Saturday, February 12, 2005

Paul Miller: Statesman

I don't always....often....well, ever....see eye to eye on Paul Miller on most policy matters.

But he is way out front on the Electoral Fairness Act in North Carolina.

That's Rep. Paul Miller (D-Durham, District 29), I mean.

Here's the bill.

It got killed last time. A story about it. And another. And a Green view.

You can keep track of its progress, or not, here.

The changes in 163-96 and 163-97 are the key ones. Going from 2% to just 0.5% of the electorate is a much lower bar for ballot access. And going from 10% to 2% for staying on the ballot means that "third" parties can spend their tiny little amounts of funds on campaigning, instead of trying just to get back on the ballot.

Is there some self-interest in this? Sure; I fully expect to run for Governor of the State of North Carolina on the Libertarian Party ticket in in 2008. But that's not the reason Rep. Miller put this terrific bill in the hopper. He disagrees with me just as much as I disagree with him.

This bill benefits the Greens, the Libertarians, and any other group that wants to have a voice in the state. Look, we may not have a chance to win. But all the more reason we shouldn't have to wear a gag.

Support HB88, the Electoral Fairness Act, and give some credit to Representative Paul Miller.

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Cone-y Island

Yikes! My main man at the N&R lays down some smack.

Me? I like comment # 7

The solution, obviously, is to commission an old professional wrestler from Raleigh to write editorials now and then. Otherwise, this "diversity" bit is clearly just a brazen attempt to discredit those of us on the right. N&R, you don't have to hire someone from the majors, or even triple AAA. But you might want someone who owns a glove.

Okay, yes, I'm kidding. But there has to be someone in Greensboro who doesn't send in his editorials written in crayon on lined paper.

W's Reading List

It is difficult for me to admit, but I find the constant smug claims that Prez W is stupid to be hard to take.

You can say that his program on SocSec reform is bad, that you disagree with it. Or you can say that Bush is stupid, and then just congratulate yourself on having won the argument.

Ms. Newmark has views on W's reading list. Interesting points. ATSRTWT

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

The "rain for food" program was also corrupt

The U.N....ick. Is there nothing that they won't sell?

I think we need a new international agency. Kick the U.N. to the curb.

Another photo, of the UN at work:

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Just an Announcement....

Michael Badnarik
2004 Presidential Candidate
Libertarian Party
THIS THURSDAY!!!! Feb 10.....

How I Spent My Summer Vacation:
Being Excluded from Debates…

Breedlove Room, Feb 10, 12 noon
Duke University
Come hear about the 2004 Presidential Campaign,
from a Candidate!

Bring a Friend! Make a Friend!

Monday, February 07, 2005

Q-o'-d-w-IV: He takes whiskey drink, he takes a vodka drink....

"I don't fall down. That son of a b*tch knocked me over." -- John Kerry on a Secret Service who got in his way while he was snowboarding.

I guess we'll see: will he get up again?

(From John Hawkins' quotelist)

(And...I'm pretty sure this is not an urban legend THIS time! Still, isn't it funny how UL's "fit" the way people are, or that the (mis)quoter thinks they are. So, the question: is John Kerry plausibly the source of such a quote, so we believe it? Or did the Bushies do such a great job of character assassination that we don't even know what Kerry is really like? I pick (a), but...)

Sunday, February 06, 2005

When Urban Legends Are Forecasts

Coturnix was kind enough to point out that the guaranteed-to-make-you-tsktsk story about the Berlin waitress was an urban legend. Not too surprising. The story is a little too pat, and there were no direct German references in the Telegraph's story. (But it also appeared in WorldNet; that PROVES it is true, right?) (Yes, I'm kidding).

But, on reading the snopes-ter's discussion, one encounters this:

Most German-language sources on this topic point to an 18 December 2004 article from the Berlin newspaper Tageszeitung, which (as far as our rusty command of German allows us to discern) does not report that women in Germany must accept employment in brothels or face cuts in their unemployment benefits. The article merely presents that concept as a technical possibility under current law — it does not cite any actual cases of women losing their benefits over this issue, and it quotes representatives from employment agencies as saying that while it might be legally permissible to reduce unemployment benefits to women who have declined to accept employment as prostitutes, they (the agencies) would not actually do that. (Emphasis mine).

Reliance on the forebearance of government agencies for our safety is a slender reed. When a dependency is created, it is not surprising that that dependency will be exploited for political, personal, and "it's for your own good" reasons.

Still and all: good on ya, Coturnix, for correcting the error. And, sorry about the html disaster. That's why i never change anything: I know for sure it would be the end of me.