Right Thinking From The Left Coast
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them - Isaac Asimov

Friday, October 31, 2008

We’re Winning!  Waaaaaah!

What the hell is wrong with liberals?!  They are on the verge of the biggest left-wing victory in American history and all they can do is whine.  I’ve heard a lot of “we’re going to lose!” bitching from my left-wing friends and from online sources.  But this is the best:

It seems that the final days of the presidential campaign have made Erica Jong and her friends more than a little anxious.

A few days ago, Jong, the author and self-described feminist, gave an interview to the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, the choicest bits of which were brought to my attention by the reliably sharp-eyed Christian Rocca, the U.S. correspondent of Il Foglio, who published excerpts on his Camillo blog. Basically, Jong says her fear that Obama might lose the election has developed into an “obsession. A paralyzing terror. An anxious fever that keeps you awake at night.” She also says that her friends Jane Fonda and Naomi Wolf are extremely worried that Obama will be sabotaged by Republican dirty tricks, and that if an Obama loss indeed comes to pass, the result will be a second American Civil War.

Here’s a translation of Jong’s more spirited quotes to the Milan-based Corriere, as selected by Rocca.

“The record shows that voting machines in America are rigged.”

“My friends Ken Follett and Susan Cheever are extremely worried. Naomi Wolf calls me every day. Yesterday, Jane Fonda sent me an email to tell me that she cried all night and can’t cure her ailing back for all the stress that has reduces her to a bundle of nerves.”

“My back is also suffering from spasms, so much so that I had to see an acupuncturist and get prescriptions for Valium.”

“After having stolen the last two elections, the Republican Mafia…”

“If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it’s not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets.”

“Bush has transformed America into a police state, from torture to the imprisonment of reporters, to the Patriot Act.”

I’m with Coates.  Read it carefully.  Invert the political alliance and you have a message for the future GOP.

Here is the thing. I believe in competition. John Kerry wasn’t swift-boated--he was beaten by a superior campaign. I guess Al Gore lost because of Nader and the Supreme Court. But why was it ever even that close? What is the use of being a Southern senator when you can’t carry a single state in the South? I mean no disrespect to any of those guys, I really don’t. But this notion that mystical and nefarious forces deprived them from claiming what was rightly theirs is odious and self-serving.

No one has conspired to deprive us of power over the past few decades. The American people aren’t stupid. We’ve sucked at articulating our message. If you have any interest in a more progressive country, we need to be honest. At the presidential level, at least, conservatives have hammered us. Give them their due. Don’t blame Rush. Don’t blame Kristol. Don’t denigrate states you’ve never visited. Give them their due. Give them their respect. Study them, and then get better.

I disagree with him that the Dems problem has been “articulating the message”. We heard the message loud and clear and wanted no part of it (as Obama will discover about six minutes into his Presidency).  All that’s changed is that the Republican Party began to echo the Democrat message and exceed it in their actions.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 10/31/08 at 06:45 PM in Election 2008  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Happy Pagan Ritual Day

In case I forgot to mention it, I hope everyone had a safe and scary Halloween:

Happy Free Candy Night!

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 10/31/08 at 06:22 PM in Fun and Humor  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Tell It To The Tubes

Denial must be something that Alaska politicians are taught in law school, or wherever:

“I’ve not been convicted yet,” Stevens said Thursday in a meeting with the editorial board of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. “There’s not a black mark by my name yet, until the appeal is over and I am finally convicted, if that happens. If that happens, of course I’ll do what’s right for Alaska and for the Senate. ... I don’t anticipate it happening, and until it happens I do not have a black mark.”

Stevens reiterated that position during a televised debate late Thursday night, declaring early in the give-and-take with Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, “I have not been convicted of anything.”

The only thing scarier than the thought of Robert Byrd being third in line of succession is that this moron once had the post.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 10/31/08 at 05:55 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

End Game

Team McCain is saying the polls are crap, which is the last desperate scream of a campaign.  If you want to know what’s really happening, check out Quinn’s report on the stark difference between the campaigns’ ground games:

These ground campaigns do not bear any relationship to one another. One side has something in the neighborhood of five million volunteers all assigned to very clear and specific pieces of the operation, and the other seems to have something like a thousand volunteers scattered throughout the country. Jon Tester’s 2006 Senate race in Montana had more volunteers—by a mile—than John McCain’s 2006 presidential campaign.

When Republican volunteers talk to us about how much enthusiasm and participation they notice in fellow volunteers, they mention how many people have come to pick up yard signs or bumper stickers. We haven’t yet seen a single Republican canvasser. (The one in Cortez, CO was staged; she said canvassing is the kind of thing she would do, and we made a decision to do the picture because we were concerned with not presenting “balance.” There is no balance in the facts.)

I’m in Texas, a state which is drawing slightly less electoral attention than Namibia.  I’m curious to hear if this story jibes with what our readers in battleground states are seeing.  It would not surprise me.  Obama’s Texas Primary campaign was extremely visible and well-organized.  That tends to happen when people with nothing better to do (e.g., students) are drawn to your campaign.  But is the McCain campaign really this desultory?

Posted by Hal_10000 on 10/31/08 at 03:41 PM in Election 2008  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

I Don’t Want Your Civil War

In case you hadn’t noticed, lately there seems to be a civil war among conservative commentators. Nowhere has this been more evident than at The National Review, where cranks and crackpots seem to be driving away the realists. As Michael Weiss puts it:

Frum’s latest adult intervention into the playpen that is NRO’s Corner blog is to defend the excellent Ann Applebaum. A Thatcherite conservative with an independent cast of mind, Applebaum wrote a column for Slate in which she explained why she couldn’t in good conscience vote for John McCain this year. She did not technically endorse Barack Obama, but just being anti-McCain was enough to tweak the epigones of William F. Buckley, some of whom were even more strongly anti-McCain when Mitt Romney was still a nationally saleable dreamboat. 


Has the tradition of Burke and Chambers really degenerated into such hands?  Buckley, of whom I’m a lesser admirer than most of the so-called “Obamacons,” could at least keep lifelong friendships with liberals such as Murray Kempton and John Kenneth Galbraith. And Robert Conquest, I have it on excellent authority, was quite the gentleman to Susan Sontag when they were first introduced. (The author of The Great Terror, who fired a rifle on behalf of the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, once lived in Europe, too.)

I’m under no illusion that an Obama administration will usher in a period of American “healing.” The politics of polarization has always been with us, and it’s in no danger of expiring in the Age of Blogorrhea. But how sad that those paid to do the hard thinking about the future of conservatism should all rush to prove that they’ve got the intellects of four-year-olds, and the temperaments of Comintern agents.

Emotion has been the main driving force for the True Believers who see starbursts coming out of Sarah Palin’s rear end. The collapse of conservative intellectualism has mirrored that of the Republican Party’s integrity. The David Frums of the world have been sounding the warning bells of the coming Dark Age of conservatism. Like Midieval monks, it may be up to them to preserve the writings of William F. Buckley and George Will for future generations. For the moment, though, it looks like the barbarians are at the keyboards.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 10/31/08 at 03:20 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

The Sliding Scale

McCain hits Obama on the creeping definition of rich:

I think the basic problem here is that Obama has absolutely no intention of cutting anyone’s taxes.  That makes it difficult to keep track of the what fictitious threshold of “rich” he’s using this week.

Update: Bill Richardson is down to $120k.  Do I hear 100?

Posted by Hal_10000 on 10/31/08 at 03:13 PM in Election 2008  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

It’s All About the Judges

One of the last arguments being pulled out in support of McCain is that “it’s all about the judges”.  Obama, apparently, is going to appoint a bunch of radical leftists to the Court who will overturn our entire Constitution.

That may be.  I somehow doubt he’s going to appoint anyone really radical.  My feeling is that his appointees would be more along the lines of Stevens—liberal but not crazy.  But even if he does appoint Bill Ayers or something, here is the current age distribution of the Court against ideology:

Conservative—Roberts (53), Scalia (72), Thomas (60), Alito (58)
Moderate - Kennedy (72)
Liberal - Stevens (88), Souter (69), Ginsberg (75), Breyer (70)

The two oldest judges on the court are liberals (and Ginsberg, in particular, is looking frail).  The three youngest judges are conservative.  The average conservative age is 60.8; the average liberal age is 75.5.  Even if Obama is in for eight years, he is most likely to replace two liberal judges on the Court.  And even if one of the conservatives were to be in a tragic blimp accident, that would shift the court to being as radically crazy liberal as it was during the Rhenquist years.

The idea that Obama is going to leave us with a Burger-style radical liberal Court is frankly hyperbolic.  Unless the entire Court is wiped out during a meth-fueled orgy, Obama will, at most, shift the court somewhat to the left.  True, the Court won’t become more conservative.  But considering how conservative is defined these days—a unitary executive, untrammeled federal power, the suspension of habeas—that’s fine with me.

This is one meme I have grown increasingly tired of.  Every election, we are told that the other guy is going to appoint Satan to the Supreme Court.  We are going to lose abortion freedom, lose free speech, be imprisoned in gulags, have our guns taken away, allow terrorists to walk the streets and set all the murderers loose from prison.  I’m sick of it.  I’m probably not going to be happy with the judges Obama will appoint.  But it’s not going to be the end of the world.

Calm the fuck down, people.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 10/31/08 at 08:56 AM in Election 2008  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Pray To The Money God

Fundamentalist wingnuts want the Lord to save the economy.

God is judging the ideologies of nations. He is moving to put the fear of the Lord not only on His church; but upon the nations of the world. 

For these and other reasons Cindy is calling for a Day of Prayer for the World’s Economies on Wednesday, October 29, 2008. They are calling for prayer for the stock markets, banks, and financial institutions of the world on the date the stock market crashed in 1929. They are meeting at the New York Stock Exchange, the Federal Reserve Bank, and its 12 principal branches around the US that day. 

“We are going to intercede at the site of the statue of the bull on Wall Street to ask God to begin a shift from the bull and bear markets to what we feel will be the ‘Lion’s Market,’ or God’s control over the economic systems,” she said.  “While we do not have the full revelation of all this will entail, we do know that without intercession, economies will crumble.”

Cindy is encouraging prayer groups to intercede for banks and financial institutions in your area. Cindy says each of us has to be accountable to the Lord.

Here’s a picture of the acolytes in action (Hat tip: Wonkette.):

There’s been no word on whether Sarah Palin’s preacher will attend future events to protect the bull from witchcraft.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 10/30/08 at 09:59 PM in Religion and Sky Pixies  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

In Defense of the Obamacons


Let me offer what is evidently a radical argument — identifying the candidate that best approximates your ideological beliefs is not sufficient reason to cast a presidential vote on his behalf. Yes, a conservative is naturally going to weigh a candidate’s adherence to conservatism very heavily, but not as an end in itself. The ultimate goal is to choose the candidate whose election most benefits the country, not the candidate whose beliefs most closely reflect your own.


This means weighing all sorts of factors that haven’t anything to do with ideology. Who is likely to be the better manager? Who will choose the best advisers? Whose vice-presidential pick is most prepared to take over should tragedy befall the president? Whose judgment is better on matters that have little to do with ideology? Whose temperment is best suited to the presidency? How is the world likely to react to each candidate? Is either candidate so corrupt as to be disqualifying? There are dozens more questions like these that have only the most tenuous tie, if any at all, to whether you are a liberal or a conservative (and that cut against both candidates in the current election). Or think of it this way. Whatever your ideology or party, you probably have a friend whose political views are very close to your own, but whose rise to the presidency would utterly terrify you. Imagine your friend was running against a very qualified nominee from the opposite ideology or party. For whom would you vote?

All else being equal, I’m inclined to vote for the candidate who believes in federalism and a limited federal government, who is wary of the unintended consequences of government intervention in markets, who seeks to maximize the autonomy of citizens to pursue happiness as they see fit, who has a reverence for the dictates of the constitution, who appreciates the danger the state can pose to liberty, who appreciates the way wisdom can embed itself in tradition, etc. etc. etc.

But all else is seldom equal.

I disagree with the Obamacons in many respects but I understand their thinking on this.  If you are convinced that McCain will be reckless President and that Sarah Palin is by no means qualified to take over in the event of tragedy, there is no possible way you can countenance a vote for them.  We went through this exercise eight years ago when we voted in a man who said all the right things and appeared to share our ideology yet turned out to be an incompetent intellectually vacant nincompoop.  The blazing incompetence of George W. Bush is the principle reason the country is in the shape it is right now.  All his conservative talk ended in ashes.

It’s no good having a President who agrees with you if he can’t execute the office.  In fact, as we’ve found out, it’s a detriment.  They poison the brand and cripple your political future.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 10/30/08 at 07:06 PM in Election 2008  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Keeping It In The Family

By now you’ve probably heard that Obama has more destitute relatives:

Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Mr Obama’s best-selling memoir Dreams from My Father, lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston.

A second relative believed to be the long-lost “Uncle Omar” described in the book was beaten by armed robbers with a “sawed-off rifle” while working in a corner shop in the Dorchester area of the city. He was later evicted from his one-bedroom flat for failing to pay $2,324.20 (£1,488) arrears, according to the Boston Housing Court.

Apparently this means that Obama is heartless, right? But I’m with Ann Althouse on this one:

Has Obama mistreated these relatives? They contributed nothing to his life when he was growing up. How much of your money do you hand over to relatives who make less than you? Is that a moral obligation? Is it even a kindness? Shouldn’t they have the incentive to take responsibility and work for themselves? In fact, we are not hearing them complain that Obama hasn’t helped them enough. They could bad-mouth him like mad right now, and they don’t. That means something.

And how do we even know that Obama hasn’t given them money or other assistance? I think it’s common courtesy, when you help your adult relatives financially, to keep it quiet.

I seem to remember from “Dreams From My Father” that Obama’s hugely numerous African relatives—some of them anyway—would shamelessly hit him up for money. I’d be happy to know he’s not a soft touch. I’d be happy to know that he expects individuals to work and look after themselves. Yes, he said “spread the wealth around,” but how does he mean to do it? It should cheer us to learn that he loathes handouts.

I’m sure that if Obama wins, there will be more long-lost relatives crawling out of the woodwork. I think it’s fairly obvious that Obama does care about those closest to him, such as his grandmother. Do distant relations or family members who were never a part of his life really deserve anything? Is Obama really being cruel, or just practicing common sense?

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 10/30/08 at 04:41 PM in Election 2008  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

The End Of Reform

This is good news for those who believe in free speech, and bad news for McCain and one of his major issues.

TALLAHASSEE - A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of a Florida law requiring groups to register with the state if they merely mention political issues or candidates in publications or other communications.

U.S. District Judge Stephan P. Mickle, in granting the preliminary injunction, wrote that “no court has ever upheld such a sweeping regulation of political speech.”

The “electioneering” law was challenged by the Broward Coalition of Condominium, Homeowners and Community Organizations, the National Taxpayers Union and the University of Florida’s College Libertarians.

“This is just a tremendous win for free speech in Florida,” said Bert Gall, a lawyer for the libertarian legal organization - Institute for Justice - that is representing the groups.

Mickle wrote that he believes Gall’s clients are “substantially likely to succeed in their claims” the law violates First Amendment guarantees of free speech.

“Florida’s electioneering communications laws regulate virtually all political speech about ballot issues and candidates,” Mickle wrote. “The Supreme Court has never recognized a compelling interest that allows such a wide-open regulation.”

What the liberals want to do with the Fairness Doctrine, campaign finance reform advocates have tried to do with free speech during elections. Money quote, from the Judge’s ruling:

The rights to speak and associate freely regarding issues of public concern are zealously guarded by the First Amendment. Unfettered and unregulated speech is the rule, not the exception. Just because a restriction is labeled as a restriction on campaign finance does not mean that it faces an easier path to constitutionality than a restriction outside that context.

The road to Hell, and all that. Kudos to the Judge for recognizing this.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 10/30/08 at 03:46 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

An Activist Scorned

Ralph Nader, the Charlie Brown of politics, wants to know why nobody’s paying any attention to him:

What journalistic criteria have you been employing in this presidential year that guides your pronounced non-coverage of the number three campaign that advances majoritarian agendas based on long experience, involvement, and accomplishment. These agendas are either opposed or ignored by McCain and Obama (see www.votenader.org) and are often rooted in the very investigative reports by your reporters?

It is puzzling how editors and publishers who oversee these prize winning stories seem to lose interest in covering Americans who are trying to do something with that information for a better country.

We asked one top editor of a major daily why his paper was not covering us at all and he said, “Because you can’t win.” Besides being a catch-22 that he quickly acknowledged, that is not a supportable newsworthy judgment. News Media have covered many stories outside the electoral arena of people “who can’t win” and such coverage extends to both the import of the struggles and the reasons why “winning is not possible” given the stacked deck against them.

I’m sorry, Ralph, but it’s not the media’s fault you’re irrelevant.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 10/30/08 at 03:30 PM in Election 2008  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Obamanomics 101

Why the economic crisis would help Obama:

Our economics troubles do provide all the excuse in the world to justify any and all spending increases by calling them stimulus. The fallout from the credit catastrophe is really a blessing for a future Obama administration since it helps it avoid making any hard choices.  Of course, it also kind of chucks away the party’s hard earned reputation a deficit fighters (though much of that was from slashing defense spending—as Obama may also do). So long, Clintonomics!

Well, it’s an open question on how Clinton would have handled something like today’s meltdown. There’s no question that the Democrats are chomping at the bit to cut loose if Obama wins. But there’s also no question that he will have had plenty of inspiration from his Republican predecessors. The truth is, Clintonomics died long before Obama came along.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 10/30/08 at 03:10 PM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

McCain on The Roots

From George Will:

Palin may be an inveterate simplifier; McCain has a history of reducing controversies to cartoons. A Republican financial expert recalls attending a dinner with McCain for the purpose of discussing with him domestic and international financial complexities that clearly did not fascinate the senator. As the dinner ended, McCain’s question for his briefer was: “So, who is the villain?”

McCain revived a familiar villain—“huge amounts” of political money—when Barack Obama announced that he had received contributions of $150 million in September. “The dam is broken,” said McCain, whose constitutional carelessness involves wanting to multiply impediments to people who want to participate in politics by contributing to candidates—people such as the 632,000 first-time givers to Obama in September.

Why is it virtuous to erect a dam of laws to impede the flow of contributions by which citizens exercise their First Amendment right to political expression? “We’re now going to see,” McCain warned, “huge amounts of money coming into political campaigns, and we know history tells us that always leads to scandal.” The supposedly inevitable scandal, which supposedly justifies preemptive government restrictions on Americans’ freedom to fund the dissemination of political ideas they favor, presumably is that Obama will be pressured to give favors to his September givers. The contributions by the new givers that month averaged $86.

Here’s the thing.  One of McCain’s signature accomplishments was the Incumbent Re-Election Act McCain–Feingold Act.  We were told that we had to give up our right to, for example, run issues ads within 60 days of an election in order to clean up the political process.

How’d that work out?  Politics is clean now, right?  No scandals or corruption?  Nothing like, say, the most senior Republican senator in history going to prison?  The special interests have been completely neutered, no?


Well, in his defense, it did get a lot of media plaudits.  To the GOP these days, that’s about as successful as policy gets.

I was a big supporter of McCain earlier this year because I liked his judgement on foreign policy and saw him as a true fiscal conservative.  But it’s becoming clearer and clearer that McCain’s positions, while overlapping with many of my own, are not the product of careful thought.  They’re reactions, gut instincts.  Whatever you think of Barack Obama (or Ron Paul), it’s remarkable that he’s raising so much money from such a broad base of small contributors.  I don’t like it, per se.  I worry that this is going to simply lead to even more populist pandering.  But it’s certainly not something I believe in cracking down on.

But here is McCain’s thinking:  Money!  Scandal!  Off with their heads!  We saw the same thing with his VP pick: woman, social conservative, bulldog—how about that chick from Alaska I met once?  We saw it with his reaction to the financial crisis:  Ban short selling!  Fire Cox!  Throw money at it!  And before that in the Russia-Georgia situation.

Instinct is a dangerous way of governing, as we’ve discovered over the last eight years.  We have no idea what dangers are going to confront this country in the future.  We do know they will require someone who approaches them thoughtfully, not instinctively.  I’m not saying that Barack Obama is that person—his careful deliberate thought seems to always end up in the same far left place.  But I’m increasingly convinced that McCain is the wrong person for this, that his instinctive need to find a simple solution and identify easy villains is a poor way for country to proceed—and an even worse way for the GOP to build a future.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 10/30/08 at 09:57 AM in Election 2008  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Question 2, Dude

A weird, albeit liberating, aspect of being a libertarian conservative is that the political sands shift under you.  It would be so much easier to just be a by-the-numbers Republican.  I wouldn’t have to think about the issues.  All I would need to know is which side of, for example, Mass’s Question 2 George Soros is on and vote accordingly.

In August pollsters at Boston’s Suffolk University said Question 2, a Massachusetts ballot initiative that would replace criminal penalties for possession of up to an ounce of marijuana with a $100 civil fine, “appears all but certain to pass,” with support from 72 percent of registered voters. “The public may be signaling that pursuing small-time marijuana users is a waste of taxpayer resources,” said David Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “This issue suggests that there is a libertarian streak in the thinking of Massachusetts voters.” Last week the same pollsters found support for the measure had shrunk to 51 percent, with 32 percent of voters opposed (up from 22 percent in August). Maybe Massachusetts voters have become less libertarian in the last two months.

Or maybe, as NORML’s Paul Armentano suggests, they’ve been paying too much attention to the cops and prosecutors behind the Coalition for Safe Streets. The group’s radio ads play up the role of “international financier” George Soros in funding the initiative; allege that the failure to arrest pot smokers would “send children the message that drug use is safe and acceptable” and “make it easier for kids to get behind the wheel of a car after smoking marijuana”; and warn of “unsafe roads, increased health care costs, more crime, [and] more problems with addiction.” The coalition claims “it’s just common sense,” which I guess is why it sees no need to offer any actual arguments connecting these outcomes to the passage of Question 2.

You know, we don’t send people to prison for smoking cigarettes (yet), but have managed to drastically cut smoking by emphasizing how stupid it it and restricting where people can smoke.  Ending alcohol prohibition didn’t fill the streets with drunks.  What is it about pot? Do we really think that the only reason our streets and schools aren’t filled with zoned-out potheads is because we’re tossing people in jail?  Really?! OK, if you say so.

Here’s the fun part:

To back up its assertion that decriminalizing possession (but not sale) of less than an ounce of marijuana would result in “newly emboldened drug dealers,” the coalition claims, “One ounce of marijuana has a street value of $600 and equates to approximately 60 individual sales.” If that price estimate is based on the district attorneys’ own shopping experiences, they are either connoisseurs or suckers. The estimate for the number of sales also seems to be based on an extreme assumption: that pot is sold one joint at a time. I suppose you could say everyone with an ounce of marijuana is a potential pot dealer, in the same sense that everyone with three packs of cigarettes is a potential tobacconist. More to the point, what are these pot sellers going to be “newly emboldened” to do? Sell pot, presumably. To willing buyers. Who aren’t hurting anything but the sensibilities of the reformed pot smokers at the Coalition for Safe Streets.

I’ve never smoked pot in my life but even I know that their figures are bullshit.  The potheads I know simply don’t have $600 to throw around.

Update: The Coalition for Safe Street’s website is here.  Look at their opening statement.  Barack Obama has promised free healthcare to the person who identifies the most falsifiable hysterical claims.

Update: In other pot news, Michigan is trying to legalize medical marijuana.  The Drug Czar is campaigning against it (under a special dispensation from the Hatch Act).  Watch the video on Balko’s site.  Tell me you don’t finish wanting to strangle Walters with his own sanctimoniousness.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 10/30/08 at 08:44 AM in Politics  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink
Page 1 of 16 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »