We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Sunday, February 19. 2012
What if it's all bullshit? The Judge lets it rip, American-style. He did get fired, but this might not be why. h/t, Moonbattery:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I never agreed with the Democrats, but over the last decade I've found myself agreeing with Republicans less and less. At this point, I am a Libertarian and the Republicans better convince me they deserve my vote.
I'm going to miss the Judge - common sense, an open mind, and honesty are a dangerous combination.
Correct me if I'm wrong (as I often am) but it is my understanding he wasn't fired; this particular show was cancelled due to low viewership. He still works there. Taking a theme from this clip, what if people are claiming he got fired just to get others to stop watching Fox?
I believe you're right, Talnik. He says he'll still be working at Fox in some yet-to-be-disclosed role.
In fact, he's asked his fans to stop sending angry e-mails to Fox about the end of Freedom Watch.
I pointed that out on a less mature blog and got eviscerated, excommunicated, derided, figuratively spat on, thumbed down, hung in effigy, etc etc...if all those people watched the Judge's show it wouldn't have been cancelled.
I left the Republican Party in 2003. Bush's spending, his increasingly large government intervention, and the Patriot Act were just too much for me.
I can never be a Democrat.
I have perceived very little difference between the parties in the last 15 years or so. The Republicans are preferable, but not desirable.
Okay, but if you vote for the Republicans only because they are NOT the Democrats, the Republicans will never have any incentive to be a true alternative to the Democrats. Isn't that what the Republicans are counting on? Isn't that what the Judge was saying? Sometimes it may be worth destroying a political party in order to save a nation. I can survive another 4 years of Obama. The Republican Party perhaps cannot. If they lose the coming Presidential election, I hope they will not be around for the following one. Too many of us Conservatives have given up on these "Democrat-lites" and will be looking to a new party. Four years is enough time to build a welcoming home for increasingly disaffected Conservatives.
Who said I voted Republican?
I may in this election, simply because Obama MUST go. He is far worse than even Romney, who I am not fond of, but I believe he has a better grasp of what's going on that the fellow posing as a president.
Generally, I've voted Libertarian, or some other third party, depending on the election, and depending on the candidate.
Voted for Christie to get rid of Corzine, though. Glad I did. He's no Libertarian, but he's better than the (soon to be jailed) alternative.
Republicans (generally) are preferable. But they are not desirable. Now they have become unacceptable.
After some span of time enduring a mix of undesirable or antagonistic policies, each person reaches their moral or economic limit. Then integrity requires protest, non-validation, and counterattack. The concentration of power goes in one direction. We may reach revolution at different times, but eventually change will be delivered upon us all.
Like my good friend Bulldog, I've been saying that for years.
There is no practical difference between the establishment Democrats and the establishment Republicans.
None - zero - zip - nada.
I will give Ron Paul credit for being different. Then again, he's not that much different to make a difference - he too can be bought.
I agree with that, Bulldog. And so does Warren Meyer - at his Coyote blog, he calls them the Coke Party and the Pepsi party.
I think that's as good a description of their differences as you're likely to find.
Then I suppose the Libertarians would be the Heroin Party, given their insistence on access to illegal drugs.
Technically they wouldn't be illegal any more. They would just be regular old drugs for adults to use or not.
--access to illegal drugs can't be given to anybody --everybody already has it. Name a county and a contraband drug that you would bet $100 i couldn't get within 24 hours. Naw, the libertarians would be more aptly named the 'food stamps for the mafia' party.
I don't see any interest on the part of the state to involve itself in the decision of free citizens and their choice of intoxicants. I do have concerns about anti-criminalizing drugs. The largest is that in a competitive marketplace the producers will improve their technologies, distribution, packaging, marketing and effectiveness of their product; resulting in significantly lower cost and higher "quality" product for their customers.
But I balance that concern against throwing people in jail for the crime of growing, distributing and using marijuana, for example, and I know which side of the equation I come down on.
I think it would be sensible to experiment with what might happen by de-criminalizing marijuana. I have a great deal of faith in a free people that are allowed to profit and suffer from their decisions.
So, yes, I would not be in favor of legalization unless there were real consequences for abuse of intoxicants. I would not allow, for example, addicts to get social security disability.
Part of the Libertarian view on this (and, technically on immigration) is that government handouts are part of the problem.
As long as we have them, I agree - users should have no government 'benefits'.
Preferably, we shouldn't have them at all. When the government gives stuff away, setting the terms by which they can be collected is difficult and ever expanding.
A friend of mine, when I stipulated a similar concept about users losing welfare, said "how could you do that to a user's child?"
I replied "I'm not doing anything to his/her child. He/she is doing it. It's not my fault the user has made poor choices. Poor choices must have difficult consequences. Perhaps the child should no longer be with the parent."
My friend, a health care worker, replied "what if they are a good parent?"
And this is where the argument breaks down. In the Progressive world, everything is relative. You can be a drug abuser and a good parent at the same time.
My father, a surgeon, and I go round and round on this. He recognizes that outlawing drugs has done little to diminish their use. Yet, for some odd reason, he feels keeping them illegal serves a benefit.
At the same time, he admits Prohibition was a massive failure. He doesn't see the parallels with drugs.
I work with many people who smoke pot. I do not, haven't since college. I'll admit to what I do, and pot is it. Nothing harder. I know many people who have done cocaine, quaaludes, ecstasy, and various other drugs. Several good friends are now recovering alcoholics or drug abusers. Others just used drugs (or still do) and function quite well.
What's the difference between the recovering folks and the ones still using? Aside from the fact that one group is still using and the other is not - nothing. Both are high functioning, though I give the recovering folks a better shot at long term survival simply because they have made a healthier choice.
Either way, I can't and won't judge these people. I used to, then realized the futility of it. Making something illegal only makes them outlaws. Technically, it made me a criminal for a period of time.
At what cost?
Thousands of lives lost in the 'war' on drugs, millions spent to 'stop the flow of drugs', and a lost tax base due to black markets. The proliferation of automatic weapons as gang use grows due to the illegal nature and high reward to risk ratio.
Drug use cannot and will not ever be stopped. Jailing users or dealers cannot stop the flow.
Even William F. Buckley realized the war on drugs is unwinnable, and legalization is the best option.
--but there IS a difference in the parties --only the Dems house that hard left wing of communists.
Communists are dangerous people --their credo is organization and the plan beats no-plan often enough that it's the way to bet, if it's on the table.
The great thing about communists is that their plans fail fast. The Socialists and middle-left Republicans can fail slowly for decades.
Well-put, but can't bet on it bearing good results: Stalin, the NoKo lineage, Mao, Castro --in fact the commie dictators who died (or will) peaceably in bed after long careers are damn near the whole commie dictator first-string.
Fact to be reckoned with: they fail fast, but often it doesn't matter, the word 'fail' applying as it does to the wrong side of that 'people and govt' equation (Cubans brutally silenced and dirt poor, Castro rich and famous --but which one is "Cuba"?).
Key factor: the secret police, how good they are.
Intuitively, our march into omni-comms world is gonna augment the dictators rather than we-the-people, in relative terms where that question is.
Conclusion: kill it in the crib, or --well, if the crew of Nostromo had speared the baby alien with a dinner fork as he popped out of John Hurt's chest, then Americans wouldn't all be Sigourney Weaver flame-throwing shadows in terror trying to get to the escape pod with the scuttling klaxon whooping and the alien slithering after her grinnin' like a Chicago cheshire cat.
I can think of three third-party runs that changed the outcome --Teddy Roosevelt's Bullmoose Party lost but did manage to elect Woodrow Wilson --and kick off the Progressive Era (and those Amendments which suck the life out of us). Then Perot's 19%, two-thirds of which came out of GHW Bush and thus with 43% elected the near-demonic Clinton, and we don't know yet but may have put an end to the country, and then there's Nader's few percent, which may have cost Gore the election --and prevented the ruin-the-republicans financial skullduggery (which natch probably got way out of hand on the perps), which gave us something we probably would not have ever seen, something worse even than Gore's likely putrid nonsense, that being what we have now, the Little Radical Anti-American Red White House occupied by something entirely new to our experience: a president of whom we can't be certain is not plotting, and perhaps executing, an end to America's very sovereignty.
I voted for Perot as a California resident in '94. I resented Bush for the S&L bailouts and raising taxes. If he had a chance of winning CA, I might have voted differently, but he wrote it off early.
Perot didn't win that election for Clinton, Bush did.
--right --or God did, or human nature, or destiny. Metaphysics however are not the categorical imperative in the world of numbers --arithmetic is.
Agent Cooper, you may survive another 4 years of Obama, but will the nation you want to live in survive it. I think not.
Sometimes the lesser of two evils is way, way lesser, and the greater is deadly.
In your opinion, the Rs are way lesser. I respect your opinion, but I do not share it. The more the Ds move to the Left, the more room the Rs feel they have to move along with them....just trailing behind so as not to alienate the entire R political base. The Rs are WILLINGLY allowing the Ds to set a liberal course for both parties, instead of setting off on their own conservative path to victory.
As the Judge implied, both parties hope to profit if they are not too different from each another. It's for the same reason that, according to marketing theory for example, two restaurants have a better chance BOTH will survive if they are located near one another rather than separated across town. If diners are forced to make a choice to drive to just one or the other of them, eventually one of those restaurants is likely to go out of business. The idea is, better to be safe to serve another meal than to take a chance and go belly up. In decision theory (or operations research) that's called minimizing your maximum regret.
Well, that sort of thinking might be OK for a restauranteur, but it's not what I expect from a political party that aspires to run my government. If that's the way the Rs want to frame their campaign and political platform, I'll either dine at home or seek out another, more courageous eatery, no matter how far I have to drive, thank you very much.
The Constitution is a dead letter. The regime in Washington, all of it, executive, legislature, courts, all political parties, bureaucrats, military, police, everyone, is lawless and illegitimate.
Elections are pointless and cannot change anything. And that is exactly the goal of everyone in Washington. Everyone.
Prohibition I gave us permanent organized crime (Capone to Kennedy, the smuggling, money laundering, shadow govt structures just switched profit lines after repeal). Repeal cut off the booze contraband cash flow, but the capital amassed was already in the system, buying baubles like Las Vegas and Bank of America, and countless cash-drawer commercial enterprises and the politicians that come with the territory.
The original paid-in (to the shadow system) capital --untaxed, unmoored, unknown, lightning-fast as a tool --amassed by the date of repeal was a function of time, of the duration of Prohibition I.
So, to say that prohibition was useless and a waste of time is to miss the point by a mile. If P1 was a 'schooling' then the tuition was you had to catch cancer.
PS, needless to say, if Prohibition II (the War on Drugs) is qualitatively no different than P1 (and if it's not, can anyone say why?), then we're into quantity here --how much bad money, how much time, what weight of shadow tips society-and-the-problem into society-the-problem, and --what then?
We could ask old King Canute.
Judge, why the "what if" in front of things which are all true, and obviously true?
If the judge isn't Ron Paul's running mate, he ought to be.
Update: The other reasons Fox fired the Judge.
You won't hear me say this often, but this needs to be forwarded far and wide while we still can.