"There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values, or Western values...ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit."

- Tony Blair

Thursday, October 16, 2003

We Pardon this Interruption...
I'm fixing to leave for the Smoky Mountains, but I thought I would mention that the new Volunteer Tailgate Party is up over on Les Jones' blog.

Posted by Adam Groves @ 01:30 PM EST [Permalink - No Comments]

Wednesday, October 15, 2003

Pirata Est!
The Wall Street Journal today has an op-ed about the Democrat's continued filibuster of key judicial officials nominated by the Bush administration. It's good- you should read the whole thing, one interesting point it brings up though is the original meaning of filibusters:

Senate Democrats are preparing to filibuster more of President Bush's appeals court nominees, making it a good time to note that the original meaning of the word "filibuster" was "pirate."

Maybe Ted Kennedy needs to be added to this list. In all seriousness, the analogy is apt. As the article points out, it's not even all the Democrats that are holding back a vote (a forward in the democratic process they so supposively covet), it's simply a select group of important Democrats intent on gadfly-ing the administration. More power to them. As much as I hate to see judicial vacancies that almost shut down the judicial system, this will be a powerful campaign issue for Bush in 2004 if he can ever get the spotlight off Iraq.

As an aside note, this will be the final blog entry until Monday. I'm spending my Fall Break from UT on a trip to beautiful Gatlinburg. Check out the Smoky Mountain Blog for some of the sites I'll be seeing.

Posted by Adam Groves @ 11:08 AM EST [Permalink - No Comments]

Tuesday, October 14, 2003

Beautiful Sounds from a Beautiful Girl

Sabine Herold, a 22-year old French woman. Why you ask could she be the most beautiful sounding beauty in the world? Click here, here, here, here and especially here and here to find out why I'm in love.

Posted by Adam Groves @ 02:40 PM EST [Permalink - No Comments]

Answering 25 Questions
John Brown has an editorial in the Daily Beacon today (online edition still not up to par) asking 25 mostly rhetorical questions that are supposed to "generate civil discourse and critical thinking on campus." Most are amusing, so I repeat them here:

1. How can anyone contend that atheism, a belief held by less than 10 percent of the general public, be considered rational?

Answer: This is one of the few that I disagree with the implications of the question. Religion is an acceptance of the irrational by definition. Belief, while possibly somewhat based on logic, is not entirely based on logic. If we reject all the things that are irrational, then we will have to reject all forms of mysticism. I think the problem with the question is that it confuses the philosophical meaning of rational and the common meaning of rational. One is strickly defined to that which can be explaned by sensical observartion or reason based on that observation (as the objectivists do for instance), but the other more plebian definition, is simply "right" or "correct."

2. When Phil Bredesen was campaigning for Governor last year, two of his key promises were to restructure both TDOT and TennCare. Has he done either?

Answer: Probably not the radical restructure that everyone wants. How about getting rid of TennCare all together. That would be my kind of restructure. TennCare according to some accounts will stay within budget this year, though- and that's certainly good news. As for TDOT, all they're doing different is taking away more of our rights. Before they were just taking away our time, with long delays on interstates everywhere, but now they're invading our privacy by installing cameras on certain turnpikes.

3. If you were in a foxhole, who would you rather have with you- a pampered, whiny Frenchman, or a tough-as-nails, freedom-loving Albanian?

Answer: The later, obviously. It doesn't look like there are many freedom loving Albanians, though. Especially when you throw in socialist to the adjective list.

4. Why do people believe that criminals, who have no respect for our laws to begin with, would obey gun laws?

Answer: Good question. Liberals will probably cite obviously biased studies to further their arguments about more restrictive gun control.

5. Shouldn't those who oppose President Bush's tax cuts simply volunteer to return their share to the government, instead of insisting everyone do so?

Answer: HAHAHA. Okay, that was classic. Maybe that's why millionaire John Edwards isn't for immediately returning the tax cuts, because his share would be, well, big.

6. How can Democrats claim to be the party of civil rights when virtually every segregationalist was a Democrat?

Answer: A better presentation of the same question: "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

7. [Bush] supports prescription drug entitlements in Medicare, additional spending on education and has signed campaign finance reform. Is he really a right-wing extremist like his critics claim.

Answer: No, no, he's not. But the entitlements mess may hurt him in the election by taking away from his base.

8. Aren't the continuous ravings of the Bush haters somewhat amusing?

Answer: Yes, yes they are.

9. When someone accuses Bush of lying, aren't you tempted to say, "Yes, it's a shame he can't be an honest president like his predecessor."

Answer: Apparently some people are very tempted to say it.

10. Isn't it incredible how many of the same people who excused Clinton's philandering now are the ones most outraged by allegations against Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Answer: Well, it all fairness that can be turned around. The main difference was that Clinton's philanderings were provenly true. It remains to be seen whether the LA Times women were merely looking for their two seconds of fame. If it's true, though, I'll criticize Arnold.

11. Which do you trust more, the market, or the government?

Answer: Well, that's not really a key factor in "determining whether you're a capitalist or socialist." There are anarcho-socialists who distrust both. I don't much like government myself, but the the market isn't much of an institution, it's just two people who happen to be proving each other goods in exchange for other goods.

12. If WMDs aren't found in Iraq, does it make the fact that we liberated 25 million people any less worthwhile?

Answer: No and the electorate agrees: "When asked if they would be more or less likely to vote for President Bush in the next presidential election if weapons of mass destruction are never found, an overwhelming majority (75%) of respondents said it would make no difference. " - Zogby Poll

13. Isn't Britian lucky to have Tony Blair as Prime Minister?

Answer: I'd say we're more lucky to have him as Prime Minister in the short run and England in the long run.

14. Wouldn't it be a good idea to use oil revenues from Iraq to fund its reconstruction?

Answer: Well, in order to do so, you would have to nationalize the oil industy and I'm not sure I'm for that, even though this was pushed by the administration as the major source of reconstruction funding.

15. Isn't it telling that Cuban Americans, who know well the horrors of socialism, vote solidly Republican?

Answer: What you expect Democrats, socialists under a different name, to even extend their hand to people who reject their system?

16. Does anyone know who Whitaker Chambers was?

Answer: Well, this is a start...

17. Isn't it interesting how liberals revile the Pope when he opposes abortion and gay marriage, but suddenly "find religion" when opposes the Iraq war and the death penalty?

Answer: Well, I suppose the Christian Coalition is good for one thing- bringing Catholics into the Republican fold.

18. Will the call letters for Al Gore's new television network be WZZZ?

Answer: WZZZ is available now.

19. Given the current pork barrel expenditures and welfare state, isn't Alexander Tyler right?

Answer: If and only if Republicans keep insisting on increasing social spending. I'm hoping it's a temporary thing.

20. Don't Democrats who decry President Bush's "court packing" realize that FDR really did "court-pack?"

Answer: Probably, but remember Bush is really Bushenstein.

21. Is the recall of a Democratic Governor and the election of a Republican Governor in a traditionally Democratic state really a warning to President Bush?

Answer: Yeah, I think Bush better watch out for Patrick Cazneau.

22. How thrilled is Howard Dean to hear McGovern say they have similar campaigns?

Answer: Howard Dean is the next McGovern, the next Clinton, and the next Willam Jennings Bryan...

23. Why is Joe Liberman doing so poorly?

Answer: I have a feeling that anti-Semitism has something to do with it.

24. Wouldn't it be great to see more of Dennis Kucinich?

Answer: How's this:

25. Isn't America the greatest country in the world?

Answer: Some people certainly don't think so...

Posted by Adam Groves @ 12:16 PM EST [Permalink - 2 comments]

Some Good News
President Bush's approval ratings are back up and later today, I'll try to make it a point to answer all the questions that John Brown asks in his column today in the Daily Beacon. Some will make you laugh, others will make you cry. That's later today.

Posted by Adam Groves @ 10:57 AM EST [Permalink - No Comments]

Friday, October 10, 2003

And the Nobel Goes to...
This year's Nobel Peace Prize winner is Iranian human rights activist Shirin Ebadi.

Ebadi, 56, the first Muslim woman to win the prize, was the first female judge in Iran. She was cited by the Nobel Committee for her focus on human rights, especially the struggles for the rights of women and children.

Later in the article:

Egypt's first female judge, Tahany el-Gebaly, said there were more deserving activists in the Middle East, but Ebadi was chosen because her views were acceptable to the West.

"There are many fiery Muslims whose actions and positions are a lot more outspoken, but because they are anti-West, or anti-American or Western policy in the region, they get no attention," she said.

Hah. Fiery Muslim and peace prize in the same sentence? Why would an "anti-West" or "anti-American" Muslim want a Nobel, a western prize? I thought they found our cultural embellishments disgusting...

The mullahs weren't the only ones speculating that politics was involved in the selection process, though, Nobel-watcher Stein Tonnesson said the Pope can forget about the Nobel because: "[the jury] is majority female and the pope's position on abortion, contraception, the role of women in the church and homosexuality are well known."

Posted by Adam Groves @ 11:02 AM EST [Permalink - 1 Comment]

Oh Come On...
This story reminds me of historical accounts of when television first came out. Irrational fear of technology is always funny and when it's coupled with a trivial lawsuit you've got a comedy act:

A pioneering elementary school district outside Chicago has been sued for installing a wireless computer network by parents worried that exposure to the network’s radio waves could harm their children.

Wi-Fi networks operate on the same frequency as your average telephone and are not harmful.

Posted by Adam Groves @ 10:39 AM EST [Permalink - 1 Comment]

Thursday, October 9, 2003

Liberal Liars
South Knoxville Bubba links to CalPundit's entry criticizing the platform of the Texas Republican Party. It may be true as Cal contends that the Texas GOP is leading the way in the new direction of the Republican Party. It is not true however, that the things that Cal cites are actually part of the party platform, however.

The link that CalPundit provides is to the Texas Republican Leadership Council, a fringe group within the Republican Party. The links on their website to party platforms were the ones that their group proposed. In fact the stated goal of their organization is:

Ensure that the Republican Party Platform remains based on Biblical principles;
Insist that public policy follows the Republican Party Platform;
Organize and build the voting strength of principled Republicans; and
Find and encourage godly men to seek public office.

To that end, the group publishes an "ideal" Republican Party platform, that represent the fringe elements of the national party as well as the Texas state party. The actual state party platform, therefore, is removed of almost all of the fringe elements that he cites. For instance, the gold standard, and detailed opposition to removal of sodomy statutes are no where to be found in the entire text of the actual party platform. Speaking of the actual party platform, you can read it off the Texas GOP's website (PDF), not the Republican Leadership Council's.

Posted by Adam Groves @ 11:48 AM EST [Permalink - 13 comments]

Wednesday, October 8, 2003

I Doubt the Recall Spells Eagle Revolution
Well the recall is over and Arnold won. Mitch Berg has a good round-up of the left's reaction to their staggering defeat. Staggering, I say, because over 60% of voters casted votes for Republicans- either Arnold or state senator Tom McClintock and the map of the vote spread reveals the mass of the state voted for the recall.

The question still remains, however, what does all of this mean? Andrew Sullivan seems to think that Arnold's election signals a revolution in "eagle" Republicans, namely those who are fiscally conservative and socially moderate. That may be the case, as Republicans move more north on the political spectrum to satisfy the growing support of libertarianism in conservative academia. Ask a conservative academic today what he thinks on gay marriage or drugs and he's likely to take a libertarian position- the prominence of the right to privacy over all social problems.

Case and point is Andrew Sullivan's (redundent yet?) questioning of the conservative position on gay marraige in today's Wall Street Journal. Assuming that Republicans become lax on social issues, abandoning the Burkean tradition in framing social policy, how will Republicans be able to seperate themselves from fiscally conservative Democrats? The simple answer is that what works in California for Republicans cannot work for Republicans nation-wide. As much as I would like to see the incorporation of the libertarians consistantly in GOP voting blocs, the GOP cannot afford to give up its hold on the NASCAR dads or the "solid South" by abandoning a semi-solid social conservatism. As 2000 showed, the best policy for the Republicans is to have a conservative position on these social issues, but not to make it a point to emphasize it (e.g., Bush's position on the divisive issue of abortion during the 2000 campaign).

Incorporating homosexuals in Republican voting blocs is very possible, but only over a course of time, whereas the loss of a voting bloc can be immediate. Let's say, for example, that in a national election the Republican Presidential candidate catered to the homosexual vote by supporting gay marriage. Would it be more likely that homosexual voters would leave the Democratic bastion that they call home to vote for an otherwise conservative candidate or would Southern religious whites abandon the Republican Party in support of third-party candidates like Pat Buchanan or other religious right-wingers? It is, in my mind, invariably more likely that the later will happen. That is why Republican candidates for national office must insist on integrating voting blocs, but only AFTER they are elected. After President Bush is elected to a second term, he should very carefully and gradually open the GOP's arms to the homosexuals that academics like Sullivan want to intergrate- with certain emphasis on gradually.

Right now, though, the conserative philosophy still has a defensable answer to Sullivan's call for gay marraige. All of this rests on the positive belief still held by many conservatives that homosexuality is a choice. Assuming that sexual orientation is a choice, abeit a choice made at a very early age, conservatives can rationally oppose integrating homosexuality in the list of suspect classifications. To conservatives, giving homosexuality suspect classification is like giving suspect classification to blondes or brunettes. Gay marriage, then, is disallowed as a punishment for choosing a behavior. If you knew gays couldn't get married would all gays who consider being gay do so? Perhaps, but then when they do still choose to be gay, certainly they don't have a rational basis for opposing the penalty actually being applied.

If Bush or other politicans over the course of the next several years can tack away at the belief that sexual orientation is a choice, conservatives will move closer to embracing the gay voting bloc as Sullivan wishes. This process, because of electoral politics cannot happen overnight, however.

Posted by Adam Groves @ 02:16 PM EST [Permalink - No Comments]

Tuesday, October 7, 2003

The Official Bush Campaign Blog Has Arrived
The Bush 04 online team finally got around to adding an official campaign blog. The official blog has a lot of cool features, including syndicate options for the whole blog or individual categories (although some people call it "a mess.") The official blog joins two other unofficial ones that have been up for some time. Kevin Patrick runs Bush-Cheney 2004 blog and a team of bloggers, including me, was drafted by Josh McClain to start Bush Blog.

So far there have been positive reactions to the Blog, although, Chris Wage comments on Alpha Patriot:

I see they don't have comments turned on. That's a shame.

Other commentators on the Bush-Cheney 2004 echo. I almost have to agree in principle, although big blogs like Andrew Sullivan and Instapundit don't allow comments. Glenn Reynolds points out at Blogger.con:

I think there's a critical level after which comments don't work very well--it deteriorates into a chat board or UseNet.

Kevin McGehee would agree with that, but seems to think that it is critical to have comments allowed in order to be considered a blog at all. I disagree with the last part for the reasons stated above- namely that big name blogs disallow comments as well and commentary does not define a weblog. However, Howard Dean's blog allows commentary and regularly gets over 200 a post. This is an issue that Blog for America, in fact, blasts Bush on.

Looking at the comments in that very thread, though, you quickly see that allowing comments allows for all kinds of conspiracy theorists and ad-hominem throwing lunes to vent, none of which will be germane to the issue developed in the post. Case and point (and still keeping it germane):

I don't know why anyone would expect a fascist like Bush to allow uncensored comments in his pseudo-blog.
-From Comments on Dean for America entry

For a criticism of the blog from the left, Vince makes a few good points, one I think can be remedied, even though comments will likely stay disallowed- the informal nature of posting from a "GeorgeWBush.com" user account. I agree with Vince, it's impersonal to say the least. Assuming that you had a group of people blogging, why do they have one account? For one thing, if it is neccessary to have a central authority in the campaign approve all the blog content posted, why have a blog, why not just stick to news?

A blog makes sense for more than one blogger. Then it logically follows that they each should have seperate accounts and thus be able to develop seperate personas, much like NRO's blog. Still, I applaud the Bush-Cheney 04 online team for making it a point to bring a blog online, even if it was only in response to the criticism of the Blogger.con liberals.

Posted by Adam Groves @ 12:12 PM EST [Permalink - No Comments]