Ron Paul with high school students
Old people. They ramble. They are so afraid that we didn't get it the first time. 
Thinking back to my own high school years, I probably understood as little of what Democrats and Republicans stand for as one student did (or at least her question wondering how Ron Paul could be a Republican suggests that she has been fed heavily biased information about what core Republican values are—and what Democrats actually do).
He seems fine for a man tortured less than a minute ago
And he sounds rather insincere. If what he went through was really as horrible as he insinuated it was, how did he recover so quickly? He sounds more like a man who already made up his mind about how he was going to represent waterboarding and went through the motions. After all, the sergeant said that average was 14 seconds—a man who actually put his reputation on the line that waterboarding isn't torture (I don't know who this man is, but at least that's the impression I got from the video) is going to at least beat the average—unless he's a chicken.
And how did the water get into his nose? Wasn't the sergeant holding his nose as he was pouring water in? So if mouth is the only point of entry, and no one's holding his mouth open (I forget whether it was supposed to be forced open in enhanced interrogations), couldn't this wuss hold his breath for 7 seconds?
And really, my point is that he recovered too quickly. I've dived the wrong way into the pool a few times before and got water forced through my nose—when it's really bad, it takes more than a minute to recover properly—properly enough to talk. Blowing the nose once doesn't quite do it.
Anyways. I don't think I ever denied that waterboarding is a torture—for some definition of torture. But then, there's the waterboarding kind of torture. And there's the pulling out your fingernails one by one kind of torture, or even cutting your finger off one by one, or murdering your family and raping your wife in front of you kind of "torture". The word "torture" covers so wide a range that to call an act torture is to conflate a relatively benign interrogation technique and truly damaging, irreversible acts of sadism.
United States inconveniences a terrorist for 15 seconds in order to save lives. Terrorists cut off fingers of innocents to terrorize more innocents. Do you see the difference? Apparently liberals do not.
Why Democrats lose the intellectual argument
Just look at this debate:
Ann Coulter, whom the liberal media caricatures as a screaming maniac, offers far more reasoned, fact-based argument than her opponent. I don't know who it is, but he's an idiot: he brings up wedges (Alberto Gonzalez, whom Coulter did not mention) with no merit, and his main argument is this: "As a Democrat, ... I was choking up to see, an African American president of United States with the first Hispanic woman to the supreme court, it was quite a moment."
Well, I'm sure it was quite a moment. So is also seeing deers come out in the mountains or lions frolicking with rabbits. What does have anything to do with whether one is qualified as a judge or president? Being Black didn't make Obama any more or less qualified to be president (being a liberal statist, however, in my opinion, made him disqualified from the start to hold the office Washington, who voluntarily gave up power in an age when revolutions were convenient excuse for dictators like Robespierre or Napoleon, once held). Being a Hispanic woman with terrible hair style doesn't make her any more or less qualified to interpret the Constitution—but being a liberal activist judge who holds her own opinion in higher regard than the written law of the land might.
BTW, I should note that this liberal (other than that he looks like Lex Luther, I really have no idea who it is)'s emotionally charged statement comes after a second or two of trying to counter Coulter's argument rationally. Guess why? It's because the accusation Coulter makes, that statement claiming being a Latina woman makes her better qualified is racist on its face, cannot countered by any reasoned argument, just as no logical argument can counter my claim that "1 + 1" is "2" with the conventionally defined addition operator, and with the usual definition of "is" that everyone but liberals use.
And as statists are apt to do, when reason fails, they fall back on emotion. After all, that's the entire basis of communism, that because they feel like it, the worthless peasants who work the land should own the land—whether they have the ability to manage it or not.
We *did* have 7 years of peace
(via HotAir.com; I had wrong link here ... and I can't seem to find the link again) "You are getting sleepy ... "
As we can see in a quick look through Wikipedia (which is as reliable and complete as any source as far as notable past events go) shows, we haven't had any successful acts of terrorism in U.S. since 2001. After the 9/11, the anthrax incident (2001) is the only one I see in the list with actual casualties.
Historically speaking (although data is lacking, since rise of terrorism in the absence of foreign occupation (which is more a guerrilla warfare than terrorism) had only 50 years or so to take hold), 7 years is as long a spell as we can expect in the modern times. Before 9/11, we had just counting what Wikipedia considers notable (after WWII):
- Unabomber attacks starting in 1978
- 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing
- 1996 Centennial Olympic Park Bombing
and if you look through this page, incidents with smaller casualties dot the 70s and 80s. So historically, one decade is as long as you can expect to go without acts of terrorism in U.S. And with the greater intensity of terrorism in the 90s and after (I suppose, associated with the failed peace in the Middle East), it's amazing that we went for 7 years without terrorism.
This is more remarkable if you are willing to forgo conspiracy theories and trust the government press release: Since 2001, no fewer than 7 separate plots of terrorism involving specific targets have been stopped.
I suppose the question is, will this record continue during Obama's term or will the worst fears of Republicans come true during the term of the nation's first Arab president?
P.S. Of course, in the big picture, I don't think these small acts of terrorism are much of a threat: more people die in preventable car accidents every year anyway. These insignificant acts and plots are important only to the extent that they may help thwart bigger plots involving bigger explosives (maybe even nuclear) and bigger targets. But it's the principle of things that matter: we can't let enemies of America think that they can attack America with impunity, just because they don't have a standing army.
This is probably why Ron Paul doesn't support Fair Tax
because the arguments can be easily usurped by statists and liberals to institute a sales tax in addition to once-unconstitutional income tax:
A White House official said a VAT is “unlikely to be in the mix” as a means to pay for health-care reform. “While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers,” said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag…
Libertarians and conservatives should be working for lower overall tax. A revenue-neutral alternative taxing scheme does no good and is likely to be overtaken by ambitious statists as additional revenue source, rather than alternative. We should be working for cutting overall income and expenditure of the government.
Libertarianism has a strong basis (and indeed makes strongest arguments in) in sound economics. And any student of economics knows that when you levy tax on a particular group (for example, suppliers, as opposed to consumers), the effect of the tax doesn't simply affect that group—the laws of economics spreads out its effect so that everyone pays for a portion. A classic example in first-semester economics is how elasticity of demand and supply, not who nominally pays for the tax, determines the eventual share of the tax burden. A concrete example would be tax on gasoline. The government could impose tax on gasoline suppliers and sellers and claim there is no tax on consumers, i.e. voters. But, the gasoline suppliers can't just absorb the cost of new tax: in order to protect their profit margin and stay in business, they have to pass on the cost to the consumers through higher price. That higher price represents the portion of the new tax effectively paid by consumers, and what determines that portion is the slope of the demand curve ("elasticity") in the supply-and-demand curve, which is in turn determined by how many people can afford to pay higher price or afford not to buy gas because of higher price—i.e. laws of nature as concrete as that in physics, not the whims of some bureaucrat.
I'm not economics professor (or even econ major), but I am fairly sure similar mechanism exists in overall economy. If you tax only the richest 1% in a "revenue-neutral" fashion, I am fairly sure that the effect of the tax will trickle down so that the rest of the population ends up bearing their "fair share" eventually. What the government can effect is nominally who pays for the tax—but the laws of nature decide how the tax is actually distributed.
So, it doesn't matter whether we tax sales or income, at least in the grand scheme of things—it does matter in terms of what behavior you incentivize, but as a libertarian, I find it repulsive that the government should be deliberately giving economic incentives to people (i.e. micromanage their behavior) in the first place—what matters is that we tax less, regardless of how it's done.
Because really, robbery is robbery whether it's done at the ATM or at the grocery store. What matters is that the government robs less from her people.
Mansfield Flag Controversy Draws Worldwide Outrage
CBS reports (found via HotAir.com):
Debbie McLucas is one of four hospital supervisors at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield. Last week, she hung a three-by-five foot American flag in the office she shares with the other supervisors.
When McLucas came to work Friday, her boss told her another supervisor had found her flag offensive. ... McLucas said the supervisor who complained has been in the United States for 14 years and is formerly from Africa. McLucas said that supervisor took down the flag herself.
Well, I'm glad that no one has yet complained about my flag at my desk. It's a small, ordinary one, but it has some sentimental value for me, and I would hate to have to take it down.
I wonder: would that supervisor have found it more acceptable if that flag on display was burning, rather than just hanging majestically?
If you are a Californian, don't vote Democrat
Even if you like big government programs, government interventions and regulation, and you think government is run by angels.
It's because California is so blue that it has no clout at all despite the size of its population and economy:
Oh my: No bailout for California, says White House
Not yet, anyway. I’m surprised, but only because the thought of The One declining a request for free taxpayer money seems unfathomable, like Santa telling a kid he really is getting coal in his stocking this year. Santa doesn’t do that.
Of course, Santa doesn’t have to run for reelection either. Given that voters nationally oppose a California bailout by a margin of 35 points and that California’s likely to stay blue in 2012 no matter what happens, this is actually a no-brainer.
Of course, as a libertarian, this politically-motivated action of Obama's is exactly what I want him to do. I don't want federal government intervention in anything—unless it's absolutely necessary and constitutional (such as declaring war and defending our borders).
But even statists can agree that California voting overwelmingly for Democrats is not good for the state. Squeaky wheel gets the grease (or, as the lingo goes, pork). Voting Democrat is bad for statists (because it leaves this blue state with less political power). Voting Democrat is bad for libertarians (because it puts one more liberal (from one of the most liberal states) representative or senator in the Congress).
In fact, voting Democrat is bad for everyone but Democrats (and even that's probably doubtful, except for perhaps Democratic politician running for office).
Why anyone who genuinely loves freedom must not call himself a "liberal"
Because the label "liberal" is as honest as the name "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", or the PATRIOT act.
On HotAir.com:
From the Left, former Crossfire host Michael Kinsley schools his progressive pals:
Miss California's views on gay marriage have nothing to do with her qualifications for the job and shouldn't disqualify her for it.
This is really Liberalism 101, and it's amazing that so many liberals don't get it.
"Liberal" these days stand for whatever the leaders of Democratic party decides it is—never mind the freedom, "liberty", after which the label was given in the first place.
This is why when I say "liberal" these days, I curl my lips, roll my eyes, and distort my face. I need some kind of physical distortion to match the distortion the word has gone through.
If you are really hard-working, why do you work for meager government salaries?
No. Really. So you are hard-working, and any employer will be happy to have you. Why would you work for someone who doesn't appreciate you (the government) who constantly threatens to cut your job? Why don't you go get a real job?
That's because you are not hard-working. "Hard-working" and strike is incompatible. If you are really hard-working, you don't need to strike—you will just quit and work elsewhere.
This is yet another argument against the public school system. Public school system nourishes and sustains cancers like the teachers' union. Sometimes, the only way to kill the cancer is by cutting away some of the healthy tissue with it. Support private schools (by cutting tax so that taxpayers can use that money to pay their children's tuition instead). Kill public schools. (Yes, Department of "Education", you are next.)
Democratic party to be renamed Democratic National Socialist Party?
The initial name-changing resolution had drawn criticism from Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. Other party leaders called the idea “stupid” and “absurd,” saying it made Republicans look petty during a troubling time for the nation…
David Norcross, a committeeman from New Jersey, said it was a bid to raise awareness of the Democratic agenda so that Americans can be “properly fearful.”…
At one point during informal discussions of the name change, some attending the meeting of state party leaders and other party officials said the proposed name might also include the label “nationalist.” But Bopp said including “nationalist” was never proposed.
Hm. That reminds me of another famous national socialist party, which was supposedly led by an effective orator like Obama. Come to think of it, didn't this other national socialist party back some auto company too?
Historical similarities aside, this is why we must limit government powers. Governments can do terrible, terrible, unspeakable things, like the Holocaust (either of the Jews in Europe or the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki). For all the supposed "evils" of pure capitalism, give me one capitalist who committed such atrocities. In fact, at least off the top of my head, all well-known capitalists, even the most cut-throat, unscrupulous capitalist became a magnanimous philanthropist in their later years. Compare that to the governments—the final years of any government is marked by corruption, tyranny, and, since the 20th century, totalitarianism.
Is there any doubt which is the "lesser evil" (if not an angel of God himself)?