Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Around the World Wide Web 29

1. This bit from the Daily Show shows why, in my opinion, Hillary Clinton will be demolished in 2008. She's phony. And she has to be phony because the real Hillary Clinton is unpleasant, profane and cynical. The uninformed voters who judge a candidate on such idiotic grounds as "He seems like a nice guy" will not like Hillary Clinton.

2. This political chart baffles me. Any chart that puts Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the same sector cannot be useful.

3. Rick Moran stands up against religious intolerance:

And then to top off GOP idiocy for September, you have war hero John McCain saying first that he couldn’t support a Muslim for President and then clarifying that remark a little later by basically saying, “Well, I can support a Muslim as long as we can be sure of their loyalty to the United States.”

How big of you, John. All you have to do is substitute “Catholic” for “Muslim” and you have exactly the right attitude – for the election of 1928. That’s when people wondered whether Catholic Al Smith would be more loyal to the Vatican or to the US Constitution.

I have but one problem with Mr. Moran's tolerance. I couldn't support a Muslim for President. The difference between Muslim and Catholic is that the Vatican has never declared war against us. Radical Catholics do not commit terrorist acts against the West. Catholic countries do not send money to terrorists. I could not trust a Muslim President to prosecute a war against militant Islam with vigor.

4. The Giuliani campaign thinks it would start with 210 electoral votes, and Clinton would start with 18, the rest being up for grabs. I agree with Green Mountain Politics that this might be wishful thinking, but also think Giuliani would win easily. Green Mountain Politics scoffs at the idea that California would vote Republican, but I think there will be some big surprises on election night.

5. Clarence Thomas on Ayn Rand. (HT: Instapundit) Also on Instapundit:

PRESIDENT THOMPSON?

And doesn't the sound of that kind of bother Ayn Rand fans . . . .?

What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

6. The 10 most insane sports in the world. (HT: Conservative Grapevine)

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

When I look at Hillary Clinton I see pure power lust and pure evil. That woman would not hesitate to kill you if she thought it would bring her power. Now it may turn out that a Clinton Presidency may not be that bad as you say if it results in the Conservatives turning toward the economic right if for no other reason than spite. Still, having her as President would be a daily reminder of the existence of pure evil. It would require constant vigilance not to succumb to the malevolent universe premise; at least for me.

John Kim

Andrew Dalton said...

Hillary Clinton seems to have a way of galvanizing opposition against her. I worry more about McCain and Obama, who could cheerfully lead the nation into "bipartisan" sacrifice.

EdMcGon said...

5. Say what you will about Thompson, he is closer to Objectivism than any of the other major candidates.

Jennifer Snow said...

There isn't a major candidate that's "close" to Objectivism, period.

Thompson's stand seems to be that we should have 50 competing tyrannies instead of 1: he wants questions to be legislated by the states instead of the federal government. I'm sorry, but we don't need 50 different flavors of rights-violation.

Plus, the quote on Wikipedia on his church/state separation views made me want to barf. "The founding fathers wanted to protect the church from the state and not vice versa." On the contrary, most of them considered organized religion to be one of the greatest political dangers out there and were desperate to protect the state from the church. (Paine and Jefferson in particular.)

No, I won't be supporting this Thompson any time soon.

softwareNerd said...

I came up with my own rival chart.

EdMcGon said...

Jenn,
Where do you get the idea that putting power closer to the people (with the states) is equivalent to leaving the "tyranny" at the federal level?

If you live in California or New York, I see your point. But I'm in Georgia, and that would be a step in the right direction.

EdMcGon said...

2. Myrhaf, that chart is based on international politics from an historical basis.

BTW, did you take the quiz to see where you landed on the chart? I ended up closest to Milton Friedman. Of the current crop of candidates, I was closest to Ron Paul.

Jennifer Snow said...

Leaving the tyranny at the federal level? What the heck does that mean?

Switching from a federal to local tyrant doesn't fundamentally change anything. I've moved quite a few times in my life and I don't know what to the make of the fact that apparently in New York you can be PROSECUTED for THROWING OUT LICENSE PLATES. Who comes up with this stuff?

Now, scale that up to something actually important like abortion. If it's a CRIME in one state, can I cross the border to another state to get an abortion? What happens then? Can I be prosecuted in the original state? Why even HAVE the law if it can't be enforced? To make a bunch of religious cretins feel better?


Laws that can't be enforced weaken the entire structure of the law and increase disrespect for the government. Do they then make it illegal to cross the state border for the purpose of having an abortion?

No, fobbing responsibility for decisions off on the states is no good thing. The fact that it's your neighbors (within the state, and keep in mind that some states are BIG) violating your rights instead of the entire country doesn't make it any better.

EdMcGon said...

Jenn,
If you don't like the state you live in, you can always move. If you don't like the country you live in, it's a lot harder to move.

States are not unlike companies in a free market. States that are poorly run tend to lose people and businesses (i.e. California and New York), much like companies which are poorly run tend to lose customers.

When power is put at the federal level, as opposed to the state level, there are few options for most people, since the federal government is the ultimate monopoly.

Your basic argument is that ALL states will violate your rights if they have the power instead of the federal government. Historically, that is NOT the case. If you look at the U.S. prior to Prohibition, there were many states where alcohol was legal. Prohibition took the power away from the states.

I'm not saying all states will do the right thing. I am saying that power at the federal level removes any chance for states to try to compete.

When liberal states like California and New York find their altruistic policies run off businesses and workers, leaving them only a large welfare dependent population, then they are forced to rein in their welfare policies, proving once again that less government is better for everyone.

On the other side, if conservative states ban abortions, they will have a hard time enforcing it when people cross state lines to get an abortion in states where it's legal. If religious conservatives go too far in legislating their morality within their state, they run the same risk as liberal states do: losing businesses and workers.

States with the least government will find their population growing, as well as their tax revenues. Let the liberals and the religious conservatives have their little haven states. Eventually they might learn the folly of their ways.