VD on the V Factor

Feminism, Gender, Literature, Political Correctness

My colleague Vox Day has this to say about “the Silly Sex”

“…This reminds me of my favorite game with female writers. From the time their first column appears, count the number of columns they write before mentioning their children, (if they have one), their husband/boyfriend, (if they have one), or their cat (if they lack the aforementioned accoutrements, they’ll DEFINITELY have one).

The Over/Under is usually around four. A woman who can resist referencing her personal life for more than ten columns will often turn to be very good, while you know it’s going to be a short and ugly run when she’s working in references to her ‘life-partner’ with whom she shares Moggsy and Mr. Tiddles, in the very first one.”

Another signal to head for the hills is the double-barreled surname; that’s usually a give-away: you don’t want to read the stuff penned by a woman by the name of, say, Pamela Kester-Shelton.

High Priests of Pomposity Pan Ron Paul

Elections 2008, libertarianism, Ron Paul

“What are the odds that Rep. Paul’s followers have come to the philosophy of freedom through Reason Magazine? Is it remotely possible that the passionate soldiers of the Paul Army enlisted after chancing upon a dispassionate, desiccated, dry-as-dust disquisition on a free market in kidneys (I’m all for it)? I think not…

Picture a Venn diagram. The overlap between the Paul and the Postrel solitudes is invisible to the naked eye. Only in the atrophying attics of mainstream intelligentsia and media does Postrel’s stuff resonate.

Ron’s Revolutionaries have coalesced around the illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional invasion of Iraq, against America’s hegemonic overreach, and for a sovereign, less “cosmopolitan,” America.

Beltway libertarians, conversely, are moved in mysterious ways by gaping borders, gay marriage, multiculturalism, cloning, and all else “cool and cosmopolitan…”

In “High Priests of Pomposity Pan Ron Paul” you can read why “the Reason Magazine and Cato Institute claque,” as well as others “in the atrophying attics of mainstream intelligentsia and media,” don’t count much in the Ron Paul Revolution.

Derb’s Da Man Part 2

Elections 2008, Ron Paul

Here’s Part One of John Derbyshire’s odyssey.

I agree entirely with what Derb has to say today at The Corner:

“I take the naïve point of view that you support the candidate whose principles are closest to your own, and whose record suggests sufficiently strong will to stick to those principles, and sufficient ability to act on them. Since Paul is promoting a passive style of federal government — i.e. masterly inaction, leaving the country to run itself so far as possible — the last doesn’t really apply. On the second, Paul’s record is hard to beat for consistency (though the standard here is a political one, i.e. low). And on the candidate debates I’ve watched, or read transcripts of, Paul is the one I most agree with. I can’t see that I need justify myself any further than that.

If I can’t get a Paul-Thompson ticket, I’ll settle for Thompson-Paul, or even Thompson-Giuliani. When a dysfunctional federal government generates systemic problems, though — and there are some doozies just over the horizon — you need systemic solutions. I believe that in current circumstances, that means a withdrawal of federal power from areas where it never had any proper business being, and a return to a strict reading of the federal Constitution. I see the same belief in Paul. I don’t see it Fred.”

Ron Paul: ‘No More Student Visas from Terrorist Nations’

Classical Liberalism, Elections 2008, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Ron Paul

The Paul immigration ad stated, “No more student visas from terrorist nations.” For this, these same dubious libertarians hysterically condemned him for being a collectivist—he had blanketed certain nations rather than address on merit each and every individual seeking a visa. There we go again.
A clear thinker remains wedded to reality. Libertarians who pride themselves on levitating forever between their theory as to what the world ought to be like and what it is like are anything but clear thinkers.

Policy by definition addresses the collective, not the individual. Duly, the reality-based libertarian will seek to minimize political overreach, not reach for the political Promised Land. Immigration policy by its very nature targets broad categories of individuals: educated as opposed uneducated; law-abiding versus outlaws; healthy, not unhealthy.

The idea that a presidential candidate with a libertarian sensibility—remember, Paul is running as a Republican, not as a Libertarian—must support only policies that treat each and every immigrating individual on his merits is ludicrous, although it allows the lazy libertarian his theoretical purity.

The notion that by saying to a Saudi national “Sorry, you’ll have to study in Riyadh,” one is violating his individual rights is positively stupid.

Back on terra firma a “highly selective immigration policy” can act as “an effective, non-aggressive tactic against terrorism … the perfect complement to a peaceful foreign policy.”