An ugly scenario

Derb paints an unpleasant picture of the 2008 presidential election:

Giving Mrs. Clinton the benefit of the carpetbagger doubt, that is, and taking Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg as the other two — yes, it might come down to this. [An all-Empire State election] Your choices for presidential candidate in November 2008 might be three gun-controlling, abortion-supporting, gay-friendly, illegal-immigrant-amnestying northeasterners, two of them high-tax, welfare-state, social-engineering, affirmative-action liberals.

That may be the only way the PTBs can arrange to have a New York liberal elected president again… by offering strawberry, strawberry, or, for those looking for something different, strawberry. I’d like to think this would make the complete charade of “democracy” apparent to everyone paying even the smallest bit of attention to the process, but I know better.

I’m still keeping my eye on Pataki, but we’ll see. In any case, why vote for the lesser evil? Cthulhu 2008!

The importance of socialization

At least the poor girl received proper public socialization before she died:

A gunman who took six girls hostage at a high school in Colorado used them as human shields for hours before he shot and fatally wounded a girl and then killed himself….

Sherry Husen, whose son plays on the high school football team, said their family moved to the town from suburban Denver about 14 years ago “We moved up here for the mountain solitude and I just never thought this would happen in this school, but it happens everywhere,” she said.

Actually, outside of Germany, homeschoolers seldom see their school days interrupted by strange adults armed with firearms. And after a recent act of Congress, it seems they will also be sadly denied the opportunity to enjoy random body cavity searches by school authorities too.

Pedophiles, start your engines….

A variable is missing

From the Bully Pulpit’s equation:

I was going to offer this [Thomas Sowell column] as counterpoint to Vox Day’s article, but it occurred to me that it is more exemplary of the current state of political discourse in this country. Each side talks past one another, driven by the need to pull down the winning sound bite. For example, Vox never once offers ideas on what to do if we are indeed in a survival situation, and Dr. Sowell doesn’t even attempt to address the slippery slope of casting away morality and liberty in the name of security.

Missing here is the fact that I have repeatedly asserted that we are NOT in a survival situation due to Islamic terrorism. That is the context in which my two anti-torture columns were written and I think BP will recognize the logic in questioning the vital need for legalized torture sought by a government that sees no problem with annually importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims and millions of aliens. Moreover, I openly mocked the idea that torture will prove of any use even if we were in a survival situation.

In any event, the evidence that we are genuinely in such a situation is scanty indeed. Americans didn’t take Saddam Hussein’s over-the-top ranting very seriously nor do they take Kim Jong-Il’s threats to heart despite his proven possession of nukes and missile technology, so why should they quiver in fear over every no-account loser with a beard who can’t even figure out how to use his own rifle? It seems rather strange, except for the five years of media and government-driven fear-mongering.

I respect Sowell, but I have also never forgotten that even after we exchanged emails, he continued to insist that the US Navy was all but destroyed at Pearl Harbor despite the fact that its losses were very minor, less than 5 percent, in terms of its number of ships, tonnage and personnel. Given the amount of evidence amassed that the central government is working against traditional morality and personal liberty regardless of which political party is in control of it, I think BP is right to seek an answer from Sowell. I believe I have already provided one, on the other hand.