The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. – Ayn Rand
Quote of the Day.
I own a couple of guns, but I’m not going to tell you what they are, or where they are.
– Fred Thompson, CNN YouTube Debate, 11/28/07
That’s the right answer.
And Congressman Hunter? It’s not about hunting, and it’s not about “family tradition.”
NOBODY else owned a gun? Not even RON PAUL?!?!? I thought it was a prerequisite for being a libertarian?
(h/t: SayUncle)
…that you can define the opposing side with a single all-encompassing term.
Even jokingly.
ROFLMAO!!!.
Thank you, LawDog! That was the best belly-laugh I’ve had in weeks!
Some Brits still have stainless-steel testicles!
And whatever sins George Lucas may have committed in his life, that one piece of music he commissioned will live on forever!
The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate.
(Yes, there is one.)
Al Fin has three videos up you really ought to watch if you’re interested in the question, and not convinced that the “Anthropomorphic Global Warming” skeptics are all paid off by by Big Oil.
The videos run not quite three hours in total. The first is a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary entitled Doomsday Called Off. The second is the UK’s Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and the third is a CNN production by Glenn Beck, Exposed: The Climate of Fear.
Well worth your time.
Oh, and no commercials!
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences. – C.S. Lewis
—
Personally, I’m interested in keeping other people from building Utopia, because the more you believe you can create heaven on earth the more likely you are to set up guillotines in the public square to hasten the process. – James Lileks
No essay tonight, this being Halloween, and my job being to hand out candy to the kids, but in the spirit of this day I want to forward on an essay written in 1943 by Isabel Paterson, The Humanitarian with the Guillotine, which I stumbled across today. It’s fairly long, but worth your time, I think. Here’s a taste:
Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends.
This is demonstrably true; nor could it occur otherwise. The percentage of positively malignant, vicious, or depraved persons is necessarily small, for no species could survive if its members were habitually and consciously bent upon injuring one another. Destruction is so easy that even a minority of persistently evil intent could shortly exterminate the unsuspecting majority of well-disposed persons. Murder, theft, rapine, and destruction are easily within the power of every individual at any time. If it is presumed that they are restrained only by fear or force, what is it they fear, or who would turn the force against them if all men were of like mind?
And one more:
When a humanitarian wishes to see to it that everyone has a quart of milk, it is evident that he hasn’t got the milk, and cannot produce it himself, or why should he be merely wishing? Further, if he did have a sufficient quantity of milk to bestow a quart on everyone, as long as his proposed beneficiaries can and do produce milk for themselves, they would say no, thank you. Then how is the humanitarian to contrive that he shall have all the milk to distribute, and that everyone else shall be in want of milk?
There is only one way, and that is by the use of the political power in its fullest extension. Hence the humanitarian feels the utmost gratification when he visits or hears of a country in which everyone is restricted to ration cards. Where subsistence is doled out, the desideratum has been achieved, of general want and a superior power to “relieve” it. The humanitarian in theory is the terrorist in action.
The woman was harsh – and tends a bit towards hyperbole – but the points she makes are good ones.
“Supporting” the Troops.
In a comment here in response to a post on why I am not a conservative, Markadelphia took exception to another comment on language manipulation. To wit:
“Something I’ve noticed about Leftists is that they seem to think they can somehow change a concept or even reality itself by simply changing the word used to describe that concept.”
I have noticed this about about “conservatives” as well. In fact, I think the right side of the aisle is much more adept and effective at manipulating language. If you are against the war in Iraq, then you must not support the troops.
I ran across this OpinionJournal piece today, courtesy of Instapundit, that pretty much says it all on that topic.
When I tell people that Evan has joined the Army, their reactions are almost always the same: their faces freeze, they pause way too long, and then they say, “I’m so sorry, I’m so sorry for you.” I hang my head and look mournful, accepting their sympathy for the worry that lives in me. But as it dawns on them that Evan wasn’t drafted, as Vietnam still clings to my generation, their expressions become quizzical, then disbelieving. I know what they’re thinking: Why in the world would any kid in his right mind choose to enlist when we’re in the middle of a war? I begin telling them the story, desperate to assure them it wasn’t arrogant patriotism or murderous blood lust that convinced him to join.
Arrogant patriotism or murderous blood lust – obviously the only two reasons anyone would join the military. Or, as James Taranto notes, lack of a good education.
Bet if you ask her, though, she “supports the troops.”
I don’t believe that most people who are against the war in Iraq are like this woman, but I believe it of every single marcher at the anti-war rallies who carries a Code Pink sign.
Hillary 08.
Hillary may be getting her campaign funds from foreign sources? You don’t say! I mean, it’s not like there’s some controlling legal authority or any history of this kind of thing. Especially no “Chinese connection.”
The thing that really gets me is that they’re so bad at it that they keep getting caught, but nobody ever does more than wag a finger at them. I wouldn’t be surprised if other leading candidates got money from the same sources, but at least they’re successful at hiding it, and don’t treat the press and the public as if we’re all ignorant buffoons who are easily either bamboozled or ignored.
Oh, wait….
Quote of the Day.
It’s a twofer! From American Thinker, an essay entitled President Thompson by J. Peter Mulhern:
We have gotten so used to speaking of the President of the United States “running the country” that most of us no longer notice how unrealistic and unAmerican that expression is. The whole point of the American Revolution was to establish a country without anyone to run it.
Actually, there’s a whole bunch of quotable quotes in this piece, and while I do not agree with every point Mr. Mulhern makes in it, I am in overall agreement with his analysis of Fred Dalton Thompson’s chances.
His piece is quite long (Yeah, I know: “Pot? Meet Kettle!”), but I think Tam’s take on Fred’s run is just as accurate, and far more brief:
Personally, I think in a one on one national race, Hillary might edge Giuliani or Romney, but Fred Thompson would beat her like a drum. She would look like a shrieking harpy on stage next to Mr. Folksy, and your average American just isn’t ready to vote for the Shrew over the baritone Paterfamilias. They’d better run somebody with more charisma than Rudy or Mitt, though, because to your average Survivor-watching ‘Murrican who reads no news other than the sports page, those are just another couple of white guys in suits, but they know and trust D.A. Arthur Branch and Admiral Painter because the TeeVee and Tom Clancy told them to.
I received an odd email today:
Tonight on PBS’ Tavis Smiley, Tavis convenes a panel to discuss “My Grandfather’s Son,” the new book by Justice Clarence Thomas and the “60 Minutes” profile that coincided with the release of the book.Guests are Marc Morial, President and CEO of The National Urban League, Princeton professor Cornel West, and Columbia University President, Farah Jasmine Griffin.
Here are some excerpts of what the panelists had to say about Justice Thomas and his interview on “60 Minutes:”
Marc Morial, President & CEO, National Urban League – “He (Thomas) seems to have forgotten that he doesn’t stand by himself, he stands amongst many who’ve experienced discrimination, who’ve experienced the pain of racial injustice, yet not at a single point in his career has he used the power of his office…to help those who he professed to be concerned about.” (In other words, Justice Thomas hasn’t used his position to discriminate in the name of “affirmative action.” – Ed.)
Cornel West, Princeton Professor – “They presented this story as if those us who are critics (of Clarence Thomas) have no good reasons to be critical of him siding with the strong against the weak, and the powerful against the relatively powerless. – I thought ‘60 Minutes’ was all about journalism, (Apparently you missed RatherGate – Ed.) what has happened to journalism these days where all you get is puff pieces that constitute an advertisement for a book. Especially with someone like Clarence Thomas who’s been a lightning-rod of this debate among all Americans concerned about truth and justice on the court and in our society.”
Farah Jasmine Griffin, Columbia Professor – “Justice Thomas used (60 Minutes) as yet another opportunity to vilify Anita Hill.” (Yes, dear. And I’m sure you’re still convinced the Duke Lacrosse players really raped that innocent young woman, too! – Ed.)
For more information on showtimes and podcast go to
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/.Brian Steffen
Online Publicist
KCET & Tavis Smiley
[email protected]
It was addressed directly to me, not one of those blanket emails (though I’m sure I wasn’t the only person who received this). So, for guests, this Tavis Smiley has Left, Lefter and Leftest? (I’ll let you be the judge of just whom is which.)
So, they’re going to “discuss” the book, eh? Will any of them have read it before they opine? Or will it just be a modern-day book burning?
And who the hell is Tavis Smiley, and why should I care?
I Literally LOL!.
Firehand posts a funny!