Month: July 2003

KevinLeave a comment

Quote of the WEEK!

If you read Bill Whittle, you MUST read the comments to his pieces. There are some truly EXCELLENT thinkers and writers out there.

This gem comes from “Rick”:

The Republicans have problems too. The party platform is still very much a social conservative agenda. A substantial percentage of the party members are Republicans by default. For people like me, the Republicans represent an uneasy compromise. They are a lesser evil than the Democrats. It’s the choice between a wedgie and castration.

Ain’t THAT the truth!

KevinLeave a comment

Lileks Nails It Again

In today’s Bleat he comments on Blair’s speech of yesterday. Perfectly:

Blair’s speeches sound like the work of a keen and fierce intellect that has come to a certain conclusion by logical deduction. His heart has been informed by his head. In the case of Bush I think it’s the other way around. I suppose that’s the difference between being the leader of a nation that was attacked, and the leader of a nation whose ally was assaulted. What I found most invigorating about the speech was the tenor – the tune, not the notes. It was a speech sung in the key of War, and reminded us that we are just midway through the end of the beginning. If that.

Blair is, at heart, a socialist; I’ve no time for half the stuff he wants and most of the stuff he’d agree to. But he’d get my vote. We can argue about the shape and direction of Western Civ after we’ve made sure that such a thing will endure. I haven’t heard every single speech Tony Blair has made since he popped on to the political scene; I don’t know if he argues for increased license fees for domestic gerbils with the same passion and force. But today he sounded like a man who knew things, who knows that the threat is still grave, and cannot understand why others seek transient political advantage in exploiting those sixteen words.

Go read the whole thing.

KevinLeave a comment

“Pay Up, Shut Up, Know Your Place, Go on the Dole.”

Wince and Nod points to this Vin Suprynowicz piece about how government once again slams its foot down on people just trying to get ahead. Environmentalism, again.

I keep wondering when somebody is going to reach their breaking point and decide it’s time to feed the hogs.

KevinLeave a comment

Religious Tolerance

Commonsense and Wonder posts this joke by Emo Phillips:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. so I ran over and said “Stop! don’t do it!”

“Why shouldn’t I?” he said.

I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”

He said, “Like what?”

I said, “Well…are you religious or atheist?”

He said, “Religious.”

I said, “Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?”

He said, “Christian.”

I said, “Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?”

He said, “Protestant.”

I said, “Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”

He said, “Baptist!”

I said, “Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”

He said, “Baptist Church of God!”

I said, “Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”

He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!”

I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?”

He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!”

I said, “Die, heretic scum”, and pushed him off.

KevinLeave a comment

If You’re a Parent, You’ll Want to Read This

Michele talks about being a parent and worrying about her kids having sex. Excellent post. I married into instant family, and my stepdaughter was 14 when I met my wife.

Stress?

Let me put it this way, when I told a coworker that I was getting married he asked me “How old is her daughter?”

“Fifteen,” I said.

“Awww. Can I buy tickets?” he replied. His daughter had just turned 18.

KevinLeave a comment

[Tinfoil Hat Mode=ON]

Glenn Reynolds discusses this Washington Post article about Orrin Hatch’s proposal to repeal the D.C. gun ban. Glenn terms this as evidence (as I noted below in “A Mistake a Free People Get to Make Only Once”) that we’re in a “rollback phase” of gun control, and cites as evidence the Violence Policy Center’s mouthpiece Matt Nosanchuk’s rather tepid proclaimation that there is no evidence that greater access to guns reduces crime (while D.C.’s gun ban most emphatically suggests the reverse.)

But my question is: Why now?

There is currently a civil lawsuit pending in Federal Court challenging the D.C. gun ban on Second Amendment grounds – and it looks like a good one. Interestingly, the NRA seems to be attempting to throw a monkey-wrench into the suit in their (choose one:) A) fear of getting a bad decision, or B) fear of losing support income should the Second Amendment be legally defined as an individual right. The NRA is also suing, but using reasons other than the Second Amendment (as they are wont to do). Complete coverage of this is available over at AlphaPatriot’s site.

So, is Orrin Hatch trying to repeal the ban to negate these two lawsuits? Is he doing it at the behest of the NRA? Why now?

[Tinfoil Hat Mode=OFF]

Update:

I’m not alone. Julian Sanchez of Reason Online thinks the timing stinks, too.