So sprach der Schnurrbart

Those nasty Nazis at Powerline:

Dr. Goebbels, call your office

In an obscene attempt to obtain political mileage, the Democrats are claiming that President Bush is responsible for the outbreak of war in the Middle East. Howard Dean claims that the war would not have occurred if the Democrats had been in power because the Dems would have worked the past six years to prevent it. And Sen. Dodd has made basically the same assertion. Meanwhile, Rep. Jane Harman contends that the Bush administration is to blame for our poor to non-existent relations with Syria and Iran which, she says, prevent us from using diplomacy to end the crisis….

In terms of the style of its propaganda, this is a party in which Joseph Goebbels would feel at home.

Paging Michael Medved…. Paging Michael Medved! I shall watch with interest to see if the Gay Mustachio, Captain Ed, the Pilgrimess and others of their so easily offended ilk will bravely take the evil Powerline Nazi boys to task.

Oh, wait, it looks like the francophobe J-Pod is already on top of it. “The Nazi analogy is disgusting when lefties use it about conservatives and it’s no better when conservatives use it about liberals.”

Remember, no one is allowed to make comparisons to the National Socialist German Workers Party, even if the target of criticism is supporting key planks in the Munich Manifesto, annexing Austria, invading Poland or launching missile strikes on Britain! Anyone guilty of making such a comparison is also guilty of being a National Socialist.

So sprach der schwul Schnurrbart

She’s trying to kill you

From the Bulletproof Pimp:

Frequent sexual activity may reduce a man’s risk of prostate cancer, according to a study in the April 7 Journal of the American Medical Association. The cancer risk in men who reported more than 20 monthly ejaculations was 33 percent less than that of other men, the Harvard University study showed.

I don’t know if this is a medical argument in favor of polygamy, prostitution or pornography, but perhaps it will benefit those poor men married to undersexed women who prefer television, eating and romance novels to sex. (How anyone can claim they don’t have time for sex when the average adult watches 150 minutes of TV per day while the average sexual interlude requires 28.2 minutes is beyond me.) Pretty soon, marriage vows will revolve around control of the remote, not physical faithfulness.

Of course, it’s quite possible even a raised awareness of the risks won’t help, since pointing out that turning you down every night means increasing the risk of leaving your poor children without a father may not prove as compelling a case as might be thought if you are in possession a decent life insurance policy. And as for the impotence risk, obviously that’s not so much a problem from her perspective.

This is why I don’t have any problem with state-approved homogamy. State-sponsored marriage has proven to be a complete disaster for men and women alike, so I don’t see any point in worrying about further wrecking a broken model.

As for any Christians who find all this appalling – don’t bother to email; I know, I know, I’m taking my libertarianism too far etc – I find it interesting that we are seldom slow to condemn marital unfaithfulness, but I have never, ever heard a pastor or any other church leader criticize those who, in direct contradiction to the Apostle Paul’s warning, reject their husbands and wives for reasons other than devoting themselves to prayer.

One sin can never justify another, but when one leads so reliably to another, it seems strange to ignore what is at least a potential cause of the problem.

No mo radio

It’s funny, but now that I’m not doing radio,* I’m actually getting more invitations to more radio shows than ever before. The producers are always quite polite, but they often seem to be a little surprised that I’m not interested in their medium.

Actually, I find that I’m getting less and less interested in political commentary anyhow, (as if you hadn’t noticed.) When the New York Times takes five years to recognize something that was immediately obvious from the start, you have to wonder what point there is in writing about these things. Even now, unless something is reported as fact by one of the Big Four newspapers, Fox, the talk radio circuit or the ABCNNBCBS cabal, most people refuse to even consider the possibility that it could be true.

Anyhow, they’ll have to find some other way to stir up outrage among the sheep. I’m not interested in playing sock puppet.

*The exception being the NARN gang, of course. But they’re not into selling faux outrage, in fact, I don’t think half of them even know what it is they’re supposed to be selling.

I did warn you

From the New York Times:

It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration’s response to the terror attacks is becoming clear. Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power.

Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints. Even when the only challenge was to get required approval from an ever-cooperative Congress, the president and his staff preferred to go it alone. While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another, perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch.

Let’s just say I’m not particularly surprised. Three Monkey Republicans and National Security Democrats can repeat the “we are at war” and “The Islamic jihad will stop at nothing” mantras all they like, but this has never been about terrorism. Terrorism is simply the vehicle by which central government expansion is accomplished.

The idea that a powerful central government is required to defeat Islam is absurd. Islam has been trounced before, repeatedly, by leaders with less authority than your average city mayor and by generals with fewer men in arms than the chief of the NYPD.

But then, I’m not surprised that people fall for the imminent danger lie either. As I’ve written before, that old chestnut was already a classic when Marius was using it to tighten his grasp on Rome. The fact that the danger is real – Rome was in more genuine danger from the Cimbri and Teutoni at that time than the USA is from Iran and Saudi Arabia now – doesn’t change the fact that after the danger was defeated, Marius demonstrated that power, not protection, was his genuine object.