</a><br /><a href="http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html">Constitution of Japan</a><br /><a href="http://www.thecorpusjuris.com/laws/constitutions/8-philippineconstitutions/70-1987-constitution.html">Constitution of the Philippines</a>Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-14041842468577655962010-11-03T16:20:00.001-07:002010-11-03T16:41:10.233-07:00Election Wrap-UpWell for a start my predictions were much too optimistic. I have begun to re-assess my analysis of the whole business of opinion polling. More on that at another time.<br /><br />A shift of more than 60 seats in the House, is a big deal making this a "historic" election by any stretch of the imagination. What is the actual historic significance, is a much harder question to answer. The outcome of the next election will tell us a lot about that. So get back to me in two years on this question.<br /><br />The shift in the Senate was indeed much smaller than anticipated and for reasons I've noted previously, that's a good thing. Tactically, assuming that two years from now I'm still on the side of the Republicans, I want them where they are: very much able to control the Senate, but not in the position of looking like they are responsible for what goes on there. To have the roles reversed at this time would be a very very bad thing.<br /><br />About the races I was following: Maine 2 went to the Dem. This for me was the first indication that the Republicans were not going win as big as I'd predicted. On the good news side, Dem Congressman Bob "Drunken Brawler" Etheridge lost. Unlike Massachusetts voters, those in North Carolina at least seem to have a sense of decency.<br /><br />Lt. Col. Alan West won in FL 22. Yay Col. West! It's really going to be fun to watch him in the house.<br /><br />Here in Arizona, the Republicans won every state-wide race except the one for US Senate, in which there was no Republican. Best of all, Terry Goddard has to go look for a job. Good riddance for now. He's one of those people who never goes away even though they should. I'm confident he'll run again.<br /><br />The two congressional seats on the border are currently very close but look to both end up in the hands of the Dems. There is certainly enough Dem fraud in border areas to keep these seats Democrat. In case you didn't know, non-citizens vote in Arizona. Of course they're not supposed to, but complaining about it or trying to stop it is "racism".<br /><br />Overall the election went well, but not in all quarters, and the real issue isn't what happened in the election, but what happens in DC starting in January. Stay tuned.Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-46647124980945430682010-11-02T12:07:00.001-07:002010-11-02T19:44:01.415-07:00Random Thoughts: Election Day22:34 EDT<br /><br />No one's called it yet, but it looks to me that the Republican Rick Scott is going to win the race for Florida's Governor. That's very good news. From what I'm hearing Florida is going R overall as well. Among others, Alan Grayson, the Democrat Congressman from Batshitcrazyland is out and the challenger he went out of his way to slander is in.<br /><br />Lt. Col Alan West looks like he's doing well but the returns are slow coming in. Maine 2 is coming in even slower and so Michaud's lead doesn't yet indicate much.<br /><br />Congressman Bob "WHO ARE YOU!" Etheridge is in a squeaker. Currently he's trailing by 59 votes with 85% reporting.<br /><br />I decided to start following Texas 23 which covers El Paso and the Big Bend. The Repbublican Canseco has a small lead at the moment. The incumbent is long time Dem Congressman Ciro Rodriguez. This is a district that I'd normally expect to stay blue.<br /><br />21:35 EDT<br /><br />The House seems to be shaping up well, but it remains to be seen whether it will go anything like the way I predict. Of the races I've been watching, unfortunately, Barney Frank, who has more responsibility for the mortgage crisis than anyone else in congress has been re-elected. Massachusetts proves again that you can't fix stupid.<br /><br />With West Virgina going for Joe Manchin, and the Democrats getting their turn out in Delaware, it is probable now that I will get my wish that the Republicans will not gain a majority in the Senate. I'm relieved. In a closely-divided Senate, being in the majority is the same as having a job where you've got no authority but full responsibility.<br /><br />20:01 EDT<br /><br />Now that actual returns are starting to come in here are the races I'm watching:<br /><br />Maine 2: This is the more rural and less Dem of the 2 districts in Maine. IMO it makes a fair bellwether for non-urban, blue-state districts. One thing that sets it apart from other parts of the country is that apparently you have to be Acadian to be a candidate.<br /><br />Massachusetts 4: The sick ego-maniac Barney Frank vs. a US Marine. This one I just have to watch.<br /><br />North Carolina 2: This is the seat currently held by the drunk old guy who assaults college students who have the nerve to ask him where he stands on issues. Bob Etheridge is his name. Watching because he's another guy I would really like to see lose as a matter of justice.<br /><br />Florida 22: This is the seat for which Lt. Col. Alan West, USA (ret) is running. This man, IMO could change politics in this country. Early returns have him leading the incumbent 55/45.<br /><br />Florida Governor: This is a big deal. Florida is one of the states the Dems have been working full-time to take control of for more than a decade.<br /><br /><br /><br />18:05 EDT<br /><br />Not a single poll has closed and the so-called election coverage has started. Ugh.<br /><br />17:33 EDT<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >Problems With Voting Machines</span><br /><br />The latest reports of "problems" with voting machines are from Minnesota. As usual, those on the short end are complaining and those on the long end are saying "nothing to see here, move along."<br /><br />In any of the reports of problems with voting machines, the problem is the same: the very fact that you are using voting machines at all.<br /><br />Let me be clear. If your system of balloting does not require you to fill out a piece of pre-printed card stock with a permanent marker, then your voting system is an open invitation to corruption. Voting Machines of every description are just too damn easy to rig.<br /><br />There are many more features of what would constitute a verifiably honest election system, and that is appropriately the topic of a much longer and more-involved post.<br /><br />Nevertheless, you need the paper ballots (actually medium card-stock) as a pre-requisite, and every voter needs to be required to use them. If you are one of those unfortunate citizens who is using any sort of machine, internet voting, or punch-cards and not a pre-printed paper ballot, then you need to start agitating for a change. I assure you that if you are using any of the above then your elections are already corrupt.<br /><br />15:06 EDT<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >Don't Give up on Delaware!<br /></span><br />The early reports I'm hearing from Delaware are that the Dem precincts aren't turning out the way Dems had hoped.<br /><br />Delaware more than any other state demonstrates what has become the tired refrain about this election: <span style="font-style: italic;">It's all about turnout</span>.<br /><br />The official narrative has always been that <span style="font-style: italic;">A-conservative-can't-win-here-you-have-to-run-so-called-"moderate"-republicans-to-have-a-chance.-Oh-you-stupid-tea-partiers-you've-ruined-everthing-by-nominating-a-nut-and-not-the-party-blessed-RINO. Ha-ha-tea-partiers-you've-lost-this-one-before-it-started.</span><br /><br />I don't buy that conservatives can't win, even in the bluest of blue states for these reasons:<br />1. If you've never tried it how do you know what will happen? When was the last time the Republicans put up a credible, committed, conservative in any of these states? [here's a hint: not in my lifetime]<br />2. Delaware goes by turnout. If the Dem region of the state, that is to say the northern tip, Wilmington and suburbs (suburbs of Philadelphia mind you) turn out then the Dems win. If the Republican region (pretty much everything south of Wilmington) turns out and Wilmington doesn't then the Republican wins.<br />3. Southern Delaware must necessarily include a share of non-affiliated conservatives.<br /><br />Who are these "non-affiliated conservatives"? Well they exist in every state, even the very red like mine, but they are more likely to exist in states like Delaware where the party only run RINO's. These are the true-believing conservatives who are so fed up with the BS from the national republican party and that they only ever get RINO's for candidates that they had given up on voting.<br /><br />When polled about party affiliation these people will respond "Independent" because they don't recognize any of their beliefs being manifested by the actions of the GOP. Some are frustrated that the GOP talks a good game but then never seems to fight over any core issue but rather surrenders pre-emptively. (Think gang of 14.) The '06 and '08 election cycles made a lot of people who would previously have called themselves "Republican" go this way. This has everything to do with the low turnout and low party ID numbers for the Republican party between '06 and '09.<br /><br />One more thing about this phenomenon: Pollsters and analysts generally assume that all conservatives self-ID as "Republican" and that therefore everyone who self-ID's as "Independent" is a moderate. This is garbage. Repeated surrenders to the left by Republicans in Washington has made a lot of conservatives stop calling themselves "Republicans". I was one of those people in '92. I changed my registration to "Libertarian" until '96 when I was pursuaded that that the only way to get the changes I wanted was to work inside the Republican Party. If the new congress doesn't put up a good fight for two solid years I will again change my registration to Independent until we can create the successor to the GOP.<br /><br />So, despite all the conventional "wisdom", don't count Delaware out for the Republican party this time. There will be some surprises today. That state could well be a source of 2 or 3 of them.Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-37001405793369644092010-11-01T19:20:00.000-07:002010-11-01T20:54:55.139-07:00Time to Go On the RecordThe mid-term election is tomorrow. Time to make my predictions, for good or ill.<br /><br />I don't have any special knowledge or any special sources. I'm not privy to anything any other American can't find on the web. I'll start from the <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_map.html">map of house races</a> posted at Real Clear Politics. At the time of this writing they show 224 seats leaning, likely or safe for the Republican Party, 167 seats leaning, likely or safe for the Democrat Party and 44 rated "toss-up".<br /><br />If we are to assume that the polling is indeed predictive the cautious prediction would be to split the toss-ups in half. That means an ultimate split of 246 R, 189 D. That would be a gain of 68 for the Republicans. That's already huge, and assuming that they do as they have promised and actually fight rather than try to make friends it's a great day.<br /><br />A more historically-based prediction says that the party benefiting from a "wave" event gains 70% of seats "in play". If we call all the leaners in play as well as the toss-ups then there are 106 seats "in play" for a gain of 74. That's interesting in as much as it's 1 seat shy of the biggest gain in over a century.<br /><br />My assessment is based on 3 factors:<br /><br />1. Most polls this cycle are based on turn-out models which either copy or weigh heavily the 2008 turn-out. I can't seen any reason to believe that is right.<br />2. "TEA Party" voters are a combination of fiscally-conservative Republicans and fiscally-conservative socially-liberal Independents who voted for BHO and disgruntled conservatives who didn't vote last cycle. All three of these categories are going to turn out en masse. The latter of the three can't be accounted for by a turnout model that is based on 2008 nor 2006.<br />3. A very high-proportion of the toss-ups and leaners are Democrat incumbents who poll under 50%. Think about that, even using a model that clearly gives the Dems too high a turn out and in no way counts the people who sat out '08 and '06 these Dems aren't polling 50%.<br /><br />For these reasons I believe that this will be a bigger loss for the Dems than most people are willing to risk predicting.<br /><br />My prediction is the House will end up <span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >258 R, 177D</span> or a shift of <span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >+80</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >R</span>. That is one seat more than a complete reversal of the '08 result (not of the shift but of the final 2008 257 D, 178 R split.) There it is. I'm on the record. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.<br /><br />Now consider this. What if these toss-ups are all mis-characterized and all 44 of them go to the right. In that case the final split would be 268 R, 167 D or +90 R. I think that's possible, but I wouldn't bet much on it.<br /><br />It's become a tired phrase, but it's true: It's all about turn-out. My feeling is that, especially in light of observation 2 above, the turn-out is going to blow away many many more Dems than most people are willing to admit.<br /><br />What about the Senate?<br /><br />The map I'm looking at right now has 45 R, 48 D+I and 7 toss-ups. The toss-ups are: California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Washington and West Virgina.<br /><br />Among those there are only 2 in which I hold any doubt. So 50 R and 50 D+I seems the most likely outcome on paper. I would actually like that a lot. I would prefer for the Dems to hold the Senate rather than have Republicans with a bare majority. This is a political calculation. Contrary to popular belief, 51 seats in the Senate is not the condition of being "IN CONTROL". Not at all. There is a reason why the Dems had to steal an election in Minnesota in '08. (BTW Minnesota, congratulations on that Banana-republic election-system you've created for yourselves.) The reason is that since 2000 it's been repeatedly demonstrated that if you have less than 60 seats in the Senate, you are <span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">NOT</span></span> "in control".<br /><br />I would very much like to see Republicans in control of the Senate, but that is simply not possible in this election cycle. Politically it is a stronger position to not be the party that voters are going to be told every day is "in control" when you are not in fact "in control". Also, I have a lot less confidence in Senate Republicans to be confrontational, and I believe that being confrontational is required to maintain the support of the TEA Party voters through 2012... and they WILL be there in 2012.<br /><br />So, <sigh> I actually consider it bad news but I am predicting <span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >51 R, 49 D+I</span> for the Senate. My one hope is that if that happens, Chuck Shumer will do what's best for Chuck Shumer in the most immediate sense and try to peel off a RINO. Honestly I'd like him to go ahead and peel off all four at once, but I'll take what I can get.<br /><br />Two more issues I haven't discussed here but which I have discussed in the past.<br /><br />1. Political polling is not an exact science. Not by a long shot. Despite claims of margins of error in the range of +/-3 to +/-4 for the typical opinion poll, they are a lot less reliable than that. Those margin of error claims are based on an assumption that the sampling model is completely accurate. There is in fact no way to assess the accuracy of a sampling model. I know people pretend, but it is simply an impossibility.<br /><br />This is why you get one polling agency showing a candidate +7 and another showing him -3. The sampling model makes for the difference and they fundamentally cannot both be right. In this cycle the worst offender in oversampling from one side beyond any reason is the polling agency PPP. They are oversampling Dems by pot-head-fantasy quantities.<br /><br />2. RCP bases its analyses on the average of several polls by different polling agencies. Statisticians should cry "foul" at this. Different agencies use different sampling models so the populations represented by these various polls are in fact quite different. Therefore it is a violation of responsible statistical inference to average the results and attribute any meaning to them.<br /><br />Moreover this is also very much a matter of "Garbage In/Garbage Out". Once you average in one or two ridiculous samples (like say PPP, Zogby and Newsweek), the number you get out the back end is not merely meaningless, but in fact predictably misleading.<br /><br />So when you look at some of these Senate race predictions, have a mind to whose polls they are using in their average. Then remind yourself that the average should be suspect to begin with.<br /></sigh>Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-5652308240688037062010-10-21T00:04:00.000-07:002010-10-21T00:08:49.334-07:00Keyword Search This!<span style="font-style:italic;">Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</span><br /><br />You may notice that the word "separation" can't be found in there anywhere.<br /><br />...but you can have been Attorney General of New York and be <a href="http://www.breitbart.tv/big-journalisms-loesch-gives-cnns-spitzer-more-than-he-can-handle/">completely ignorant</a> of that fact.Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-41818966575417192262010-06-22T14:58:00.000-07:002010-06-22T15:00:43.528-07:00BMI: The Lie That Keeps on Giving, and Giving, and Giving....[I originally posted the following almost five years ago. There's not a word of it I'd retract. Enjoy]<br /><br />Junk science fads come and go. <a href="http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2005/Obesity2005Report.pdf" target=_blank>This</a> particular piece of trash is linked over at <a href="www.hughhewitt.com" target=_blank>Hugh Hewitt's blog</a>.<br /><br />It is a pretty snazzy presentation purporting to document an "obesity epidemic" based solely on the rediculous statistic known as "Body Mass Index" or BMI. According to Mark Twain there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics. BMI is the latter two.<br /><br />BMI is a ratio of Mass to the square of Height done in [of course] SI "units" kg/meter^2. That's all it is, Mass over Area. What does that tell us about obesity? Nothing at all. Really, it makes no discrimination between fat mass and non-fat mass. Someone please explain to me how a statistic that contains zero information about the subject's quantity of body fat can be used to deduce obesity? [Don't bother, that's rhetorical.]<br /><br />Let me give you an example: when Arnold won Mr. Universe he was 6'0" tall, weighed in at roughly 225 lbs. and had approximately 4% body fat. That gives him a BMI of 30.5 at the time. Was he obese? According to the proponents of BMI, emphatically YES. <br /><br />See the disconnect? Ever seen the <a href="http://kylgrafx.com/mojo/teamphs.html" target=_blank>Odessa/Permian football team</a>? Guess what? Every strapping young man in their entire line count in the alleged "obesity epidemic". I call shenanigans!<br /><br />I forgive Hugh for not being a scientist, but enough with this horse dung already. It doesn't take a professional medical researcher to see what a crock it is as an obesity statistic.<br /><br />The obesity crisis has become the bandwagon for people who expect the government research grant spigot to be open wide over their mouths. Worst of all there are some who use this debate to advocate that the government impose fad pseudo-science "healthy eating" uniformly across our society. Such authoritarianism goes hand in glove with socialised medicine. <br /><br />Such advocates are happy to blur the reality with misleading statistics because if they didn't they couldn't credibly claim any kind of emergency (national or otherwise) exists.Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-54491223495152837812010-05-18T13:45:00.000-07:002010-05-18T15:28:04.458-07:00The Mean Value Theorem on Why You Must Vote Against Tax IncreasesToday the State of Arizona was kind enough to offer me the option of voting against a "temporary" tax increase. The argument is that the State needs greater revenues to balance the budget and that therefore, they claim, higher tax rates are desirable.<br /><br />Of course, their argument is specious. I still remember calculus well enough to understand that any function that is zero at two points but known to be positive in the interval bounded by those points, will have a maximum value in that interval. This is due to the Mean Value Theorem. As a consequence it is not necessarily so that higher tax rates mean higher revenues. <br /><br />It is necessarily so that a tax rate of zero creates tax revenue of zero. Likewise, a tax rate of 100% will collect zero revenue as well. This second point is a bit more subtle, but ultimately inarguable. In the real world you'll never successfully tax any ongoing activity at 100%.<br /><br />Those observations lead to the "Laffer Curve" which the left hates as much as any other part of reality. At the same University where I learned about the Mean Value Theorem I had a Macroeconomics TA deride the Laffer Curve as a fiction. All I could say to him was "didn't do well in Calculus then, eh?"<br /><br />In my lifetime reductions in tax rates have lead to growth in revenues, and we are by no means in an era of low taxes. Americans today are taxed at greater total rates than at any time in 30 years, and we are about to experience the greatest increase in federal taxation in the history of the nation.<br /><br />Any jurisdictions that want to increase revenues need to be reducing taxes at this time. Politicians who claim to want to increase revenues by raising tax rates are either liars or innumerate (usually both).Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-90704043084638137342010-04-29T11:43:00.000-07:002010-04-29T11:52:53.520-07:00My Letter to the PopeThe following is a copy of the message I sent by e-mail to the Pope at his public e-mail address.<br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;color:black;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Your Holiness,<br /><br />I am a citizen of the state of Arizona and a believing christian. I take great exception to the recent pronouncements of a Cardinal of the Catholic Church, posted at his blog <a href="http://cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.com/</a> . His comments are not only ridiculous and hateful, but are in my view are thoroughly and utterly insulting to all Christians and his statements also bring shame on Christians on account of having been publicly posted by a high-official of the Church.<br /><br />I ask that you clarify the Church's position on these pronouncements. To that end I pose these questions:<br /><br />1. Does the church affirm the Cardinal Mahony's apparent contention that a free people have no moral right to democratically enact and subsequently enforce laws intended to defend themselves against acts of violence committed against them by outlaws who are also foreign nationals? Where in the scriptures will I find validation for this contention?<br /><br />2. Is it the position of the Catholic church that the enforcement of democratically-enacted laws by a sovereign people is, as Cardinal Mahony maintains, morally or functionally equivalent to the establishment of a police state in the model of Nazi Germany or of the Soviet Union?<br /><br />3. If these are not the positions of the church, in what way are Cardinal Mahony's public statements on this matter to be understood to have any basis in the scriptures?<br /><br />4. What is your official opinion on the appropriateness of a Cardinal of the Catholic church characterizing a broad spectrum American citizens as Nazis? Would you not agree with me that there is no justification for throwing around the word "Nazi" so lightly? Is it a policy of the Catholic Church to brand those with whom it disagrees on matters of politic with the epithet "Nazi"?<br /><br />5. Does the Church or the Cardinal maintain that murders committed by criminal gangs within the sovereign territory of the State of Arizona are morally justified? Does the Church or the Cardinal maintain that such murders must be tolerated by the lawful citizens of the State rather than prosecuted? If murder is insufficient justification for prosecution what act must a foreign national commit before the Catholic Church would allow the law-abiding citizens of Arizona the right to seek, apprehend, try and punish through the lawful authority of the State? Exactly which scriptural teaching would establish that moral principle?<br /><br />6. Since the Cardinal feels justified in characterizing his fellow citizens of a democratic country with whom he disagrees as being the equivalent of Nazis and Bolsheviks, would I not be justified in asserting that Cardinal Mahony is himself an aspiring autocrat who would prefer for our state to be run by himself personally as our monarch, dictator-prophet and/or god-emperor? Where in the scriptures will I find justification for the imposition of rule by such an autocrat? Does the Catholic Church prefer autocracy to democracy?<br /><br />7. How does a man whose supposed life's work is to spread the word of Jesus justify speaking of his fellow citizens in such derogatory terms as the Cardinal does? What is the scriptural justification for that behavior?<br /><br />8. When a high official of the Catholic Church speaks in such a hateful way, he harms all Christians everywhere. Can we expect the you to denounce your subordinate's postings, or do you plan to affirm them by silence?<br /><br />Thank you for your time.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /></span></span></span><br /><br />Any errors are original. This is exactly as I sent it. Didn't spend a lot of time proofreading it.<br /><br />If I don't receive a reply [don't really expect to] I believe I will write it out by hand and send it to him by conventional mail.Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-33194080121727281092009-10-03T10:50:00.000-07:002009-10-03T16:01:59.872-07:00The Last Act of Rigoletto<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1107474733033858298NpqvAp"><img src="http://inlinethumb02.webshots.com/1473/1107474733033858298S425x425Q85.jpg" alt="alcuni edifici nel Palazzo Ducale" /></a></span><br /><br />[This is a follow-on to my <a href="http://24carrot.blogspot.com/2009/10/perhaps-i-should-post-more-often.html">post from 2 days ago</a>.]<br /><br />In the last 2 days I've spent a lot of time researching to try to find the answer to the riddle. While clear and complete answers would never be had without honest testimony from the central character, that's just not forthcoming. So I've had to treat this story as a mystery and piece together what I could. It is unlikely that I will be able to make this interesting to people who've observed or experienced it for themselves. I would nevertheless like to give the exposition as I've seen it and with what I believe is to be learned. Perhaps in all this there is some nugget of perspective that others will find useful. If not, my apologies to you for feeling obliged to navigate through my conceits. I can't promise that there's a prize in the bottom of the package.<br /><br />For example, I can tell you now that I have clearly <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> discovered <span style="font-style: italic;">the</span> answer to my main question. Possibly only one person knows that for sure, and among the things I have learned is that his testimony is nevermore to be considered honest.<br /><br />To minimise the confusion for those who are unfamiliar: the website at the center of this story is one that rhymes with "Spittle-Screen Footfalls". The proprietor of same is the person to whom I will in this post refer as "Rigoletto". The site itself I will refer to as "Palazzo Ducale". To date I have kept a policy of posting nothing anywhere critical of that site and its proprietor, but of course now I am breaking my silence. Everything I do and say in posting this violates some of the myriad of rules Rigoletto now holds for his followers. So I am now unambiguously to be counted among his enemies, but the way he defines "enemies" I couldn't hope to keep off the lists and have apparently been preemptively banned.<br /><br />One more note: for those of you who would demand a link-fest, sorry no. Among the things I will not do is link to websites which I view as toxic. I will do a little snooping around later to see what I can find archived elsewhere, but I will not be linking to Rigoletto's site ever again<sup>1</sup>. To see what I have seen you can do the web-searches as I have done. They are terribly easy to do. [You might start by finding a web page about "Rigoletto".]<br /><br />On to the story then.<br /><br />I became interested in the blog at <span style="font-style: italic;">Palazzo Ducale</span> just after 9/11. At the time it was a sane, sound and unambiguous chronicle of events. I've been a regular visitor there from that time up until just recently and I have observed the changes although I must admit from a much more stand-off perspective than many who have written about it's evolution over the past eight years.<br /><br />Similarly, at <span style="font-style: italic;">Palazzo Ducale</span> I found accounts from people much closer to 9/11 than myself. My experience was one of having been at what would become "Ground Zero" only a few days before it would become so. My sense since then is one of having had a near miss. Clearly not so near as those who were in Manhattan on that day and survived or who were booked on certain flights but changed at the last minute that day, but having stood in the south window overlooking the refineries of New Jersey from Windows on the World just a few nights prior, and having stayed in a hotel room that would be apparently gouged out of the structure by falling debris is near enough for my purposes.<br /><br />I never held any illusions about Rigoletto's politics. While the meme would grow in time that his blog was politically conservative, this was never the case. He was not and his opinions were not. He appeared to be like Ron Silver, a liberal to the core and a patriot. [This I argue is the true "political divide" today: Not liberal vs. conservative but euro-leftist vs. patriot. What the euro-left fails or refuses to recognise is that American Patriotism is love not of soil nor of <span style="font-style: italic;">volk</span>, but of a set of ideas laid down eloquently on paper by our predecessors<sup>2</sup>.]<br /><br />For the better part of 5 years <span style="font-style: italic;">Palazzo Ducale</span> would consist mainly of stories gleaned from the news services about jihadists or about unhinged euro-leftists excusing them, often with brief commentary from Rigoletto himself and then with a thread of comments from people who were registered members<sup>3</sup>. Rigoletto would also post unhinged criticisms of his blog and respond as he saw appropriate. This I suspect is telling: to observe Rigoletto today is to understand that he has become obsessed with criticism, not of his ideas, but of himself. What many of us perhaps did not recognise at the time, was that his posts about his nutty critics were in his mind more about the messenger than the message. At the time however, his responses were easily understood to be [but possibly mistaken as] a clear-headed repudiation of nutty ideas.<br /><br />Clear, thoughtful and mostly-civil, discussion of issues of the day attracted a large following. Eventually the community at <span style="font-style: italic;">Palazzo Ducale</span> would take on a life of it's own and become the Duke while Rigoletto was relegated to the role of... well... Rigoletto (read a synopsis of the Opera by Verdi if you're lost). This I suggest was the beginning of the end. What was missed then, but what was nevertheless in evidence (I argue) and what is certainly true today is that Rigoletto was sufficiently self-focused that the moment he and the Duke were clearly in disagreement, he would seek the Duke's elimination.<br /><br />Here's where the metaphor breaks down a little. Verdi's Rigoletto chose physical violence. To my knowledge physical violence has never sincerely been contemplated by any of the parties in this "blogwar". Bet then the opera is a metaphor too, so please don't get too literal with the analogy.<br /><br />Our 21st-century Rigoletto has instead banished the Duke from the <span style="font-style: italic;">Palazzo</span> and then chosen to follow the Duke <a href="http://ace.mu.nu/archives/293080.php#293080">anywhere</a> he might retreat and harass him using every method available. That is to say, if you do your research as I have suggested, you will find that it is not enough for Rigoletto to have banned the accounts of a <a href="http://kirls.blogspot.com/2009/05/banned-monium.html">monumental proportion</a> of his previously-loyal readers. Oh no, he visits them at their personal blogs, and various public blogs and in chat rooms wherever they may congregate, takes names and constructs new lists of enemies to ban. His inner-circle also acts as both spies and <span>sock-puppets</span> on many sites around the web where the proprietors have had the nerve to either disagree with him, criticise him, or merely comment on him in any way. Rigoletto has now established in his own words that to post on any blog he does not currently maintain in his blog roll is treason and punishable by banning (and presumably stalking).<br /><br />The rhetoric on his blog against his perceived enemies has also become shrill to the point of self-satire. To believe him, practically everyone on the web who isn't currently a fan of his is either a white-supremecist<sup>4</sup> or a facist.<br /><br />As for me, I remained oblivious to most of this for quite some time. I did not take his thin-skinned vendettas for what they were. I like many perceived that he had "<a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/change4/">changed</a>" while I now argue he has always been as he is. When he changed the emphasis of <span style="font-style: italic;">Palazzo Ducale</span> from jihad to creationism I took it as a temporary obsession from which he would eventually return.<br /><br />As my views on the subject of creationism differ significantly from the two main courses expressed in discussions on that website I had not taken a side in those arguments and thus had not shown myself to be one of those who Rigoletto viewed as enemies. I opted to wait it out and focus my attention on very pleasing community link-aggregation system [Pleasing that is until all the interesting people were banned and in some cases their every posting purged]. I mistakenly surmised that eventually calm would return and an opportunity to patch up differences would come to pass. Instead in this time he gradually purged his rolls of anyone who he even remotely suspected of "disloyalty". Today he even bans people [apparently not just me] who had never once prior to being banned said a thing even remotely critical of him anywhere, anytime but aren't part of the crowd that showers him with complements for his opinions.<br /><br />What I believe today is that I failed to understand Rigoletto's consistent behaviour over the last eight years. While I don't question the sincerity of his original postings on the topic of 9/11, what I believe is that his passion was ultimately for the adulation he received and not for the ideals they seemed to illustrate. If we understand him as a person hungry for compliments then we must understand that his apparent passion for counter-jihad would inevitably wane and he would necessarily seek another issue for which to receive adulation. His choice of issues from that point is irrelevant, but what is relevant is the illiberal way in which he proceeded to destroy what he had built.<br /><br />The last 2-3 years of his behaviour represent not a "change" but merely turning the wierd knob up nearly to eleven:"No wierder. No wierder. Wierder... that's good!"<br /><br />...and with that observation it is my hope to have done with this hunch-backed clown. His act now clearly belongs on the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tQyG7wS5-M&feature=related">Gong Show</a>.<br />__________________________________________<br />1: There are multiple reasons not to do so. Among others he is currently engaged in purging posts by those he has deemed enemies, and that is now a very expansive definition. Hence his archives are no longer a reliable account.<br /><br />2: I very carefully use the word "predecessors" rather than "ancestors". Ancestry is the source of <span style="font-style: italic;">volk</span> patriotism. American patriotism is not of flesh and blood but of the mind and soul, and the identity "American" is not obtained exclusively by birth nor maintained solely by reason of ancestry.<br /><br />3: True old-timers recall a day before registration was required. I refrained from comment in those days. Later I would decide I was ready to do so but it took more than a year to find a time when registration was open. Membership was a privilege clearly understood to be maintained by civil behaviour. Eventually "civil" would be replaced by "sychophantic".<br /><br />4: Per Rigoletto apparently even asian women can be white-supremecists and jewish women can be neo-Nazis. It's an equal opportunity world.Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-48440661842406211782009-10-02T09:21:00.000-07:002009-10-02T09:39:23.511-07:00Injustice or Delicious Irony?There is today only one Television program I go out of my way to watch. It is the only one I record and it's the only one whose preemption for breaking news irritates me. Unfortunately for me it is the program most likely to be preempted for whatever might be deemed a "news event".<br /><br />The show is Fox News Network's <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/redeye/">Red Eye</a>.<br /><br />So of course when, for the first time ever, a US city's pitch to the IOC is covered as a live, breaking news event it happens exactly when Red Eye would otherwise air.<br /><br />So the pitch <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/10/02/obama-heads-denmark-lobby-olympics/">failed</a>. I don't think it counts as "schadenfreude" to be happy that a bunch of corrupt Chicago politicians failed in their latest scheme to rip off American tax payers.<br /><br />It might be schadenfreude to be happy to see the Great Leader humiliated (over something irrelevant to his job) but to that I say, "Sorry Charlie, that's what you get for preempting Red Eye for the umpteenth time."<br /><br />Really, I need the laughs, and the Great Leader's endless impersonations of a bad New-Age preacher don't provide any for me.Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-32714122404680498882009-10-01T12:29:00.000-07:002009-10-01T13:02:34.657-07:00Perhaps I Should Post More Often...I suppose I could make a number of all-too-obvious statements in the name of continuity. I won't.<br /><br />I haven't been posting here or really anywhere in the mean time. My internet activity in this time has almost exclusively consisted of reading the links on my favourite web aggregator and posting the occasional comment there.<br /><br />Well... that has lead to this. There was really nothing nagging me to blog until this latest incident. I went to read the aforementioned aggregator a couple weeks ago and after entering my username and password recieved the message, "That account is blocked."<br /><br />Blocked? Really? Why? It's curious. I seldom post and the biggest disagreement I've had with anyone over there in the last year has been over whether the characterisation* of Canada as "America's Best Friend" is accurate. I maintain it is not.<br /><br />It cannot be truthfully said that I have violated any real or implied terms of service, but then again, it's a private website and the proprietor has the right to ban anyone, anytime and for any reason or no reason.<br /><br />Eventually I sent and e-mail through the website's e-mail entry box, politely requesting the reason why. I've received no reply. I'll probably send them one more request and wait a bit more before drawing any conclusions. I really don't care to speculate as to their grievance against me (if any), but I must say that if they feel they have a grievance it's either imaginary or it's such as to reflect horribly on them.<br /><br />At this point you're asking, "What website are you talking about?" Well... I'm not going to get in to that just yet. It is out there that this website bans (among others) those who post negative things about it on other websites. I've never done such a thing up to this time and I've not the slightest desire in me to do so. I'd like them to come explain the blocking of my account, and then we can be friends or at least friendly. If at this point in the story I were to start doing that for which they ban people I would only justify what they've recently done. So I will remain chaste of that particular "sin". [Make no mistake, it's a safe bet that they consider me not worth the time nor effort to even reply.]<br /><br />If they don't care to reply, or if their reply is sufficiently fantastic I suppose I will eventually reveal their identity [most of the people who might read this already know exactly who it is] but for now, I won't and I ask anyone who would be counted a friend to not speculate in any comments they might want to leave.<br /><br />________________________________________<br /><br />* A characterisation made not by the proprietor but by another user.Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-67637641393946751472008-08-07T16:45:00.001-07:002008-08-07T16:45:45.295-07:00What I heard Obama say."Uh"Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-61570194344828860172008-01-29T07:59:00.000-08:002008-01-29T08:27:34.371-08:00Rabbit's Guide to the Republican CandidatesI've been pulling for Rudy Guiliani since very early on. By the time of the primary in my state he will either be surging or out of it.<br /><br />In order to explain my support (someone asked), I wrote this handy guide.<br /><br />My dream ticket for 2008 is Patton/LeMay. Unfortunately I can safely predict that neither of them will be in the running. So then I have to ask myself, who do I believe will govern most like Patton?<br /><br />Hunter - A big yes. Alas he's taken himself out of the running.<br /><br />McCain - more of a DeGaul. Places himself first in all things. He has elements of Patton, but too much Gaulism is bad for you. Ideologically more suited to be Hillary's running mate. The closest thing to Patton among democrats, but I'm not a democrat. NOT ACCEPTABLE<br /><br />Romney - more of an Eisenhower than a Patton. I really don't want another 'nice guy' president at this point in history. I also fear that he is another who (like our current president) will squander his time in office trying to negotiate peace with madmen who believe their faith requires they nuke Israel and the US out of existence. There is no bargain to be had there, but I get the impression he's one of those who believe there's always a bargain to be made. Every moment of delay from this point puts millions of lives on the line. Acceptable but with uncomfortably many caveats.<br /><br />Huckabee - more of a Nathaniel P. Banks (ie Democrat and an unintentional self-satire.) NOT ACCEPTABLE<br /><br />Ron Paul - more of a George B. McClellan (ie delusional). Believes the Constitution binds us to "international law". Also believes that the rest of the world is filled with happy ponies prancing through medows of cotton candy and that all strife is caused by the US. Apparently not uncomfortable about having vicious anti-semite allies. NOT ACCEPTABLE<br /><br />Thompson - more of a James Longstreet. Terrible on the 1st amendment. Good on most other issues but too genteel (please no more 'nice guy' presidents) and too many dubious political allies (McCain most of all). Acceptable but with caveats, but out of the race at this time.<br /><br />Rudy - after Hunter then next closest to Patton. Took on the mob head-on. Cut taxes in NYC. Enforced laws in NYC. Has a few positions I dislike, most of all on gun control. Understands (as I do) abortion to be an issue properly belonging to the states and not to federal courts. Lacks for nothing in the area of willingness to identify the enemy and kick its backside. Acceptable but with caveats.<br /><br />As much as anything in politics as we stand today I want McCain to lose in Arizona. I have been trying to have the guy repudiated by Arizona Republicans for more than a decade. We had a recall effort going and we stopped it due to 9/11. Our thinking was that whatever our gripes the country had something more important to do now. Unfortunately we still do, and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9KlQPX1qiE">Captain Queeg</a> is most assuredly not the guy to do it.<br /><br />If Rudy doesn't win in Florida, then I would agree with the assessment that he's out. At that point I would vote for Romney as an ABM (anyone but McCain) vote. It should also be noted that in that situation an Eisenhower is better than a DeGaul any day. Ike's also superior to Nathaniel P. Banks. (Who isn't?)Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-29368421720839021382007-12-24T18:53:00.000-08:002007-12-24T19:17:39.559-08:00Totally Nuts About...<img src="http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg194/Crusader_Rabbit/main/RonPaulPoster.jpg" height="289" width="400">Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-35431125737337298452007-06-15T08:58:00.000-07:002007-06-15T09:29:53.709-07:00The Two-State Solution Goes to AfghanistanI'm not aware of any suggestions for a "Two-State" solution in Afghanistan, but since it works so well everywhere else I'm thinking let's give it a go here.<br /><br />For those of you who are not familiar with the situation, the Afghan government has nominal control over most of the country. The trouble is in the Southeast of the country where the Pastun people dominate. Pashtuns cover the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have their own language and customs and they are the most extreme islamist ethnic group in the region. These are the same people who have given refuge to Osama Bin-Laden.<br /><br />My suggestion is that President Karzai recognise Pashtun claims to their own country, and then immediately declare war on them, conquer them, annex the territory and invite them to either swear fealty to the Government in Kabul or go elsewhere.<br /><br />Abusrd? Well, yes really it is, but that is the nature of "Two-State" solutions. It is also absurd because Karzai's government lacks the military power to do it. What is more believable to me is that if ever the government in Kabul has the power it will quietly engage in a pogrom against Pashtuns and the bulk of them will flee to Pakistan. This is the normal behaviour of muslim governments.<br /><br />I really doubt that the government in Kabul will ever be able to control its southeastern border, but if they do then the Pashtuns (and OBL) will become entirely Pakistans problem. (and we know we can trust them to do the right thing, don't we?)Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6767274258353345251.post-86491391937110865432007-06-13T13:44:00.000-07:002007-06-13T14:14:55.719-07:00The "Two to the N" State SolutionHere's a newsflash, Gaza is a mess. The idea that this can become a state in the conventional sense anytime soon is obvious balderdash.<br /><br />Warfare between the Hamas and Fatah factions is continuous, dirty and nasty and not anywhere near ending. One can give a lot of reasons for this conflict, but until I see something to indicate otherwise I believe that the conflict is purely greed for political power, and through that the international largesse that Gaza receives, theorhetically to promote statehood. Ironic? Well, not really. In the muslim world there is no irony in the idea that subsidies lead to more rather than less rancor and violence.<br /><br />In the last couple of days I've heard the suggestion that the microscopic territory ofGaza be divided in to two "states" in hope of resolving the conflict. This, I would argue is not going to solve anything, but rather than argue about that, I'll go with the underlying priciple and take it to its logical conclusion.<br /><br />So my proposal for Gaza is:<br />1. Divide it in to a Hamas and a Fatah state. Divide the largesse between the two. (Hell, increase the total if you want. It can't make things worse really.)<br />2. When the resulting states fall in to interecine warfare, divide those among the two factions.<br />3. Repeat until the violence stops.<br /><br />You might think, "but that's absurd."<br /><br />Of course it is, but I believe it is the only way we are going to demonstrate to the beloved "international community" that there is no peace to be had among arabs in Gaza.<br /><br />There is one other way: Stop the largesse. No more money for nothing. Let them actually build a nation for themselves. You think it will never happen? Fine, propose something that doesn't perpetuate the problem. 50 years of insisting on a state for this people has led us to where we are.Crusader Rabbithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16848373575908674422noreply@blogger.com0