I was first to vote "He won't even beat Hillary"

I admit it was wishful-thinking.

but it still asks me to vote.  Not that it reflects who I want to win. 

With his lead unassailable, watch now as Hilary's superdelegates announce their support for Barack, and count how many times you hear the phrase "for the good of the party."

... and to think the English language *needs* a *Californian* (forever the home of fake boobs and fake tans) to determine its future... Western Civilization trembles!!!

... but I stand unrepentantly unconvinced.

Then far be it from me to try to convince you. If I succeeded, you'd no longer be "unrepentantly unconvinced," and that would be a calamity. The world, not to mention the English language, sorely needs "unrepentantly unconvinced."

If there was a Galt party - and I'm still working on that, btw, since the LP has rendered itself more useless than ever - I'd vote for it as well in spite of this speech. Instead, I'm still voting 'none of the above'...

Linz, I would guess that NZ politicians, if for no other reason than the relative size and therefore scrutiny of the country, must adhere to their stated word much more so than US politicians (who typically blame the 'other party' if their stated beliefs and promises go unfulfilled). I don't support John McCain because he has spent much of his career talking a good game but not delivering. I understand, dear Linz, you figure McCain will at least deliver on enough 'good stuff' to make supporting him worthwhile, especially in light of the 'greater evil' in his potential opponent. Being the lesser of two evils just isn't enough for me, I need to see a candidate far closer to 'good' and far further away from 'evil' as John McCain.

Here is a topic from this speech that hits close to home for me:

"It's important as well to remember that the foolish risk-taking of lenders, investment banks, and others that led to these troubles don't reflect our free market as it should be working. In a free market, there must be transparency, accountability, and personal and corporate responsibility. The housing crisis came about because these standards collapsed -- and, as president, I intend to restore them."

THE ONLY WAY TO 'RESTORE' THEM (accountability, responsibility, transparency, etc) IS TO ERADICATE FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC the quasi-governmental monstrosities which govern the UPS mortgage activity in all the hideous mixed economy glory Ayn Rand and Austrian economists warned Americans about! Believe me, McCain won't do that, and he will only perpetuate the misery by using the Federal Housing Administration to extend credit even further. I know, because its already going on - though like a true politician McCain will take credit for the 'bailout' (i.e. yet further credit extension which was already extended too far and universally across the industry by Fannie and Freddie).

I agree, Linz, McCain sounds good in lots of other areas of the speech, but he's just too much of a career politician for me to believe he actually means it. I'm sorry, but it is an extremely RARE thing for a UPS politician of any stature to 'say what they mean and mean what they say' - call me cynical, call it an anarchist hangover, but I stand unrepentantly unconvinced.

Here's McCain's speech on economic policy today. It's mixed, of course, and it's not John Galt, but for the life of me I don't get you guys' dedicated animus towards him given what else is on offer. If his equivalent in NZ, John Key, made a speech like this I'd be well pleased, though I'd still vote Libz of course. You guys don't have the luxury of a Galt party, and if you did, James wouldn't vote for it anyway!

___________________________________

Thank you. I appreciate the hospitality of the Allegheny Business Conference... the Pittsburgh Tech Council... and the students and faculty of Carnegie Mellon University. We have a strong showing this morning from the Carnegie Mellon Naval ROTC unit as well. And I'm happy to be with all of you.

This university has a fine reputation for its programs in business, finance, and other disciplines in the field of economics. And it's always worth recalling that economics is not a subject that can be wrenched apart from all the rest of life, or from the values that give life direction. When we debate economic policy, we are talking, after all, about the deepest hopes that carry us each along in the work we do... about all the things we wish for ourselves and for each other. And these cannot be measured by simply running the numbers.

In our free society, it is left to each one of us to make our own way in the world -- and our jobs, businesses, savings, pensions, farms, and homes are the work of years. Take these away and you are diminishing a lot more than the GDP, or the final tally on the Big Board on Wall Street. Take these away, and a million dreams are undone. The gains of hard work and sacrifice are lost. And something can be lost that is very crucial in our economy, and very slow to return -- confidence.

Every so often in our nation's capital, we relearn this lesson when the excesses of traders and speculators, and the poor planning of politicians, catches up with them, and the troubles spread far beyond Wall Street and Washington. This has happened in recent months, at great cost to workers, small businesses, families, and homeowners across our nation. And calling these serious problems a "correction" in the market, or a "cycle" of the economy, doesn't make their situation any better, their jobs and homes any safer, their lives any easier.

Economic policy is not just some academic exercise, and we in Washington are not just passive spectators. We have a responsibility to act -- and if I am elected president I intend to act quickly and decisively. We need reforms that promote growth and opportunity. We need rules that assure fairness and punish wrongdoing in the market. We need tax policies that respect the wage-earners and job creators who make this economy run, and help them to succeed in a global economy. In all of this, it will not be enough to simply dust off the economic policies of four, eight, or twenty-eight years ago. We have our own work to do. We have our own challenges to meet.

Millions of working men and women in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and beyond can tell you how urgent is the work before us. One man put it this way to a reporter not long ago, in reply to a question about the job he had just lost. He said, "I told my wife that I'll always keep a roof over her head. Now, I worry about keeping that promise." In the monthly reports of our Labor Department, nearly 250,000 Americans like this man were let go recently and suddenly from jobs they thought were safe.

A woman in the town of Trainer, in Delaware County, also captured the feeling of many when she described what it's like to work and save for years, and, at the age of 47, still struggle for the basics of life. The family has had medical problems, and as she puts it: "Trust me, no one wants to be in our shoes. And lots of people are just a sick husband away from where we are." For citizens like these -- doing their best to keep promises and meet obligations, there is no comfort knowing their problems are common and their worries are shared.

Meanwhile, the people we expect to be most sober and level-headed in their economic decisions -- bankers and other home lenders -- forgot some of the basic standards of their own profession. Hard-working homeowners are learning for the first time about the endlessly complicated borrowing, bundling, and betting that has been going on in our capital markets. Americans worry about a system that allows 4 million bad loans to affect 51 million good ones. They wonder how assets can so quickly become liabilities, and why the high-risk schemes of a few were permitted to inflict such grievous harm on our entire financial system.

Americans are also right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEO's -- in some cases, the very same CEO's who helped to bring on these market troubles -- bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders. Something is seriously wrong when the American people are left to bear the consequences of reckless corporate conduct, while Mr. Cayne of Bear Stearns, Mr. Mozilo of Countrywide, and others are packed off with another forty- or fifty million for the road.

I leave it for others to speculate on the technical definition of a recession. It's all a little beside the point, if it's your plant that's closing and your job that's gone... when you are facing foreclosure, or back in debt after years of hard effort, or hardly able to buy food, gas, or heating for your home. In the end, the truest measure of prosperity in America is the success and financial security of those who earn wages and meet payrolls in this country. Many are waiting for their first homes... their first big break... their first shot at financial security. And helping them will be my first priority in setting the economic policies of this nation.

In so many ways, even now, the workers and entrepreneurs of America are taken for granted by their government, while the lobbyists and special pleaders are seldom turned away. By the tens of billions of dollars, our tax money is routinely squandered by the Congress on less than useless pork-barrel projects -- projects having nothing to do with the purposes of government, and everything to do with the preservation of power.

In the same way, many in Congress think Americans are under-taxed. They speak as if letting you keep your own earnings were an act of charity, and now they have decided you've had enough. By allowing many of the current low tax rates to expire, they would impose -- overnight -- the single largest tax increase since the Second World War. Among supporters of a tax increase are Senators Obama and Clinton. Both promise big "change." And a trillion dollars in new taxes over the next decade would certainly fit that description.

Of course, they would like you to think that only the very wealthy will pay more in taxes, but the reality is quite different. Under my opponents' various tax plans, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise -- seniors, parents, small business owners, and just about everyone who has even a modest investment in the market. All these tax increases are the fine print under the slogan of "hope": They're going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year -- and they have the audacity to hope you don't mind.

They and others argue that the tax increase is necessary in part to finance Social Security and Medicare. Unfortunately, this claim only serves to remind us of Congress' consistent failure to repair both of these programs even under the best of circumstances. For years, Congress has been buying time, and leaving the great challenge of entitlement reform for others to deal with. And now the two contenders in the other party have even proposed enormous new federal commitments before the old commitments have been kept -- trusting that others, somewhere down the road, will handle the financing and make all the numbers come out right.

But there will come a day when the road dead-ends, and the old excuses seem even more hollow. And it won't be the politicians who bear the consequences. It will be American workers and their children who are left with worthless promises and trillion-dollar debts. We cannot let that happen. And you have my pledge: as president I will work with every member of Congress -- Republican, Democrat, and Independent -- who shares my commitment to reforming and protecting Medicare and Social Security.

In so many ways, we need to make a clean break from the worst excesses of both political parties. For Republicans, it starts with reclaiming our good name as the party of spending restraint. Somewhere along the way, too many Republicans in Congress became indistinguishable from the big-spending Democrats they used to oppose. The only power of government that could stop them was the power of veto, and it was rarely used.

If that authority is entrusted to me, I will use the veto as needed, and as the Founders intended. I will veto every bill with earmarks, until the Congress stops sending bills with earmarks. I will seek a constitutionally valid line-item veto to end the practice once and for all. I will lead across-the-board reforms in the federal tax code, removing myriad corporate tax loopholes that are costly, unfair, and inconsistent with a free-market economy.

As president, I will also order a prompt and thorough review of the budgets of every federal program, department, and agency. While that top to bottom review is underway, we will institute a one-year pause in discretionary spending increases with the necessary exemption of military spending and veterans benefits. "Discretionary spending" is a term people throw around a lot in Washington, while actual discretion is seldom exercised. Instead, every program comes with a built-in assumption that it should go on forever, and its budget increase forever. My administration will change that way of thinking.

I'll hold the agencies of the federal government accountable for the money they spend. I'll make sure the public helps me, and I'll provide federal agencies with the best executive leadership that can be found in America. We're going to make every aspect of government purchases and performance transparent. Information on every step of contracts and grants will be posted on the Internet in plain and simple English. We're going to post an agency's performance evaluation as well. We're going to demand accountability. We will make sure that federal spending serves the common interests... that failed programs are not rewarded... and that discretionary spending is going where it belongs -- to essential priorities like job training, the security of our citizens, and the care of our veterans.

In my administration there will be no more subsidies for special pleaders -- no more corporate welfare -- no more throwing around billions of dollars of the people's money on pet projects, while the people themselves are struggling to afford their homes, groceries, and gas. We are going to get our priorities straight in Washington -- a clean break from years of squandered wealth and wasted chances.

I have a clear record of not asking for earmarks for my state. For their part, Senators Obama and Clinton have championed a long list of pork-barrel projects for their states -- like that all-important Woodstock museum that Senator Clinton expected Americans to pay for at the cost of a million dollars. That kind of careless spending of tax dollars is not change, my friends: It is business as usual in Washington, and it's all a part of the same wasteful and corrupting system that we need to end.

The goal of reform, however, is not merely to check waste and keep a tidy budget process -- although these are important enough in themselves. The great goal is to get the American economy running at full strength again, creating the opportunities Americans expect and the jobs Americans need. And one very direct way to achieve that is by taking the savings from earmark, program review, and other budget reforms -- on the order of 100 billion dollars annually -- and use those savings to lower the business income tax for every employer that pays it.

So I will send to Congress a proposal to cut the taxes these employers pay, from a rate of 35 to 25 percent. As it is, we have the second-highest tax on business in the industrialized world. High tax rates are driving many businesses and jobs overseas -- and, of course, our foreign competitors wouldn't mind if we kept it that way. But if I am elected president, we're going to get rid of that drag on growth and job creation, and help American workers compete with any company in the world.

I will also send to the Congress a middle-class tax cut -- a complete phase-out of the Alternative Minimum Tax to save more than 25 million middle-class families more than 2,000 dollars every year.

Our tax laws and those who enforce them should treat all citizens with respect, whether they are married or single. But mothers and fathers bear special responsibilities, and the tax code must recognize this. Inflation has eroded the value of the exemption for dependents. I will send to Congress a reform to increase the exemption -- with the goal of doubling it from 3,500 dollars to 7,000 dollars for every dependent, in every family in America.

The tax laws of America should also promote and reward innovation, because innovation creates jobs. Tax laws should not smother the ingenuity of our people with needless regulations and disincentives. So I will propose and sign into law a reform agenda to permit the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology... to ban Internet taxes, permanently... to ban new cell phone taxes... and to make the tax credit for R&D permanent, so that we never lose our competitive edge.

It is not enough, however, to make little fixes here and there in the tax code. What we need is a simpler, a flatter, and a fair tax code. As president, I will propose an alternative tax system. When this reform is enacted, all who wish to file under the current system could still do so. And everyone else could choose a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction. Americans do not resent paying their rightful share of taxes -- what they do resent is being subjected to thousands of pages of needless and often irrational rules and demands from the IRS. We know from experience that no serious reform of the current tax code will come out of Congress, so now it is time to turn the decision over to the people. We are going to create a new and simpler tax system -- and give the American people a choice.

Better tax policy is just one part of a pro-growth agenda that includes smarter regulation and a leaner, more focused government. Among the many benefits to America, these reforms will help to create jobs, improve the investment climate, attract global investors, and strengthen the dollar.

Americans also worry about stagnant wages, which are caused in part by the rising cost of health care. Each year employers pay more and more for insurance, leaving less and less to pay their employees. As president, I will propose and relentlessly advocate changes that will bring down health care costs, make health care more affordable and accessible, help individuals and families buy their health insurance with generous tax credits, and enable you to keep your insurance when you change jobs.

Many retired Americans face the terrible reality of deciding whether to buy food, pay rent or buy their prescriptions. And their government should help them. But when we added the prescription drug benefit to Medicare, a new and costly entitlement, we included many people who are more than capable of purchasing their own medicine without assistance from taxpayers who struggle to purchase their own. People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't need their prescriptions underwritten by taxpayers. Those who can afford to buy their own prescription drugs should be expected to do so. This reform alone will save billions of dollars that could be returned to taxpayers or put to better use.

There's never been a problem Americans couldn't solve. We are the world's leaders, and leaders don't fear change, pine for the past and dread the future. We make the future better than the past. That is why I object when Senators Obama and Clinton and others preach the false virtues of economic isolationism. Senator Obama recently suggested that Americans are protectionist because they are bitter about being left behind in the global economy. Well, what's his excuse for embracing the false promises of protectionism? Opening new markets for American goods and services is indispensable to our future prosperity. We can compete with anyone. Senators Obama and Clinton think we should hide behind walls, bury our heads and industries in the sand, and hope we have enough left to live on while the world passes us by. But that is not good policy and it is not good leadership. And the short-sightedness of these policies can be seen today in Congress' refusal to vote on the Colombian Free Trade Agreement.

When new trading partners can sell in our market, and American companies can sell in theirs, the gains are great and they are lasting. The strength of the American economy offers a better life to every society we trade with, and the good comes back to us in many ways -- in better jobs, higher wages, and lower prices. Free trade can also give once troubled and impoverished nations a stake in the world economy, and in their relations with America. In the case of Colombia, a friend and crucial democratic ally, its stability and economic vitality are more critical now, as others in the region seek to turn Latin America away from democracy and away from our country. Trade serves all of these national interests, and the interests of the American economy as well -- and I call on the Congress once again to put this vital agreement to an up or down vote.

I know that open markets don't automatically translate into a higher quality of life for every single American. Change is hard, and while most of us gain, some industries, companies and workers are left to struggle with very difficult choices. And government should help workers get the education and training they need -- for the new jobs that will be created by new businesses in this new century. Right now we have more than a half-dozen different programs that are supposed to help displaced workers, and for those who are not working at all. We have an unemployment insurance program straight out of the 1950s. It was designed to assist workers through a few tough months during an economic downturn until their old jobs came back. That program has no relevance to the world we live in today.

If I'm elected president, I'll work with Congress and the states to make job training and unemployment insurance what they should be -- a swift path from a job that's not coming back to a job that won't go away. We will build a new system, using the unemployment-insurance taxes to build for each worker a buffer account against a sudden loss of income -- so that in times of need they're not just told to fill out forms and take a number. And we will draw on the great strengths of America's community colleges, applying the funds from federal training accounts to give displaced workers of every age a fresh start with new skills and new opportunities.

These reforms must wait on the next election, but to help our workers and our economy we must also act in the here and now. And we must start with the subprime mortgage crisis, with the hundreds of thousands of citizens who played by the rules, yet now fear losing their houses. Under the HOME plan I have proposed, our government will offer these Americans direct and immediate help that can make all the difference: If you can't make your payments, and you're in danger of foreclosure, you will be able to go to any Post Office and pick up a form for a new HOME loan. In place of your flawed mortgage loan, you'll be eligible for a new, 30-year fixed-rate loan backed by the United States government. Citizens will keep their homes, lenders will cut their losses, and everyone will move on -- following the sounder practices that should have been observed in the first place.

It's important as well to remember that the foolish risk-taking of lenders, investment banks, and others that led to these troubles don't reflect our free market as it should be working. In a free market, there must be transparency, accountability, and personal and corporate responsibility. The housing crisis came about because these standards collapsed -- and, as president, I intend to restore them.

The grave problems in the housing market have been viral, spreading out to affect the credit and buying power of Americans even as the price of oil and gas is rising as never before. There are larger problems underlying the price of oil, all of which I will address in my energy plan, but in the short term there are crucial measures we can take.

I propose that the federal government suspend all taxes on gasoline now paid by the American people -- from Memorial Day to Labor Day of this year. The effect will be an immediate economic stimulus -- taking a few dollars off the price of a tank of gas every time a family, a farmer, or trucker stops to fill up. Over the same period, our government should suspend the purchase of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which has also contributed to the rising price of oil. This measure, combined with the summer-long "gas-tax holiday," will bring a timely reduction in the price of gasoline. And because the cost of gas affects the price of food, packaging, and just about everything else, these immediate steps will help to spread relief across the American economy.

By summer's end, moreover, millions of college students will be counting on their student loans to come through -- and we need to make sure that happens. These young Americans, including perhaps some of you at CMU, are among the many citizens whose ability to obtain a loan might be seriously hurt by faraway problems not of their own making. So, today, I propose that the Department of Education work with the governors to make sure that each state's guarantee agency has the means and manpower to meet its obligation as a lender-of-last-resort for student loans. In the years ahead, these young Americans will be needed to sustain America's primacy in the global marketplace. And they should not be denied an education because the recklessness of others has made credit too hard to obtain.

These are just some of the reforms I intend to fight for and differences I will debate with whoever my Democratic opponent is. In the weeks and months ahead, I will detail my plans to reform health care in America... to make our schools more accountable to parents and taxpayers... to keep America's edge in technology... to use the power of free markets to grow our economy... to escape our dependence on foreign oil... and to guard against climate change and to be better stewards of the earth. All of these challenges, and more, will face the next president, and I will not leave them for some unluckier generation of leaders to deal with. We are going to restore the confidence of the American people in the future of this great and blessed country.

I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. I seek the presidency with the humility of a man who cannot forget that my country saved me. I am running to serve America, and to champion the ideas I believe will help us do what every American generation has done: to make in our time, and from our challenges, a safer, stronger, more prosperous country and a better world.

As I have always done, I will make my case to every American who will listen. I will not confine myself to the comfort of speaking only to those who agree with me. I will make my case to all the people. I will listen to those who disagree. I will try to persuade them. I will debate. And I will learn from them. But I will fight every moment of every day for what I believe is right for this country, and I will not yield.

Thank you.

There he goes again!

I've edited in a Parental Advisory to make clear which part of my post is serious and which is a spoof. Can't be too careful with you Americans.

...note that I caught it, even if my fellow southern californian didn't...

... my fault for thinking there was some point...

Has one of my piss-takes been taken seriously again?

..."subvert the dominant paradigm" has some merit to it, that is to say the idea of opposing whichever strain of statism (right or left, name your poison) which holds the current dominant political position, makes some degree of sense. With the way the two major UPS political parties (by way of their candidates in an election year, especially) transform into each other and back again seems to add some more strength to that notion. However, that still doesn't work for me, call it 'lingering anarchism of my youth' or what have you.

James, I think Linz is just toying with the notion of voting Dem (or Rep)-scum across the board no exceptions for whatever reason. I imagine it’s his way of coping with the intellectual nausea caused by such an assertion; he has to make light of it or he may well snap as I have over the devolution of the United Police States. I can see how Linz would be dumbfounded by the idea, as well as the absolute unwavering devotion to the fatwa by those who insist it is the ONLY "Objectivist" thing to do in this election.

And I don't think government is *all* bad anymore Linz, at least not after my second cup of coffee. More on that, later...

... once upon a time, when the Right jumped on the socialist bandwagon, it was then time to join the Left?

Now that the Dems are spouting "faith" - we need to lurch to the Right?!

Huh?

Yesterday I watched these two excretae on a CNN Special on how much their faith means to them. It was beyond nauseating. McCain declined to appear.

What was fascinating was how eco-leftie the evangelical Christians in the audience were. How one longed for the good ol'-fashioned redneck Bible-thumpers of yore!

[Edited to add: Parental Advisory—the foregoing is serious and may be taken literally. The following is a spoof on Peikoff's original fatwa and is not intended to be taken literally. The point of the spoof is that my fatwa would be as silly as his.]

In any event, I hereby issue a fatwa: the key imperative this election is clearly to topple the Democrats, otherwise they'll inaugurate a Christian theocracy frighteningly soon. To that end, everyone must vote Rep-scum, across the board—no exceptions, no abstentions. Anyone who doesn't has no understanding of the Objectivist view of the role of ideas in history, and is a jerk.

Are You Bitter Off? By James Taranto, Wall Street Journal

Excerpt:

"Obama's critique of culturally conservative voters is far from original. Thomas Frank's 2004 book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?," laid out the case, and, as we noted in 2005, Wisconsin's Sen. Russ Feingold struck a similar theme in an op-ed piece about a visit to Alabama:

"I can only wonder how many more generations of central Alabamians
will say "yes" when the increasingly powerful Republican Party asks
them to be concerned about homosexuality but not about the security
of their own health, about abortion but not about the economic futures
of their own children."

Underlying this criticism is a curious normative premise: that the nonaffluent ought to prioritize their material interests over moral and cultural concerns. "Workers of the world, unite!" meets "The Virtue of Selfishness."

Unlike Ayn Rand, Feingold and Obama see selfishness as a virtue only for bitter-off cultural conservatives. The well-heeled San Francisco Democrats Obama addressed on Friday stand to pay much higher taxes if he is elected. Many of them no doubt back Obama because they like his liberal positions on subjects like guns, abortion and same-sex marriage. If you think Obama criticized their priorities, we've got some change you can believe in. In Barack Obama's America, rich people who vote on cultural issues rather than economic self-interest are principled and self-sacrificing. People of more modest means who do so are credulous and bitter."

No doubt you, too, "cling" to your Second Amendment rights out of "bitterness" resulting from economic insecurity and "frustration"!!

I love to death all those liberals who are saying Obama's assertion was just "simple truth."

Most helpful.

Worthy of thanks, too, are those Leftists who are saying that "all he meant" was the simple truism that people might "turn more" to "religion or guns in times of insecurity or crisis."

They both put a bright neon sign over their heads for all to see.

Both miss the point that Senator Clinton (you go, girl!) is making so eloquently this weekend: he has offended the deepest values -- the very way of life -- of many Americans. They pray and shoot for reasons transcending current economic conditions -- and it doesn't help "bring people together" (wasn't that his campaign's central theme?) to ascribe political differences to some psycho-sociological cause.

Once in a great while a Leftist's mask slips and Americans can catch a glimpse of the real politician under the spin. In this case, we have the worst of the three candidates pantsed in public.

Delightful.

Shouldn't that be "drinks beer from the can?"

... the remarkable incompetence displayed by the Clintons lately, and we seem to be confronted with the grim reality of a President McCain.

Still, it's a long way to November.

Senator Obama's early successes in the Democratic primaries, and Republican disappointment over Secretary of State Rice's unwillingness to run for higher office, make clear that America is perfectly able and "ready" to vote in an African-American President.

However, I doubt that they are willing to vote in the bone-headed idiot Obama has just shown himself to be.

Well aware of his demographic challenges, he was quoted early on as saying that he "has to be for 'hope' -- I'm a black man named 'Barack Obama' running for President of the United States!" And he nixed Rev. Wright from speaking at his announcement party.

Well, then came his wife's revelation that she really doesn't care for her country all that much.

Then came the Wright controversy.

If you were a James Carville or a Dick Morris advising Obama -- especially a week or so away from the Pennsylvania primary -- a state with one of the highest gun-ownership rates in the world -- you would be pleading with the Ivy League educated man of color to RELATE TO and IDENTIFY WITH working class whites in small town America. After all, they do comprise a vast portion of the population and, through the Electoral College, they disproportionately affect who gets to be President of this country.

The very successes of Bill Clinton and George W. were rooted in their capacity to be perceived as "one of the guys" -- despite actually being Ivy League educated themselves -- those men "related" to this very demographic Obama needs so badly, the demographic which hunts, owns pick ups, drinks beer and watches football or Nascar.

And the comments of Obama's wife and pastor have become a BIG problem for precisely this sort of American voter.

So, the last thing the brilliant young Senator wanted to do was to say ANYTHING resembling the following:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. ... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

His attempted explanations of this assertion -- to the good folks of Terre Haute, Indiana, no less (!!) -- don't sound convincing, either.

Sharing all the bigotry of your typical Norman Lear Leftist, and perhaps echoing his pastor's, Obama may actually see these voters as sort of a cross between Archie Bunker and Homer J. Simpson, as sooo many Leftists do. This kind of "package-deal" bigotry is exactly what those small town voters fear. Recall that Obama actually believes that racism played a significant role in the election of Reagan! So, all of the evidence seems to point in this direction.

In any event, its not helping the man to "get comfortable" with the very voters he needs next week -- and in November.

Someone did tell him that he's running for the leadership of the whole, big country, and not just his friends in the media, didn't they?

Oh, yeah, that was supposed to be The Message.

Maybe what explains Obama's gaffe is some of that "bitterness" we saw in Rev. Wright... or maybe his toilet-training?

If these small town white voters who "cling to their guns" were skeptical of Obama before, I think this just may have cinched it for them.

If Obama is defeated, it will not be because of American racism, just his own incompetence and idiocy.

JAMESON: "I also think there's a third reason: I believe the U.S. military genuinely abhors killing innocent civvies ~ but I doubt I'll ever get you to think so benevolently of your fellow countrymen."

DISIN: "You don't need to convince me of this."

... when have you ever acknowledged any good the U.S. soldier has done in Iraq?!

... entirely your rage at the UPS. But perspective requires full context. America is still qualitatively different from—way better than—Iran, and is not about to become the same any time soon. And unlike you I have no prob with the govt eavesdropping on foreign terrorist scum. In fact I'd insist on it. That's its job!!! The anarchist in you still thinks govt = bad, always, I suspect.

I'm cringing right now from McCain on the TV behind me a few minutes ago promising some kind of government guarantee on mortgages. Shudder. Then Jimmy Carter came on, looking like a tuatara with AIDS—something about talking to Hamas. Fault McCain for capitulating to misguided populism; fault Carter for being beyond revoltingly evil.

You weren't around at the time, Nephew ... may still have been asleep in fact ... but what first got my blood boiling was this idea that you had to vote Dem-scum across the board or be a bad Objectivist. Abstaining wasn't an option either. Blood is boiling again now at the thought of it, so I'll stop here.

...the men and women who have fought the enemy and given the ultimate sacrifice to preserve (yes) my choice to *reject* weasel politicians among *all* parties, my country, my family and loved ones secure. ONE SUCH INDIVIDUAL I KNEW PERSONALLY WAS SHOT DOWN AND MURDERED BY THE INSURGENTS IN IRAQ 3 YEARS AGO; this war against death-worshippers is not something I take lightly.

And I won't grizzle to you or anyone when Bush's 'tax cuts' expire. Right-wing politician: we'll give you *some* of your money back! (though it was yours to begin with and should never have been taken). Left-wing politician: we'll do all this really neat stuff for you (you just have to pay for it, but we'll make it seem like the 'rich' will pick up the tab). The flames of hell (where Olivia seems to think we originate ) may burn at million degrees or a billion at the end of the day you're still getting burned. This country, these politicians - its just not the way it's fucking supposed to be, and its made me (I'll admit) stark raving mad!!! Even Alexander state-worshipping Hamilton with Aaron Burr's bullet impact still visible in his decaying skull is turning over in his grave! WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY ARE WE GOING TO HAVE FOR OUR SOLDIERS TO COME HOME TO!?!?

This is not even the country that my ancestors fled Greece and Ireland to come to. And we're light years away from "When in the course of human events..."

I can't do it, Uncle Linz, I can't vote for more infringement of liberty at home. Chalk it up to my personal insanity if you must. I'll support to the bitter end the war against our "ruthless and conniving enemy" but I should not simultaneously have to surrender what little, if any, liberty we have left 'at home' to do so.

See, now you've got ME first thing in the morning before coffee and blood pressure meds....

A C.S. Lewis reference on an Objectivist site!

I love the Screwtape Letters in a weird sort of way - hats off to you Olivia for catching that! Though does that mean Linz gets to eat me if I fail in my mission of corruption...? Please, let’s not give him any ideas....

Just remember, while you're voting "none of the above," guys like this have been putting their asses on the line for you so you can go on voting "none of the above" and freely airing your opinions. The writer is a member of a group of Iraqi vets whom that creature Pelosi, for whom Peikoff and Hsieh urged people to vote, refused to meet yesterday. Excerpt:

__________________________

The real "ground truth" is what Petraeus is reporting and what America's heroes in uniform have witnessed firsthand. Since June, sectarian violence is down over 90 percent throughout Iraq, and 95 percent in Baghdad. Iraqi security forces have added over 110,000 to their rolls in the past 16 months, and another 91,000 have joined local neighborhood- and village-security groups. And Iraq politicians have bravely stepped up to the plate, passing key "benchmark" legislation on a monthly basis.

"Ground truth" is a precious commodity, sought by many and possessed by few. All we ask is that politicians and pundits seek council from those who actually possess it, rather than guidance from groups who value short-term partisan gain over long-term national security.

___________________________________

And if you don't vote McCain, don't grizzle to me when Bush's tax cuts expire.

... Uncle Screwtape and Wormwood.

You two are delightful.

Oh, yeah, there are plenty of assholes in business and I don't think I attributed a belief in McCain's perfection to you.

On the subject of CEO salaries he's hardly distinguishable from his "Dem-scum" opponents, and this is indicative of his larger world view.

And yes, I did go to 'sleep' after the 90's - but I awoke to all the same domestic infringement of liberty (much of it worse) AND these Muslim fucks who flew planes into buildings and continue to murder soldiers (like the kid brother of one of my close High School friends, yes, the shit has hit home) who are trying to establish civilization in the wake of Saddam's tyranny. You know damn well I'd shoot myself in the head before I'd vote for any Democrat, and at least in the foot before I'd vote for any Republican, and at this point I'd at least stab myself in the toe before I'd vote for any Libertarian (unless I can drag the old fart Senator Chocolate back into this business - talk about going to sleep!). My decision is an emphatic vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE at this point.

This is the kind of catch-22 I face as an American who for now at least has to live here: the same problem as in World War Two - a socialist President who will at least fight against totalitarianism (today its Islamofascism) abroad. I remember the call I took when I was there in NZ on the PI show where the caller spoke with such reverence for FDR, and yet he was one of the worst Presidents we've ever had. But from the perspective of the world he helped to save from Hitler and Hirohito, he was practically a messiah. I can't deny that, yet if I were transported back to America in 1942 I WOULDN'T VOTE FOR HIM EITHER.

Am I saying that McCain is as bad as FDR? No, but he's close enough to make me wash my hands of this whole damn election. I do not believe McCain has been an enemy of crony capitalism as you do, any hint of such is the rhetoric of a career politician (I just don't trust the guy, he's done way too many slick political moves during his 'career'). I will nonetheless remain open minded and pay attention to see if Senator McCain can do or say something to change my mind.

It's 8 am here—nothing like a scrap to start the day.

I don't believe McCain was talking about cronyism. I do believe he has been its most steadfast opponent.

I am not happy whenever he says something that makes me unhappy. I don't claim to be happy when I'm unhappy.

So what's the issue here? The issue is you and James adopting this "your man McCain" tack. At least I've come out and said for whom I'm rooting and why while you guys temporise over which Saddamite fuck to support. James toys with the "dependable liar" Hillary and you with that cowardly "libertarian" who says The Surge (which the jellyfish wouldn't have supported) in Iraq has enabled sufficient progress to occur for withdrawal to start.

Do let me know when you've decided.

If McCain says or does something overwhelmingly egregious I'll reconsider my position. Unlikely as long as he's for staying the course in Iraq and taking the battle to Iran. But at least I have a position to reconsider.

Michael, the world has changed since you went to sleep in the 90s. There's a wee thing called Islamofascism abroad that is out to destroy Western Civilization itself. Medical marijuana might just have to wait a while.

I say this, as always, in deepest love, dearest Nephew.

I do occasionally enjoy a good self-fucking, you know, with my time being limited and all...

I won't root for any of the assholes running in the 'major' parties, and as you know I never really have. The final selection of candidates seems to be getting worse every election year, however. And for fuck's sake you can't actually be HAPPY that it is JOHN MCCAIN the Republicans have chosen to send up against whatever statist appeaser the Democrats decide to force upon us! That's all I meant by 'uncomfortable shoes' - I know damn well you don't think he's perfect! And you also damn well know I'll be the first to attack crony capitalist corporate America and it's CEO's - what I dislike is *career politicians* attacking CEO's as if they had no part in contributing to the porked positions a number of CEO's enjoy.

IF you agree that Muslims are followers of Islam and

IF you believe that Jihad is a central tenet of Islam and

IF you agree that Islam is definitionally both a political and religious ideology that calls for the subjugation, conversation, and/or death of all non-Muslims...

THEN if you value your own ass, I would suggest everyone had better start considering the need to castrate Muslims to the point that the no longer pose any threat. Which means killing a whole lot of them. Probably do not need to kill them all. Just enough to convince them to reform their religion. Like Germans renounced Nazism.

I believe that everyone may believe whatever they choose. Until they become a threat. And then, when they threaten my life and my freedom, my life trumps theirs.

Simple, really.

Scott DeSalvo

Whether you think you can, or think you cannot, you're probably right!!

Spot on, Linz. Just because a businessman is a businessman doesn't mean he cannot be an overcompensated rat fuck. It just doesn't follow that EVERY businessman is a rat fuck.

Scott DeSalvo

Whether you think you can, or think you cannot, you're probably right!!

Morris, do you really think that any army or any government ever, in the history of war and civilization, has ever done more to train its troops, enforce discipline, prosecute infractions of their code, and develop its technology to have a SMALLER effect on enemy civilians than the government and military of the USA?

That's the relevant inquiry. There is copious evidence to support the above, beginning with the videos Jameson posted, and continuing with the training and rules of engagement US military forces follow--stricter and more closely adhered to than the rules any military force has ever followed.

Scott DeSalvo

Whether you think you can, or think you cannot, you're probably right!!

Attributing to me by implication the view that McCain is perfect. My position is that I'll root for him over one of your outright traitors Obama or Clinton any day of the week. Make my shoes uncomfortable? Go fuck yourselves. And I'm not bothered if he calls a few assholes assholes. There are such in the corporate world, you know.

Let's hope you continue to find things to make those shoes as uncomfortable as possible...

intended only for those with fitting shoes.

...ain't *my* candidate, James! Can't be *everyone's* on SOLO, either, I would hope...

As you can read here, McCain is outraged at CEO pay. No, he has no specific proposals -- yet.

"We'll see what the response is," his spokesman ominously threatened.

No brainer?

...though I dare say I'm criticizing America for its no longer being American enough!

Criticizing America here has repercussions. 

...does prove a point, Morris, and while I stop short of imprisoning purveyors of "hate speech" (however a tempting thought - I'd love to have all the remnants of the KKK and the US National Socialist Party - i.e. Nazi Party - locked up along with any religious leaders who encourage attacking American 'civvies' but alas, the First Amendment which is a defining American concept has been shit on quite enough already), Mr. Jameson backs up his point that America has done a better job than most historical 'super powers' in regards to keeping innocents out of its warfare abroad.

This is not to say that it isn't up to concerned individuals like you to pay close attention to what our military does and is asked to do. I've no doubt it is the zero-sum-proposition of free speech which has at times kept our military from doing things it really shouldn't be doing in America's defense.

Where America is NOT ahead of the moral curve is in its 'warfare' at home: the truly EVIL war on drugs, the Orwellian 'war on poverty', and many tenants of the Patriot Act which have already given rise to unprecedented abuse of police power only serves to justify why I now sadly call my home country the United POLICE States.

Who among us is advocating the wholesale slaughter of anyonewho reads the Qur'an?

The term I used was muslim which means "to submit to god".  You REALLY need to study logic.  You can get a textbook in a used book store.  And I don't mean a book store that has been used, I mean a store that sells used books. 

I would be glad to answer your question as soon as you prove to me that all apples are red. 

Now how about those human shields you don't want to talk about.

Let's talk about human shields.  Would they be using human shields to defend against us if we weren't there? 

I also think there's a third reason: I believe the U.S. military genuinely abhors killing innocent civvies ~ but I doubt I'll ever get you to think so benevolently of your fellow countrymen.

You don't need to convince me of this. 

I get that you think it's biased. How is it biased?

This is not a Fox News editorial ~ it's actual footage of deadly accurate ordnance in action. The military have two very good reasons to develop such weaponry: 1) making the first shot count saves American lives; and 2) killing less civilians should get wankers like you off their back.

I also think there's a third reason: I believe the U.S. military genuinely abhors killing innocent civvies ~ but I doubt I'll ever get you to think so benevolently of your fellow countrymen.

Though we may disagree on many issues I believe you to be a literate and intelligent individual; you know the answer to your rhetorical question.

Morris

Now, care to expand on what you really think?

Thank you Mr. Jameson for that unbiased and
thought provoking link; I'm now proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free!
Morris

They call it 'focused lethality":

Part 2:

Mr Jameson's answer to Mr. McMickle's question: "If America is killing innocent civilians, it shouldn't be stopped?"

"They're doing there level best to avoid it, that's all I care about."

Care to back that up with some evidence Mr. "ass-wipe"?

Morris

... and start providing substantiations for your accusations.

Who among us is advocating the wholesale slaughter of anyone who reads the Qur'an?

"If America is killing innocent civilians, it shouldn't be stopped?

They're doing there level best to avoid it, that's all I care about.

Now how about those human shields you don't want to talk about.

Killing innocent civilians is ok so long as the other guy kills 9 times more?

If America is killing innocent civilians, it shouldn't be stopped?

This is a total misrepresentation of everyone I know on this site. Would you care to back up your accusation, sir?

Jameson, If muslims have an "evil" religion, and people with "evil" religions are "evil", and we must make war on "evil" people, then we must make war on muslims. 

You agree that muslims have an evil religion, do you not?

You agree that people with evil religions are themselves evil, do you not?

You agree that we must make war on evil people, do you not?

"On this site it has morphed into "It is ok to kill muslims because the Koran tells them to kill us, and some of them have". "

This is a total misrepresentation of everyone I know on this site. Would you care to back up your accusation, sir?

"Big Bad America is murdering innocent civilians and they must be stopped."

The argument usually starts with the 'Japanese Holocaust' at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The chart points out the actual death toll, and who suffered the most at the hands of whom. For every 'enemy' civilian killed, nine 'allied' civilians lost their lives. The suggestion that America is evil is diabolical. The 'good' reverend should be imprisoned for hate speech ~ against his own country, i.e. on a charge of treason.

How is the graph relevant to this discussion?

She's obviously not the brightest bulb in the tanning bed. 

April 03, 2008

Hillary Clinton Lies Establish Pattern of Behavior

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

 Business card scanner

Hitch: "So, not only is one story totally false, but the story it conceals is totally evil."

Hey Morris!

I, for one don't think you're a 'fake' or even necessarily 'mired' in collectivism for asking SOLO-ists their perspectives on the 'chickens come home to roost' part of the Rev's speech. Nor is your 'credibility shot' with me, for what it's worth. Your one-time alter-ego used that same phrase when JFK was assassinated, as I'm sure you recognized.

First, the Rev's comments are simply false regarding Grenada and Panama, not that the US should have been involved in those events to begin with (IMO). To second what others have said, Jameson's graph does much to illustrate what the totalitarian rightist regimes of Nazi Germany and Hirohito's Japan did to the world - keeping in mind it was THEY that initiated force invading Poland, China, etc. The grotesque amount innocent blood spilled during a war *they started* is, because *they started the bullets* squarely on the governments of Hitler and Hirohito. Gadhaffi didn't care too much about the children killed over Scotland in Pan Am 103, so my heart doesn't bleed for him, or for the Palestinians who consistently reject the idea of peaceful co-existence with Israel (note- this is where Ron Paul looses me in particular).

I agree there ABSOLUTELY could and should have been a better way to (for lack of a better word) co-exist with the Native Americans, and slavery should have never been practiced at all (or at the very least abolished with the Declaration of Independence as Jefferson wrote it originally). No excuses, there. Further, I personally believe there were 'better' (i.e. less civilian) targets to show the might of the atomic bomb than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But this is the problem with figures like Rev Wright - they mix *some* truth, *some* exaggeration, *some* complete falsehoods and pour the distorted mixture out to further their agenda which in the very least involves stoking whatever fires they have to in order to preserve their income and status. This is the *definition* of a demagogue (I invite you to check out Sal Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" as kind of the flip-side of Machiavelli's "The Prince" if you haven't read Alinsky already). The hate-mongers of the right (Buchanan comes to mind first), and the hideous white supremacists and all manner of arch-collectivists are ultimately following the same formula. And it goes deeper than just the obvious lunacies.