Category Archives: Argument

UPDATED (May 7, 2021): GOP Tit-For-Tat Twits

Argument, Barack Obama, Democrats, Feminism, Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Reason, Republicans

No, the president does not have to weigh in on sexual scandals. Why should he? (Besides, Obama seems a bit of a prude. That’s good.) If you objected to Obama’s sermon on Trayvon (I did), but think he should weigh in on Weiner, on what grounds do you deny him his Trayvon intervention? I like it when the president puts a lid on it.

The empaneled bimbos on Fox News—where do they find such dumb women? CNN?—have been outshouting each other to protest the president’s silence on the sexual transgressions of The Weiner and the possible criminal misconduct of The Filner.

The arguments the Democratic and Republican factions advance exist on a continuum. There is no qualitative difference between them. Right now, both Republican and Democratic women seem to agree that everyone, including the president, has to be in full-throated protest mode about those who violate the “isms” in the manual of political correctness.

True individualists would never even dignify the category of “sexual harassment.” Touching someone as Filner did without consent is an assault. It doesn’t matter if the assaulted is man, woman, or someone in-between.

But Republicans are as dazed and confused as the rival gang, reducing wrong-doing to these PC “isms,” and partaking in the silly tit-for-tat: “No, you’re a sexist, I’m not. No, Democrats are racists; we’re the party of Lincoln.” Blah-blah. Pathetic.

Republicans have now turned around and are using the “sexism” and war on women bugbear to try and gain a political advantage. Ridiculous. How ridiculous? Silly enough to make JAY CARNEY that broken clock that is right twice a day:

I understand the allure of issues like this in the media, but it is not what — and I do understand it, and I’m not being critical of it. But I’m saying that the President believes his job is not to comment on those issues, …

UPDATE (8/3/013): Huge concession to Fred Cummins, on Facebook: OK, Fred, most, not all, the women on Fox are terribly dense, loud bimbos. I’ve documented that extensively. Exceptions? Gretta on Fox and EMac on Fox Biz, as well as Gerri Willis and Melissa Francis. I’m not far off.

Prior Restraint Arguments As Pretex To Watch YOU

Argument, Constitution, Homeland Security, Individual Rights, Intelligence, Law, Liberty, Rights, Socialism, Terrorism, The State

If we accept state aggression based on prior restraint arguments, then aggress we must ad absurdum. Why not stop all statists from procreating, lest they sire proponents of state theft and aggression? Such a program would at least be in furtherance of liberty. (And we could all do with fewer Meghan McCains.)

Prior restraint arguments are being galvanized as justification for nation-wide information sweeps conducted by the state for over a decade. Another cow, “Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to be preventing this sort of overreaching,” said “that the authorities need this information in case someone might become a terrorist in the future.”

It is quite telling that the story about the “NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily” was broken by Glenn Greenwald (an American) writing for The Guardian (British).

Most serious libertarians have been shouting about state snooping from the rooftops for over a decade. Now you’re listening! I already told you weeks back that there was absolutely nothing new about state snooping.

Via The Guardian:

Under the Bush administration, officials in security agencies had disclosed to reporters the large-scale collection of call records data by the NSA, but this is the first time significant and top-secret documents have revealed the continuation of the practice on a massive scale under President Obama.
The unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is extremely unusual. Fisa court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific named target who is suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets.
The Guardian approached the National Security Agency, the White House and the Department of Justice for comment in advance of publication on Wednesday. All declined. The agencies were also offered the opportunity to raise specific security concerns regarding the publication of the court order.
The court order expressly bars Verizon from disclosing to the public either the existence of the FBI’s request for its customers’ records, or the court order itself.
“We decline comment,” said Ed McFadden, a Washington-based Verizon spokesman.

(I believe “Entertainment Interruptus,” published on November 28, 2001, was my first column touching on the The Patriot Act.)

Liberty Fund Conference

Argument, Britain, Classical Liberalism, Free Speech, Ilana Mercer, Liberty, Political Economy, Political Philosophy

I was fortunate to be asked to attend a Liberty Fund colloquium entitled “History, Citizenship and Patriotism in Liberal Democracy.” Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. The Foundation develops, supervises, and finances its own educational activities to foster thought and encourage discourse on enduring issues pertaining to liberty.”

In the idyllic and breathtaking setting of the Ockenden Manor in Cuckfield, West Sussex, England, I got to exchange ideas with some of the finest scholars in Britain (and the U.S., considering the dynamic presence of Liberty Fund’s representative). Oxbridge at its best. The intimate format—only fifteen people partook—was not only conducive to the exploration of ideas, but to the formations of, I hope, enduring friendships. The lovely English countryside and Elizabethan Manor house (to say nothing of the gourmet food with which we were plied) provided the perfect backdrop to what was a most exhilarating event.