You See, Mr. Paul, History Does Not Support Scientific Experiments

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

The Australian reports that

RUSSIA seized today a consignment of the radioactive isotope Sodium-22 at a Moscow airport from a passenger who was to travel on a flight to Tehran, the customs service said.
“Tests showed that the Sodium-22 could only have been obtained as the result of the work of a nuclear reactor,” it said in a statement. “A criminal inquiry has been opened and the materials transferred to prosecutors.”

Sodium 22 is not recommended as a dietary supplement:

22Na is a positron-emitting isotope with a remarkably long half-life. It is used to create test-objects and point-sources for Positron emission tomography.

So the argument may be that Iran has legitimate medical interest. Yet, back to The Australian:

Moscow has echoed Western concerns about the nature of the Iranian nuclear program but stopped short of publicly accusing Tehran of seeking atomic weapons and always said that the standoff should be solved by diplomacy.
Experts have long called for tight controls against nuclear smuggling so that Iran cannot get ahold of materials it is barred from obtaining under UN Security Council sanctions.

The point of the sanctions is to put peaceful international pressure on Iran to be a nicer kid on the international playground. Maybe, Mr. Paul, if you understand that Tehran plays the bully in the Middle East the way the Federal Reserve pushes everyone around with respect to the currency, you might grasp that political liberty is as crucial as economic liberty. Yet you’re stuck in Neville Chamberlain mode, sadly. Even though what you say about the overall peacefulness of the Iranian people is very probably true, that assertion does not seem to hold for the Iranian leadership.

Here’s the 2012 rub, Ron: if it was a laboratory setting, it might be of interest to see if your approach would work, where Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter failed, failed, failed. But it’s not. History is a one shot deal. And you can go all Sermon on the Mount in your personal life, where I truly appreciate the foundations of your ideas. Yet, the Almighty constrains neither free will, nor the capacity for evil implied by that free will.

  • Nobody wants to see a dirty bomb employed.
  • Nobody wants the stress of dealing with the threat of a dirty bomb employment.
  • Crucially, the majority of Americans are going to vote against your strange comfort level with the previous two points.

Update: American Power think Paul is unserious.

Update II: A thorough Paul review at The Pirate’s Cove.

via Zero Hedge

Santorum Iowa Ad: ‘Join the Fight’

Posted on Comments

Last night’s final debate in Sioux City was probably the best yet for Rick Santorum, says Bryan Preston of PJ Media, noting that the former Pennsylvania senator “showed very solid instincts on a range of issues” — as he has all along. There has been no “drama,” no flip-flopping from Santorum, and he has gotten relatively little media attention while carrying his “consistent conservative” message to all 99 Iowa counties. Now at long last, his fundraising boosted by praise from Sarah Palin and others, Santorum has released his first Iowa TV ad:

ABC News reports:

The voice over narrates over quotes from Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Mike Huckabee praising Santorum and even a quote from rival Newt Gingrich lauding Santorum’s Iran policy.
On Wednesday, the former Pennsylvania senator bragged that he was running the leanest of the GOP presidential campaign. . . .
Santorum has been barnstorming the state for months hoping hard work will pay off on Jan. 3, but going on the air will undoubtedly help.

Santorum campaign press release has the transcript:

He’s Rick Santorum.
A loving husband, a devoted father, homeschooler and a man of deep faith.
He wrote the law that banned partial birth abortions.
Overhauled America’s welfare system.
And no one has done more to protect America from Iran’s growing threat than Rick Santorum.
It’s no wonder Palin, Beck and Huckabee are singing his praises.
Now it’s your turn to join the fight.

Meanwhile, a new pro-Santorum “Super PAC” — the Red, White and Blue Fund — has spent a reported $200,000 to air this ad in Iowa:

We all agree Obama’s reckless agenda must be stopped.
But who is the true conservative you can really trust?
Rick Santorum.
He’s fought for conservative values his whole life.
Father, husband a champion for life.
A visionary that saw and understands the threat of radical Islam.
And a proven reformer who took on Washington and won.
Rick Santorum.
Finally a true conservative we can trust.

Permit a necessary digression here: A donnybrook has erupted among some conservatives, typified by Rush Limbaugh’s remarks yesterday about “establishment Republicans [who] are dumping all over Newt Gingrich.” If you read that, you’ll note that El Rushbo also takes on the unexpectedly strong showing by “wacko nut job” Ron Paul. And Limbaugh takes on National Review, which also got a sharp retort from another leading conservative:

Brent Bozell, the nephew of conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr., who founded National Review magazine in 1955, and whose father, Leo Brent Bozell, collaborated with Buckley for many years at NR, today dismissed the magazine as having lost the identity forged for it by its founder.
“National Review’s endorsement of Romney & Huntsman proves only that this is no longer the magazine of William F. Buckley Jr.”

But while “movement conservatives” like Limbaugh and Bozell fight the NR punks who have declared war on Gingrich, everyone seems to be united in their opposition to the Ron Paul surge. A conservative friend yesterday e-mailed me a link to an American Spectator item yesterday in which Jeffrey Lord brought up the controversy about the old Ron Paul newsletters and what Lord calls “the and-oh-by-the-way-pay-no-attention-to-all that-anti-Semitic-stuff that trails the Paul candidacy like the little cloud of dirt that used to follow the Peanuts cartoon character Pigpen around.”

Also, Ace notes en passant, Ron Paul is endorsed by Andrew Sullivan.

Need we say more? While I have lamented the anti-Paul crusade, arguing for an effort “to engage the more decent and rational Paulistas” on behalf of a united front against Democratic Party liberalism, I lack the influence necessary to broker such a peace. (For example, having long ago called for Rich Lowry’s ouster from National Review, I could never be published there until Jonah Goldberg finally decides to lead the uprising against the decadent Lowry regime, a long-overdue revolution.) So the internecine war rages on and the question must be asked:

Why not Rick Santorum?

Look, if you’re a “movement conservative” who hates Ron Paul, who is more diametrically opposed to Paulism than Santorum? He’s the pro-Israel neocon warmonger your mother (if your mother is a Paulista) warned you about. By comparison to Santorum, Bibi Netanyahu is a dhimmi pacifist.

OK, he sometimes seems a bit of a scold on the social issues. One of my friends has used the word “sanctimonious” to describe Santorum’s mien in previous debates. But while other Republicans can be accused of unprincipled and insincere pandering to social conservatives, Santorum is a man who argues for the pro-life, pro-family agenda out of sincere religious conviction. He’s a cradle Catholic, a father of seven, married to the same woman for 21 years and (unlike a certain other candidate whom we need not name) there has never been a hint of scandal attached to Santorum’s name. Tina Korbe at Hot Air expresses the mystery:

The Santorum phenomenon is a perplexing one. For, as the ad suggests, Santorum has betrayed conservatism on far fewer occasions than either of the two current frontrunners. . . .
I have to admit, a surprisingly stellar finish in Iowa from Santorum would sit far better with me than, say, a win from Ron Paul and probably Newt Gingrich, too.

The only reason why some leading conservative spokesmen have not backed Santorum, I would suggest, is that they’re afraid to back an underdog. They look at the poll numbers and say to themselves, “Well, I don’t want to embarrass myself by backing a loser.” This is an argument to which I have already made my own reply, borrowing a youthful oration from the future Senator Joseph Blutarsky:

Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! … And it ain’t over now. ‘Cause when the goin’ gets tough… The tough get goin’! Who’s with me? Let’s go! …
What the f— happened to the Delta I used to know? Where’s the spirit? Where’s the guts, huh? This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you’re gonna let it be the worst. “Ooh, we’re afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble.” Well just kiss my a– from now on! Not me! I’m not gonna take this.

“Where’s the spirit? Where’s the guts, huh?”

You may say it’s hopeless, that a candidate running a low-budget campaign with single-digit poll numbers cannot, with just 18 days to go before the Jan. 3 caucuses, suddenly surge ahead to win Iowa. And why not? Because “we’re afraid to go with you Bluto.”

All it would take is a few minutes of careful praise from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin — maybe they could contact the Santorum campaign and do on-air interviews with the candidate — to light the fuse on a powder keg that could explode all the predictions of the pundits and pollsters in Iowa.

You, the ordinary “civilian” reader of this blog, are probably saying to yourself: “But that’s not going to happen.”

And why not? Because “we’re afraid to go with you Bluto.”

Can’t you e-mail this post to Rush, Sean and Mark? Can’t you post it on Facebook, send it out on Twitter, circulate it by e-mail to your friends? Yes — yes, you could do that.

As I said during the 2009 Doug Hoffman campaign, the key thing is this: “Stop asking what you can do, and start doing what you can.”

You can “join the fight” for Rick Santorum right now.

RICK SANTORUM
‘NO SURRENDER’
MONEY BOMB

 
RECENTLY:

LIVE AT FIVEEIGHT – 12.16.11

Posted on Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


TOP NEWS
Christopher Hitchens, 1949-2011: RIP

"The prospect of death makes me sober, objective"

Noted contrarian, atheist abandoned the Left for conservatism; leaves behind wife, three children

House Passes Continuing Resolution
Bill includes repeal of incandescent light bulb ban

Gingrich Talks About Fines, Marriage, Outsider Status
Stands firm on ethics charges, homosexuality



POLITICS
Rivals Pounce On Gingrich At Last Iowa Debate

Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul

Reuters names Michele Bachmann as the former Speaker’s “main adversary”

Feds Accuse Sheriff Joe Of Racial Profiling

Coal Industry Comes Out Firing Against New EPA Rules

WikiLeaks Hearing Starts Today

Rick Perry Hopes To Be Tim Tebow Of Iowa Caucuses

Hollywood-Backed Web Piracy Act Faces More Debate In House

Medal Of Honor Recipient Drops Lawsuit As Marine Corps Defends Citation



THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Morgan Stanley To Cut 1600 Jobs
Zynga Raises $1 Billion, Pricing IPO At Top Of Range
Stock Futures Signal Higher Open For Equities
Governor Of France’s Central Bank Takes Swipe At UK Economy
Dollar, Yen Weaken As Signs Of U.S. Growth Damp Safety Bids; Aussie Gains
Labor Market Notches Gains
Encana Calls BS On EPA Fracking Study
The Indian Rupee Is An Abandoned Child
Facebook’s Timeline Is Here: Users Have Seven Days To Edit Profiles
Amazon Selling Over 1 Million Kindles A Week
Dell Axes Netbooks To Focus On Ultrabooks
Google’s Siri Clone To Be Named “Majel” In Trek Homage



SPORTS
Ryan & Abraham Lead Falcons To 41-14 Rout Of Jaguars

Falcons WR Roddy White celebrates his TD with RB Jason Snelling

Atlanta clinches fourth straight winning season

Flyers Win 7th Straight, Beat Habs 4-3

HBO Thanks Heavens For Bryz

Hot Blues Steal The Show

Billups Silent, But Blake Griffin Likes Clippers’ Moves

USC’s Matt Kalil Will Enter NFL Draft

After Lethargic Start, Missouri Runs Record To 10-0

Bears’ WR Hurd Arrested On Drug Charges

Predators 4, Red Wings 3



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Courtney Love Evicted From Her NYC Townhouse

The Widow Cobain

Behind on rent, altered interior without permission, accidental fire in the bedroom…yeah, model tenant!

Rebecca Black Is Google’s #1 Search For 2011

Baba Wawa Rips Noted Attention Whore: “You Have No Talent!”

Jenifer Aniston (Sort Of) Admits To Using Injectables

ABC Cancels “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”

“Thor 2” Star Natalie Portman Furious Over Director’s Departure


Sister Showdown! Kate v. Rooney

Jay-Z Joins Beyonce’s Pregnancy Diet

“America’s Got Talent” Stars React to Addition Of Howard Stern

Britney Spears Not Marrying Until Lawsuits Are Settled



FOREIGNERS
Japan Says Stricken Fukushima Daiichi Nuke Plant In Cold Shutdown
Iraqi Government Supporters Rally In Baghdad Against Iranian Exiles
Putin’s Polls Plummet To Year’s Lowest Point
Syrian Troops Fire At Protesters After Prayers
France Sentences “Carlos The Jackal” To Another Life Term
Hooch Tragedy: Chief Minister Announces CID Inquiry
PRC To Require Microbloggers To Use Real Names
David Cameron Was Right, And Now Has The Allies To Prove It



BLOGS & STUFF
Ed Driscoll: RIP Christopher Hitchens, 1949-2011
American Spectator: A Santorum Surge Or A Jindal Jig?
Allahpundit: Confirmed – Newt’s Numbers Starting To Sink
Riehl World View: Ron Paul Can’t Withstand The Scrutiny Of Being A Front-Runner
Ed Morrissey: Can Ron Paul Win?
Lonely Conservative: Porkulus Now Part Of Baseline Budget
Weasel Zippers: Allen West Says Goebbels Would Be Proud Of The Democrat Party
Via Meadia: Class Warfare Collapse – Americans Not Divided By Class
Rob Long: Nikki Endorses Mitt
Big Government: Obama Panics Over Ryan-Wyden Medicare Reform
Daily Pundit: The Eternal Boobshow
Iowahawk: Is This Hell? No, It’s Iowa


SOTD: 40 Boys In 40 Nights

Christopher Hitchens, R.I.P.

Posted on Comments

A brilliant mind:

Christopher Hitchens, a slashing polemicist in the tradition of Thomas Paine and George Orwell who trained his sights on targets as various as Henry Kissinger, the British monarchy and Mother Teresa, wrote a best-seller attacking religious belief, and dismayed his former comrades on the left by enthusiastically supporting the American-led war in Iraq, died Thursday at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. He was 62.
The cause was pneumonia, a complication of esophageal cancer, said the magazine Vanity Fair, which announced the death.

Christopher Hitchens could tell a joke better than anyone I’ve ever met. I saw him do a stand-up routine at a benefit for the “PlameGate Two” in 2007 and nearly busted a gut laughing. It was not merely the jokes themselves that made me laugh so much. Rather, it was the way he delivered them.

So when I encountered Hitch at a Reason magazine happy hour near Dupont Circle later that year, I insisted that he tell some more jokes. He agreed to do this, so long as I kept the whiskey coming. He preferred Johnny Walker, but I can’t remember whether it was black or red label. At any rate, as long as I was buying the whiskey, Hitch kept telling jokes, and he went on for more than an hour, to the great amusement of myself and several friends.

Hitchens was a notorious atheist, alas. But he could tell a joke.

UPDATE: Joy McCann has an aggregation and her own thoughts:

This one is very, very hard; I’m trying to remember the last time I cried at the death of a public figure.

Emotion is useless. We will miss them in their absence — never another chance to trade whiskey for jokes — but we ought to remember their lives more than we mourn their deaths.

UPDATE II: Ace knew Hitchens, too:

He was 62. When I saw him a few years ago . . . he acted as if he was 25.

Indeed, from his fondness for ribald jokes to his iconclastic mockery, Hitchens was eternally the prankish schoolboy.

UPDATE III: Michelle Malkin offers some very personal memories and adds:

His writings on Muslim jihadists, Islamic rage boy syndrome, and sharia law were especially compelling — and his fearless work on those topics was cited here numerous times over the years.

The Vanity Fair obit aptly calls him a “bon vivant”:

At the end, Hitchens was more engaged, relentless, hilarious, observant, and intelligent than just about everyone else — just as he had been for the last four decades.

It is important to note that Hitchens was not one of these sit-at-home-and-snark writers, but was a world-traveling reporter.

A. Because She’s a Slut

Posted on Comments

Q. Why does a woman get the “Brazilian wax”?

Full pubic hair removal, according to Herbenick’s studies, is most common among sexually active women . . . who are not in monogamous relationships.

Like pierced bellybuttons and tattoos, this is a trend popular with hussies, harlots, trollops, tramps, vamps, floozies and whores.

That article was linked by Professor Glenn Reynolds, who can’t be judgmental like that, because it would probably be a civil rights violation or something. He’d have the entire UT Womyn’s Studies Department picketing his office if he dared express disapprobation of  “sexually active women . . . who are not in monogamous relationships.”

And they don’t call ’em “Volunteers” for nothing. IYKWIMAITYD.

The fine Southeastern Conference tradition of trash-talking one’s football opponents — 37-6, Roll Tide! — certainly extends to the opponent’s womenfolk. For example, everybody in Tuscaloosa knows why Auburn installed artificial turf at Jordan-Hare Stadium: To prevent the homecoming queen from grazing.

By similar token, while I don’t want to say that all Tennessee coeds are wantonly promiscuous, there are certain words you can’t spell without “UT,” among them “slut” and “put out.”

Do Tennessee fans take umbrage at such ribald putdowns? Of course they do — and that’s exactly my point. If promiscuity did not inspire an instinctive moral horror, then there would be no offense in saying that UT coeds put out like Pez dispensers.

Contrary to feminist dogma, the stigma attached to “sexually active women . . . who are not in monogamous relationships” isn’t a learned response inculcated by The Patriarchy, but rather a reflection of our innate sense that such behavior is contrary to the social good.

Our basic sense of right and wrong can be ignored or suppressed — evil can and is “normalized” by our popular culture — but the moral sense can never be entirely eradicated. However much society tries to pretend that Good and Evil are not valid categories, our moral sense will find expression in some way.

The feminist campaign against “slut-shaming” is thus doomed to failure, because being a slut will always be a shameful thing, no matter how strenuously the political correctoids try to prevent us from saying so.

And if any feminist is offended by my saying so — good. You deserve to offended and often, and by someone who knows how.

UPDATE: Roxeanne De Luca asks the key question:

 Young women of the world: have you all gone mental?

Indeed. The insecurities on display — “Will the guy who picks me up in a bar be disgusted if I my nether regions are not ‘well-groomed’?” — are a perfect illustration of how sexual “liberation” has resulted in a new slavery: Women now groan under the yoke of sexual expectations created by pornographers.

SIOUX CITY IOWA DEBATE TONIGHT

Posted on Comments

Roundup:
Frank Luntz on the Hannity special edition:

Newt defined himeself as the Reagan conservative,
Mitt Romney, the private sector conservative,
Ron Paul, the civil liberties conservative,
Rick Santorum, the conviction conservative,
Jon Huntsman, the consistent conservative,
Michele Bachmann, the female conservative,
and my favorite is Rick Perry, the Tim Tebow conservative.

My ratings:

Rick Santorum: He sounded quite strong on foreign policy and all values.
Rick Perry: Perry sounded quite improved.
Mitt Romney: Really didn’t sound good on the internals of his Massachusetts tenure.
Newt Gingrich: Michele wrecked Newt on Freddy Mac.
Ron Paul: Ran aground in the Straights of Hormuz. I understood his reticence on judges, but the Progressive judges in the last century are as wrong as the Federal Reserve, Ron.
Michele Bachmann: She sounded calm and poised, and did the best job of going after Newt.
Jon Huntsman: A couple of good ideas. Should have served some Tea, but it’s too late.

Overall, I remain firmly committed to supporting the GOP candidate, plan to vote for Sarah Palin in the primaries, and hope that Newt, Mitt, Paul, and Jon don’t make it. I hope the ticket boils down to some combination of Santorum, Perry, and Bachmann.

22:55 p.m. ET (Smitty): Brett Baher: Rick Santorum, what about Reagan’s 11th Commandment?
Santorum: Vet the candidates.
Perry: Bring it.
Mitt: They’re nothing new. Focus on BHO.
Newt: I’ve rebutted attacks, but focused on solutions.
Paul: Let’s be responsible. We’re picking up the media slack. Focus on issues.
Michele: We’re exposing who can do the best against BHO.
Huntsman: Respectful debate breeds trust.

22:50 p.m. ET (Smitty): Chris Wallace: Michele Bachmann, what about pro life issues?
Bachmann: We. Must. Get. Life. Right. Gingrich didn’t defund Planned Parenthood when he had the chance.
Gingrich: Bachmann is daft. I have an overwhelming pro life record.
Bachmann: He’s supported partial birth abortion candidates.

22:46 p.m. ET (Smitty): Chris Wallace: Rick Santorum, what’s your take on Mitt’s response.
Santorum: Yeah, if you peak at the details, Governor Romney issued gay marriage licenses.
Wallace: Mitt?
Romney: No, I’m all about traditional marriage.

22:42 p.m. ET (Smitty): Chris Wallace: Mitt, do you like those Cafe Press flip flops?
Romney: My position on gay rights is missionary, and mercenary. I have been firmly pro-life all along.
Wallace: Are you sure that those flip-flops are a good fit?
Romney: Yes, do they make my toes look furry?

22:37 p.m. ET (Smitty): Chris Wallace: Huntsman, should the GOP pander to Hispanics?
Huntsman: We just need to be true to conservative values, but illegal immigration is down. Immigrants are an engine of growth.

22:38 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Newt, what say you?
Gingrich: I agree substantially with Mitt. But drop the anti-state lawsuits, remove federal aid to sanctuary cities, secure the border.

22:37 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Mitt, do you expect illegals to go home and get all their paperwork in order to return?
Mitt: I will give them a RomneyCard to keep them in line.

22:35 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Rick Santorum, is Holder correct that Republican’s are politicizing Fast and Furious?
Santorum: Cartels are training terrorists in Central- and South America. BHO wrong. Reset.

22:34 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Rick Perry, would you take Eric Holder’s scalp?
Rick Perry: I’d toss an attorney general such as holder under the bus like it’s my frickin’ job, Megyn.

22:28 p.m. ET (Smitty): Cavuto: Rick Perry, you’ve criticized Solyndra, but you signed a 2003 bill for a natural gas company.
Perry: today is the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, including the 10th Amendment. So I’m all about letting states be competitive.

22:26 p.m. ET (Smitty): Cavuto: Michele Bachmann was the BP shutdown Bogus Policy?
Bachmann: BHO did no real investigation. Keystone XL is really important, BTW. BHO’s calculus is about his re-election, not policy.

22:24 p.m. ET (Smitty): Cavuto: Should we love Gaia or jobs.
Huntsman: Balancing act. We’ve got to quit shooting oil like heroine. We need alternatives like natural gas.

22:23 p.m. ET (Smitty): Cavuto: Newt, should the GOP get Zany about the XL pipeline?
Newt: The POTUS should use the XL pipeline to crush the OPEC threat, not pander to Lefty environmentalists?
Cavuto: AFTQ.
Newt: Vote it in and break it off in #OccupyResoluteDesks booty.

22:20 p.m. ET (Smitty): Baher: Perry, should we throw cereal at Sryia?
Rick Perry: I’ve called for a no fly zone, and I will enumerate BHO foreign policy gaffes, and pray I don’t drop one.

22:17 p.m. ET (Smitty): Baher: Huntsman, what say you?
Huntsman: I want a foreign policy that is based upon a good economy.

22:16 p.m. ET (Smitty): Baher: Newt, can you quote something historical for us?
Newt: Yeah, Israel is under rocket attacks.

22:15 p.m. ET (Smitty): Baher: Paul, are you dangerous?
Ron Paul: I’m too broke to be dangerous. Wage peace, muffers. Declare war when you need to.
Bachmann: The IAEA report points out that this is a weak response.
Ron Paul: No UN Report says such. This is nothing in comparison to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Chill!

22:12 p.m. ET (Smitty): Baher: Michele Bachmann, we’re pulling out of Iraq today. Dangerously stupid, or stupidly dangerous?
Bachmann: I’ll go with fools and knaves for ignoring the Iranian plan. Ron Paul is dangerous.

22:09 p.m. ET (Smitty): Baher: Mitt Romney, was the President totally metrosexual to ask for the drone back from the Iranians?
Mitt Romney: Yeah, that was as limp wristed as it gets. American century. Peace through superior firepower, muffers.

22:07 p.m. ET (Smitty): Baher: Rick Santorum, Iran has been supplying terrorists against us. How are we responding.
Rick Santorum: Yeah, Iran has been at war with us. Sorry Ron, they hate us. We should go all Spec Ops on Iran with the Israelis.

10:04 p.m. ET (Smitty): Foreign Policy. Ron Paul. Iran may be a year off. Say you had solid intel about Iran. You’d remove sanctions?
Ron Paul: I’d run with the American people. I’ll play the UN card: they have no evidence on Iran. It’s another war buildup. I fear over-reaction.
Baher: Say you had solid intel. Still pull back sanctions.
Ron Paul: Hey man, sympathy for the devil. They just want respect. It makes more sense to work with people. No war.
Baher: One more time. Say they blockade Hormuz?
Ron Paul: Well, we’re teasing them into doing it. Sanctions are an overreach. We will launch doves.

Welcome, Instapundit readers!

9:58 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: who is the best justice?
The conservative justices get kudos. From all but Paul. Ron Paul likes/dislikes them all. He made the point of the split on personal liberty and economic liberty, and how the SCOTUS has screwed the whole discussion.

9:55 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Mitt Romney, you sure nominated a fistful of Dems when you were a governor. Whaddup?
Mitt: yeah, I had to play the game. Congressional oversight over justices is a dodgy idea. We can impeach judges. Tools exist already.

9:54 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Ron Paul, is this too much?
Ron Paul: let’s hold our horses. Might lead to trouble if the Congress goes judging judges.

9:51 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Michele Bachmann, should we trash the 9th Circuit?
Bachmann: we need to have the separation of powers restored. Go Iowa! for scuttling the 3 justices over the marriage issue. Original intent!

9:49 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn Kelly: Newt, your Court plan is really tough. Is it too much?
Gingrich: Newt.org has a paper about how we need to liquidate judges who attack American Exceptionalism. I will make the Judiciary lay by its dish. Historians may have a better grip on the picture than lawyers.

9:48 p.m. ET (Smitty): Mitt Romney: let the markets figure out where the jobs will grow. Manufacturing, high tech, and energy are it. I promise an American Century.

9:45 p.m. ET (Smitty): Rick Santorum, we need to let money return to the U.S. to rebuild industry. Cut corporate tax. I will snuff every BHO regulation with extreme prejudice.

9:43 p.m. ET (Smitty): Governor Huntsman, can you fix China? Sure, invite dissidents to dinner. Let’s share us some values.

9:42 p.m. ET (Smitty): Rick Perry goes after Newt Gingrich’s confusion on the difference between lobbying and influence. Part time Congress, like in Texas, balanced budget amendment.

9:41 p.m. ET (Smitty): Ron Paul sounded great on earmarks.

9:38 p.m. ET (Smitty): Newt, did you waffle on the ‘right wing social engineering’ bit on Press the Meat?
Gingrich: Look, I have to go all Reagan here to be a great communicator. I must kiss up to Mitt to get him to soak up some heat.
Romney: We’ve really got to do it for the kids.

9:35 p.m. ET (Smitty):
Ron, do you buy Newt’s noise?
Paul: GSE is neither fish nor fowl. This bunk leads to fascism.
Newt, what do you say?
Gingrich: Hey, lots of other people do the same thing, and it wasn’t lobbying.
Michele, are you smelling what Newt is stepping in?
Bachmann: Quite whiffy. He’s tainted.
Newt, can you refute?
Gingrich: I can slice the facts anyway you like.
Michele?
Bachann: He took 1.6 million.
Newt?
Gingrich: I did not have sex with the definition of ‘lobbyist’. And I will kill Fanny & Freddy if they are too politically painful.

9:29 p.m. ET (Smitty):
Newt, GSEs have lined your wallet, and you’ve supported them. Are you Michael Moore without a ballcap?
Gingrich: look at the full picture. I was in private enterprise. Habitat for Humanity. Love me.

9:28 p.m. ET (Smitty) DC Culture:
Mitt, are you vulnerable to charges of being a capitalist meanie?
Romney: it sucks if you were on the receiving end, but if you look at the bigger picture, we’re better under capitalism. How did BHO do as dictator of Government Motors?

9:20 p.m. ET (Smitty): 30 second government shutdown responses:
Santorum: Motivate people with a righteous narrative.
Perry: 3 years OJT, BHO AFU. Stupor committee is a leadership joke.
Mitt: If I could drive an 80% Dem legislature in Mass. Leadership, muffers: I speak it.
Newt: The Saul Alinksy leadership is killing us. I know better.
Paul:We’ve got to cut this Leviathan down.

9:12 p.m. ET (Smitty): Rick Perry: your debate stack-ups are of Indy 500 proportions. Perry: I will have Tebow coach me to victory.

9:11 p.m. ET (Smitty): Michele Bachmann: can you capture the cross-eyed twenty-something barista demographic? MB: why yes, if I can pick them up in Minn, then I can do it elsewhere.

9:10 p.m. ET (Smitty): Mitt and his hair serve up some hope and change. Mentioning his whole resume without the Bain Capitol.

9:09 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn goes to Santorum. Will you douse yourself in gasoline and set yourself on fire to get your campaign going? Rick Santorum plays the political AND personal life cards. Go, Rick!

9:06 p.m. ET (Smitty): Megyn goes to Paul. Can you win the nomination, and if not, will you guarantee not to sandbag the nominee? Paul contrasts himself nicely with the others.

9:05 p.m. ET (Smitty): Newt. Who says I am not pretty, conservative? And I’ve got facts at my fingertips, too.

9:04 p.m. ET (Smitty): Newt I am the master debater!

9:03 p.m. ET (Smitty): First question to Newt. Can you guarantee nothing will go wrong if you’re nominated? Newt plays the Reagan card. Electability!

9:01 p.m. ET (Smitty): Brett paints a grim picture of the world situation. Electability. Is that tonight’s codeword?

9:00 p.m. ET (Smitty): Brett Baher still doesn’t look old enough to be on TV. They’re all on stage, saving the walk on time. Huntsman is back!

PREVIOUSLY (8:20 p.m. ET)
***

Just 19 days until the crucial Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, and the final pre-caucus debate in the Hawkeye State is at 9 p.m. ET on Fox News:

SIOUX CITY, Iowa – It’s been 32 weeks since the first Republican presidential debate. Since then, a changing cast of contenders has faced off a dozen times across the country with millions watching at home.
Of the original combatants from that May 5 meeting in Greenville, S.C., only two, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, remain. There have been four lead changes in national polls, two candidates drop out, four candidates join the field and billions of pixels poured out by reporters and pundits trying to make sense of it all.
Tonight, that all culminates here on the western edge of Iowa with the 13th showdown — the last chance for candidates to make their cases before voters start the process of picking a presidential nominee. Even in a cycle that has been shaped by televised debates like no other, the stakes for the candidates this evening are enormous.

The tension in the Sioux City Convention Center tonight is reportedly so extreme that Republicans in the audience have chewed their fingernails to bloody nubs, and the candidates are washing down Xanax with whiskey just to be able to calm their stress-strained nerves.

The Fate of the Free World hinges on what will transpire on that stage tonight, and here are some headlines that capture the dramatic political landscape on which will be fought the struggle destined to be known as Armageddon in the Heartland:

Iowa: Romney 23%, Gingrich 20%, Paul 18%
— Rasmussen Reports

Gingrich Momentum Slows, Polls Suggest
— New York Times

Mitt Romney’s life as a poor Mormon
missionary in France questioned
— U.K. Telegraph

Newt Gingrich shows signs of slide in Iowa
— Politico

“Something Incredibly Stupid”
— Andrew Sullivan

What Sully said, if you must know, was that Chris Wallace should recuse himself as moderator of tonight’s debate because Wallace said something bad about Ron Paul, and therefore is not “objective.” And if there is one thing that Andrew Sullivan insists on, it is that journalists must be completely objective — although no one could ever aspire to being as objective as Andrew Sullivan.

Anyway: Smitty will be liveblogging here — even though he’s kinda upset that I offered to sell him to a Las Vegas billionaire — and we’ll have updated reactions from all over. Commenters are welcome to add their objective observations about tonight’s proceedings. That is, if you’re not so distraught by the extreme tension that you’ve completely chewed off your fingers before it begins.

Just to help settle your nerves: Christina Hendricks and whiskey. Objectively speaking, I didn’t much notice the whiskey. IYKWIMAITYD.


Is Congress, Unexpectedly, Robbing Us Deaf, As Well As Blind?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Dell Hill points to Director Blue’s post about the dirty truth of the nearly 1,000 Days of Budget Silence:
Doug Ross’s asserts:

What Democrats and big-government Republicans aren’t telling you is this: the Obama-Pelosi-Reid “one-time Stimulus package” was built into the baseline, which means each year that the Obamacrats can avoid writing a budget is another year that this cash furnace can continue burning your children’s money.

but that is less than clear.

If I understand the implication correctly, including Stimulus loot in the Baseline and then not bothering to do a new budget means that the Senate is essentially a re-enactment group, staging #OccupyResoluteDesk’s 2008 heist annually, as the last passed budget stands until superseded. That is less than clear from the text of the legislation, but it says in
SEC. 301. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.:

For purposes of Senate enforcement, all provisions of this Act are designated as emergency requirements and necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

One gets the prodding sensation in the bowels that the seemingly innocent phrase ‘For purposes of Senate enforcement’ may be the sort of magic spell that can turn an Oldsmobile Delmont 88 into a submarine, IYKWIMAITYD. Ah, the 110th Congress, you shall ever live in infamy.

Trying to end on a humorous note, these budgetary gymnastics, at a high level of abstraction, are like Joe Satriani’s fingers, as a young John Boehner attempts to grasp where it’s all going. Relevant passage starts at 0:46

Just Because We Can Does Not Mean We Should

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Title lifted from the wonderfully titled Apophenia, which has an interesting definition. That post on Danah Boyd’s blog begins:

Learning to moderate desires and balance consequences is a sign of maturity. I could eat only chocolate for all of my meals, but it doesn’t mean that I should. If I choose to do so anyhow, I might be forced to face consequences that I will not like. “Just because I can doesn’t mean I should” is a decision dilemma and it doesn’t just apply to personal decisions.

Read the whole thing, which has to do with the software consequences of social networking, concluding:

Just because people can profile, stereotype, and label people doesn’t mean that they should. Just because people can surveil those around them doesn’t mean that they should. Just because parents can stalk their children doesn’t mean that they should. So why on earth do we believe that just because technology can expose people means that it should?

Via Anna Marie Hoffman at The College Conservative, a similar question is raised about a program I will not watch called “Sperm Donor”.

Essentially, programs like “Sperm Donor” are normalizing the unethical effects of the sperm donor industry and are continually perpetuating the moral decay of our society. By restructuring the traditional family unit and the two-parent heterosexual model, the sperm donor industry is purposefully changing America’s definition of a stable society and thus is ultimately hurting the children conceived from such a system.

However, there is hope that the abuses of the sperm donor industry will halt. Recently, The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network released a film called Anonymous Father’s Day, which features adults searching for their biological fathers and calling for the end of the very system that conceived them.

Hoffman includes this video:

That’s a trailer for a documentary called Anonymous Father’s Day.

In the trailer, one woman asks “Should we be conceiving children in the first place who will be deliberately denied the ability to know, and be known by, their father?” Another woman states that she wants “…her children to know where they came from.” Such statements convey both the unethical and emotionally damaging nature of anonymous sperm donations.

The practice of anonymous sperm donors, and children fathered by them, is certainly legal and has a market. That would lead one to conclude that it is ethical, rather than unethical. In other words I’d say ethical means ‘not illegal’.

But is it moral? (My, admittedly non-standard, ethical/moral distinction is covered here.) That is, does anyone think that the Almighty is pleased, and/or glorified by people thumbing their noses at the clear, simple, obvious, form-follows-function beauty of:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Gen 2:24

There is vast capacity to use modern technology to tinker about with the natural order of things. I’d like to fall short of a sweeping judgement here, in the space of a blog post. It’s possible that there may exist a really good case for why using an anonymous sperm donor is not immoral. But it seems that protecting the father’s (or the mother’s in the case of an egg donor) privacy at the expense of dropping a sizable existential dilemma on the offspring is immoral. That is, the biological parents (i.e. DNA providers) are doing to the child emotionally what the government is doing economically: casting debts upon them without any sort of dialogue. A variation on taxation without representation, if you will. Progressivism seems to be about finding the least vocal victim.