Tuesday, May 31, 2005
OpinionJournal - The Western Front
OpinionJournal - The Western Front
McCain is powerful in the Senate because he moves against Republican ideals, which will kill him for the White House. So sayeth the Journal's writer. Is it true?
McCain is powerful in the Senate because he moves against Republican ideals, which will kill him for the White House. So sayeth the Journal's writer. Is it true?
Thursday, May 26, 2005
TCS: Tech Central Station - Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
TCS: Tech Central Station - Resolving the Clash of Civilizations
New Lebanon. Crescent and Cross together?
New Lebanon. Crescent and Cross together?
New York Post Online Edition:
New York Post Online Edition:
Fascinating! Higher taxes and LOWER retirement age to save Social Security? It just might be the answer . . . if you trust the politicians and actuaries.
Fascinating! Higher taxes and LOWER retirement age to save Social Security? It just might be the answer . . . if you trust the politicians and actuaries.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
American Deaths in Iraq v. D.C.
I received this in e-mail recently. Any dispute with this analysis? Bear in mind that the numbers are a bit off: we are moving troops in and out faster than this factoid would suggest. More below.
If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraqi theater during the last 22 months, that gives a firearm death ratio of 60 per 100,000.
The firearm death ratio in DC is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
Remember that our troops only serve up to a year in Iraq. So when we have 150,000 or 135,000 on the ground, that means that we actually have run through 270,000 different persons in 22 months. That would suggest that the actual factoid for Iraq might be closer to 35 per 100,000.
The only problem that this leaves is that more deaths are caused by explosives and IED's than by gunfire at this point. D.C. doesn't have anything comparable to IED's on a regular basis.
Monday, May 23, 2005
National paralysis - Editorials/Op-Ed - insider.washingtontimes.com
National paralysis - Editorials/Op-Ed - insider.washingtontimes.com: "http://empcreport.ida.org"
Read more details here.
Read more details here.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Bench Memos on National Review Online
Bench Memos on National Review Online
If memory serves, Abraham Lincoln said that the best way to get rid of bad laws is to enforce them strictly.
Even if Lincoln did not say it, I would suggest it is very good practice. As the Democrat administration proved the corollary on gun laws, by failing to enforce law, a more motive base can be convinced that new, stricter laws are necessary. Compare the Bush gun enforcement practice and the lack of discussion for new gun laws.
Another corollary to Lincoln's theory is that the best way to get prevent a long stream of "out of the mainstream" judges is to let them get appointed and confirmed quickly. As recent discussions of Clinton's appointments suggest (e.g., Bader Ginsberg, J.), letting their ridiculous show makes the Republican case for better originalist judges to be appointed. If a Clinton femme administration were to come to power, letting her have judges with a 50 vote Senate (and the requisite vote of the VP), she could make her best case for Republican domination.
Don't misunderstand, I am an one of those "kick me" Republicans that thinks the best way to win is to lose. I just don't think that violating the principle of majority-rule using the filibuster has served the Republicans well in getting the control that their policy popularity with the grass roots of America would suggest is likely and probable.
Speaker Gingrich once said that motivating the base by fighting the majority is the best way to win. He proved it. The Democrats are trying to be a second Gingrich. Let them. If their policies (by the way, name some concrete action that they are proposing; nevertheless, let's assume that they have one for discussion's sake) were that popular, then they will win control of the Congress.
The only exception is the tennis rule: if you hit the ball back enough, your opponent's error will give the point eventually. If the Democrats keep saying "no" long enough for l'affaire de Delay (or is that L'affaire de Lay) or some Bush scandal to develop, the Democrats may get Congress by the Republican's foot fault -- to continue the tennis analogy.
So given the options, the best solutions for the Republicans would seem to be to look at the removal of the filibuster as the best way to demonstrate their superior policies. Then even if the tennis rule does take over, they can still point to policy successes and the mere need to get new, more ethical leadership.
Republicans should play to win and risk the Democrats being able to hit the ball back. The truly good player will be able to beat the backboard player most days of the week. Let's be truly good players.
If memory serves, Abraham Lincoln said that the best way to get rid of bad laws is to enforce them strictly.
Even if Lincoln did not say it, I would suggest it is very good practice. As the Democrat administration proved the corollary on gun laws, by failing to enforce law, a more motive base can be convinced that new, stricter laws are necessary. Compare the Bush gun enforcement practice and the lack of discussion for new gun laws.
Another corollary to Lincoln's theory is that the best way to get prevent a long stream of "out of the mainstream" judges is to let them get appointed and confirmed quickly. As recent discussions of Clinton's appointments suggest (e.g., Bader Ginsberg, J.), letting their ridiculous show makes the Republican case for better originalist judges to be appointed. If a Clinton femme administration were to come to power, letting her have judges with a 50 vote Senate (and the requisite vote of the VP), she could make her best case for Republican domination.
Don't misunderstand, I am an one of those "kick me" Republicans that thinks the best way to win is to lose. I just don't think that violating the principle of majority-rule using the filibuster has served the Republicans well in getting the control that their policy popularity with the grass roots of America would suggest is likely and probable.
Speaker Gingrich once said that motivating the base by fighting the majority is the best way to win. He proved it. The Democrats are trying to be a second Gingrich. Let them. If their policies (by the way, name some concrete action that they are proposing; nevertheless, let's assume that they have one for discussion's sake) were that popular, then they will win control of the Congress.
The only exception is the tennis rule: if you hit the ball back enough, your opponent's error will give the point eventually. If the Democrats keep saying "no" long enough for l'affaire de Delay (or is that L'affaire de Lay) or some Bush scandal to develop, the Democrats may get Congress by the Republican's foot fault -- to continue the tennis analogy.
So given the options, the best solutions for the Republicans would seem to be to look at the removal of the filibuster as the best way to demonstrate their superior policies. Then even if the tennis rule does take over, they can still point to policy successes and the mere need to get new, more ethical leadership.
Republicans should play to win and risk the Democrats being able to hit the ball back. The truly good player will be able to beat the backboard player most days of the week. Let's be truly good players.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
The Claremont Institute: The Future of Patriotism
The Claremont Institute: The Future of Patriotism
A very good comparison of American history textbooks and teaching methodologies. Which do you kids have in their classroom? If the answer is "neither," that is better than having Zinn's.
A very good comparison of American history textbooks and teaching methodologies. Which do you kids have in their classroom? If the answer is "neither," that is better than having Zinn's.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Indiana Democratic Party Sues to Allow Vote Fraud
Indiana Democratic Party Sues to Allow Vote Fraud
One of the greatest excuses the Democrats have used that this law should not be on the books is that the Republicans have offered a solution without an established problem. The Democrats say that there is no series of prosecution or complaints that would justify this "extreme" law.
Just a quick point: there is no way to accuse someone in a manner that would establish probable cause for vote fraud to the grandmas and retirees at the registration tables without the ID requirement. The Democrats are begging the question: how many people are voting under names under their own? Well, how are we supposed to be sure that they are whom they claim that they are? By studying signatures for forgery? Having Sibboleths that they are supposed to speak?
("Sibboleths" refers to biblical passage where there was a running war between two cities across the Jordan River from one another that spoke the same language. Judges 17, I believe. One group asked suspected spies to say "Sibboleth." The suspected spy was confirmed to be spying by his accent. It would be like asking Joe Pesci's "My Cousin Vinny" to say "2 youths" without saying "2 yutes.")
Democrats fear that ID's will actually prevent voter fraud schemes that allegedly run rampant in certain Democratic strongholds. This will suppress Democrat votes as they accuse; fine, so long as it is the voting dead or mythic persons named "Fido." If it is verifiable that persons (who have a legal obligation to carry IDs) are not whom they claim to be, the Republicans' polling judges can prevent fraudulent votes for Democrats and have the perpetrators prosecuted for election fraud -- potentially reaching into the Democrat party. This would be bad for Democrats.
If Democrats are as pure as the fresh, driven snow, they will have few voters that do not already possess a qualifying ID, and the Republicans can be shown to be fantasizing about Democrat vote fraud being abundant. The Democrat Party reputation is enhanced.
The only problem with this law for Democrats is that the possibility of voter fraud might actually prove as bad as Republicans fear.
One of the greatest excuses the Democrats have used that this law should not be on the books is that the Republicans have offered a solution without an established problem. The Democrats say that there is no series of prosecution or complaints that would justify this "extreme" law.
Just a quick point: there is no way to accuse someone in a manner that would establish probable cause for vote fraud to the grandmas and retirees at the registration tables without the ID requirement. The Democrats are begging the question: how many people are voting under names under their own? Well, how are we supposed to be sure that they are whom they claim that they are? By studying signatures for forgery? Having Sibboleths that they are supposed to speak?
("Sibboleths" refers to biblical passage where there was a running war between two cities across the Jordan River from one another that spoke the same language. Judges 17, I believe. One group asked suspected spies to say "Sibboleth." The suspected spy was confirmed to be spying by his accent. It would be like asking Joe Pesci's "My Cousin Vinny" to say "2 youths" without saying "2 yutes.")
Democrats fear that ID's will actually prevent voter fraud schemes that allegedly run rampant in certain Democratic strongholds. This will suppress Democrat votes as they accuse; fine, so long as it is the voting dead or mythic persons named "Fido." If it is verifiable that persons (who have a legal obligation to carry IDs) are not whom they claim to be, the Republicans' polling judges can prevent fraudulent votes for Democrats and have the perpetrators prosecuted for election fraud -- potentially reaching into the Democrat party. This would be bad for Democrats.
If Democrats are as pure as the fresh, driven snow, they will have few voters that do not already possess a qualifying ID, and the Republicans can be shown to be fantasizing about Democrat vote fraud being abundant. The Democrat Party reputation is enhanced.
The only problem with this law for Democrats is that the possibility of voter fraud might actually prove as bad as Republicans fear.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
David S. Oderberg on John Paul II on National Review Online
David S. Oderberg on John Paul II on National Review Online
Bush is a more traditional ethic proponent than John Paul II was? Interesting and well argued piece.
Bush is a more traditional ethic proponent than John Paul II was? Interesting and well argued piece.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)