We Support All Free Speech That We Support

Republicans don't have a Herbert Marcuse to give them cover (however imaginary) for their efforts at repression of spending and speech.
Excerpt from the linked piece:

Republicans, of course, used to be against allowing politicians to decide what's good (legal) and bad (illegal) speech -- because, oddly enough, when politicians have that power, they tend to come to the conclusion that any speech that could cost them their jobs is the bad kind. A president named George H.W. Bush vetoed campaign-finance reform. Speaker Newt Gingrich did everything he could to keep such bills off the House floor in the 1990s, and Majority Leader Trent Lott did the same in the Senate.

But, now, all the Repubs have is this guy.

Or, soon they will. He has 2008 Prez written all over him.

(nod to Anonymous. You know who you are....and so do THEY)

It Just Gets Better...

Remember the Ohio election, with the guy whose kids didn't vote and the election ended in a tie? Well it gets better (or worse) when you see who his opponent is...

Her goal: eliminate drunk driving laws on weekends.

My question: why do people GO ON THAT SHOW? Why, why, why?

(thanks to JP)

A Burr Under Their Saddle

Curious sequence of events....

1. Senator Richard Burr, R-NC, introduces bill on labeling for food products. It may be a good idea, or a bad idea. Federal preemption of states' power, but lots of food is shipped interstate, and having accurate and uniform labels might help both companies and consumers. Consumers know where to look for info, all the info is there, and companies don't have to put different labels on cans or bags depending on which state they are going to send the thing.

2. Raleigh News and Observer delivers its opinion on this activity. "Bad Taste", says the finest paper east of Charlotte.

3. Senator Burr sends a letter to the editor, responding to the editorial.

4. N&O editor Steve Ford edits the letter fairly significantly (my own subjective judgment), but when the letter is printed the standard disclaimer ("Length limits waived to permit a fuller response") is appended. Here is the letter that was published.

Now, separate from the merits, on which reasonable people might differ, the "We waived our usual limits" bit might be taken to imply the letter was NOT edited. This implication is at best...well...implied, since it is not explicit. So, no actual skullduggery. But a little icky.

(Full disclosure: (a) I am not really a fan of the Senator, though I think he is right on this bill. (b) I have written for the N&O pretty often, and have found their editing of my work to be both entirely fair and extremely helpful)

5. Senator Burr buys a full page ad to supply the text of the full letter. If you compare it with the letter the N&O printed, it is (again, IMHO, as in #4 above) significantly different.

My questions:

a. The N&O reserves the right to edit letters for length; fair enough. But why edit the letter for length, but then still put in the "length disclaimer"? Possible answer: because the editing was about content, not length?

b. If you can edit letters' content to suit your own editorial perspective, without informing either the letter writer or the readers that you have done so, then how honest is this whole process?

c. What kind of econo-challenged person would believe that having different labeling standards in every state is a good thing? Why not have 50 state currencies, and let each state decide whether to drive on the left or right? Odd that the N&O has suddenly discovered the "states' rights" cause.

Truly Quirky

One of the great things about blogs is that some of them are TRULY quirky.

So...to the first birthday of UW, by Dr. Nokes: Many happy, and quirky, returns!

Democratic Agenda: 404

You go, Betsy!

Neighbor, Neighbor

Now I was walking down a dusty road
when along came a neighbor of mine.
He saw me walkin' with my head hung down,
he just had to stop and pass the time.
(ZZ Top, "Neighbor, Neighbor")

From the West Bank:

A Haaretz inquiry reveals that the Israel Defense Forces has increased its use of home demolitions during West Bank arrest raids since a ban on the forced entry of Palestinian civilians into homes of barricaded fugitives.

When the High Court of Justice banned the "neighbor procedure" eight months ago, senior Israel Defense Forces officers warned that this would likely endanger soldiers' lives. Haaretz has learned that new arrest procedures are not any more dangerous to soldiers, but that is because the IDF is using more aggressive tactics during the actual operations.

IDF sources say that the ban diminishes the tactical options of the officers. "The result is that very quickly we escalate in means, in other words, we use the bulldozers," one officer says.

In early October 2005, the High Court justices accepted the petition of human rights organizations against the "neighbor procedure." This tactic, employed hundreds of times in the territories during the first intifada, involved forcing the Palestinian neighbors of wanted militants to enter the homes of the barricaded fugitives in an effort to convince them to surrender, and consequently, also bring out information for the army on the conditions inside the home.

This forcing of Palestinian civilians to act as "agents" for the IDF drew intense public criticism, especially when a Palestinian from a village in the northern West Bank was shot and killed by his barricaded neighbor during the application of the "neighbor procedure."

The High Court ban forced the army to adopt new arrest methods, which do not endanger soldiers' lives as military sources had previously warned, says a senior IDF officer serving in the West Bank because "they take no chances. Not one of us will send a soldier to check a home in which it is known that a living, armed fugitive is barricaded, before we have carried out very aggressive action."

Unintended consequences; ick. The Court was clearly right to outlaw the neighbor procedure. And the IDF is sensible to use bulldozers sooner as a result. The Americans would clearly do the same thing. The troops are in an impossible position.

ATSRTWT

(nod to RL)

I don't think they are kidding...

Wow. Quite a site. They MUST be kidding, but still...

Here are the first four FAQs and the answers:

1. Can I get a signed photograph from Leader Kim Jong IL?
Soon the KFA shop will offer such article. (NOTE FROM THE END: THIS MEANS "NO."
2. Can I send a letter to North Korea and get a penpal in North Korea?
You can send the letter if you have an valid address and contact person. We provide no service for penpal friends. (NOTE FROM THE END: THIS ALSO MEANS "NO.")
3. Can I emigrate to North Korea and live in North Korea?
It's possible only in very special situations and having honor/merits. You must send a request letter stating your reasons, together with your complete CV, copy of your passport and certificates to korea@korea-dpr.com (CERTIFICATES?)
4. Can I work in North Korea as a teacher/interpreter/(other)?
No. (NOW, THERE IS A SIMPLE ANSWER)

Thanks! That's all very helpful.

ATSRTWT.

(nod to MWT)

Cheesed Off: Poblanos Onuf

I have been at a conference here in Park City, UT for the past week. Very pleasant. We are staying at The Lodges, which are very nice, and the conference (a combination of works on slavery and American political development, followed in the evening by student presentations and then a dinner that I get to cook for 16 people) is wonderful.

And, we get to spend time with UVA's Professor Peter Onuf, who is such a pleasure to learn from. So, to Liberty Fund, our sponsor: Thankyou, Thankyou, Thankyou!

But, to the real matter: like I said, I cook every night. And I made this one dish that was so easy, and turned out so well, I thought I would put it up here. (It is a vegetarian, though not vegan, dish. And you would have to like cheese a LOT to enjoy this.) The name should be self-explanatory.

POBLANOS ONUF

8 large poblanos, washed, cut in half, deseeded and destemmed
8 ozs Monterrey Jack cheese
1 cup milk
3 large red peppers
bunch of green onions
1 large yellow onion
olive oil
1/2 lb sliced provolone cheese (8 slices or so)
1/2 cup bread crumbs
2 tablespoons chopped cilantro
salt

1. Place poblanos, open side up, in large flat baking pan (if the peppers are two crowded, you may have to use two pans. They need to be separated by a little space). Drizzle with olive oil (should be little puddles of olive oil in cavity of peppers), and sprinkle with salt.
BROIL in oven, watching that you carmelize the edges and sides of the peppers without burning them. Oil should be bubbling, but if it catches on fire that is bad. Remove from broiler.

2. Melt cheese and milk together in large bowl (careful, as it will boil over) in microwave. Cook for three minutes on high, stir, and cook some more until the mixture is fairly smooth.

3. Chop red peppers, green onions, yellow onion, saute in olive oil until they all just start to soften. Don't overcook. Salt the mixture.

4. Pour milk/cheese mixture over onion/pepper mixture, over low heat, and stir until mixed well.

5. Pour onion/pepper/milk/cheese mixture over broiled peppers (make sure peppers/oil have cooled enough that this doesn't splatter!). Fill the cavities of each pepper evenly.

6. Put 1/2 slice of provolone over each 1/2 pepper. Sprinkle with bread crumbs.

7. Cook at 375F in oven for 20 minutes, or until provolone starts to brown and whole mixture is bubbly.

(So, Kathy, there you go. I typed it up!)

To Be Fair

The post below (whose "essential truth", as Dan Rather would put it, I stand behind), may very well give the wrong impression of my wife.

My wife is very, very pretty. She is also smart, top of her class in college and law school, an attorney for the U.S. Treasury Department. She has worked as a litigator for the IRS in bankruptcy court, and as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney.

And, lest you think I pick on her, I should describe an incident where the shoe was on the other foot.

We have a baseball field, as I have written about before, down in Chatham County.

I had built, spending about $100 for materials, and three hours of sweaty time with a drill, saw, or hammer, a "nail drag", for smoothing out the infield. This was actually the second version, because the first was too light and flimsy.

The new version, about 200 pounds of wood, steel, and chain, was ready to go. I backed up the van, and hooked up. My wife was watching. "Do you know what you are doing?" she asked, encouragingly.

Grinding my teeth, I pressed the accelerator. Perhaps a little harder than necessary. As soon as the chain drew up taut, the nails dug into the clay and the whole front crosspiece (three 5 foot 2x10s, with 8 inch nails sticking out) snapped right off like a slingshot. The rest of the assembly splintered, because without the support of the front brace the weight was too much. And the chained/nailed/2x10s flipped up and put a huge bash in the back of the van. It sounded like a cannon. Or so the neighbors assured me later. Inside the van, I was deafened.

I opened the door, looked back at the wreckage.

Then, I looked over at the wife. She has her hands on her knees, and is laughing her head off. "Perfect!" she yelled over to me. "Good job! You should patent that design!"

So...don't be feeling sorry for my wife. She can take care of herself. That's all I'm saying. Feel free to feel sorry for me, however.

The Key to Marriage: Just Remember "Biggus Dickus"

Now, see: I can tell what you are thinking already, and that's just not where I'm going here.

For those who saw Monty Python's "Life of Brian", the Biggus Dickus scene was one of the classic set pieces, often recited in full at high speed by geeks like certain philosophy professors.

There was this one scene....you know the one. Remember this, with Pilate saying Roman names and the guard trying not to laugh?


Here is an excerpt from the script (scene 12):

PILATE: So, your father was a Woman. Who was he?
BRIAN: He was a centurion in the Jerusalem Garrisons.
PILATE: Weally? What was his name? BRIAN: 'Nortius Maximus'.
CENTURION: Ahh, ha ha!
PILATE: Centuwion, do we have anyone of that name in the gawwison?
CENTURION: Well, no, sir.
PILATE: Well, you sound vewy sure. Have you checked?
CENTURION: Well, no, sir. Umm, I think it's a joke, sir,... like, uh, 'Sillius Soddus' or... 'Biggus Dickus', sir. GUARD #4: [chuckling]
PILATE: What's so... funny about 'Biggus Dickus'?
CENTURION: Well, it's a joke name, sir.
PILATE: I have a vewy gweat fwiend in Wome called 'Biggus Dickus'.
GUARD #4: [chuckling]
PILATE: Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy quickly with wotten behaviour like that.

The fact is, situations like this happen all the time in marriage. Your wife is Pilate (if you don't understand that, you have BIGGUS PROBLEMUS). And you are Guard #4. You must not laugh, or reveal by facial expression that...well, consider two recent examples at the Munger house. (These are both verbatim truth, by the way).

1. My wife: "I saw Eric Clapton is going to be at the RBC Center in October. Do you think the boys (our sons) would like to go? I don't know if they know who Eric Clapton is."

Me: "Well, they like that 'Cream' album a lot. They listen to that all the time."

My wife: "Oh, is Cream playing too?"

WARNING!! WARNING!!
BIGGUSDICKUSALERTBIGGUSDICKUSALERT!!

Fortunately, I was driving, so I had an excuse to check the left mirror. For about 30 seconds. But you can't just leave the question hanging. "Well, Clapton played with Cream, and sang some."

Crisis averted!

The point is that, when you are about to burst out laughing, inappropriately, since it would result in you becoming abstinent for a week or more, just say to yourself, "BIGGUSDICKUSBIGGUSDICKUSBIGGUSDICKUS!!", and you will avoiding having to go to gladiator school.

2. All right, so there's the primary threat averted. But you have to be aware that you aren't out of the woods yet. You have to be on the lookout for the DEADLY TOPPER! Consider what Pilate said next, in the same scene:

PILATE: What about you? Do you find it... wisible... when I say the name...
'Biggus'...
GUARD #3:[chuckle]
PILATE: ...'Dickus'?
GUARD #1 and GUARD #2: [chuckling]
PILATE: He has a wife, you know. You know what she's called? She's called... 'Incontinentia'. 'Incontinentia Buttocks'.
GUARDS: [laughing] (SENT TO GLADIATOR SCHOOL! DOOMED! DON'T LAUGH!)

So, let's illustrate the deadly topper. Another incident (also reported verbatim). Let's see how YOU do.

My wife comes downstairs in the morning, looking tired. Fortunately, I have made the tea. She gets some tea, and sighs, obviously upset. "I hardly slept. I had the worst dream." She looks at me, expectantly.

"I'm sorry; that's tough when you have a scary dream. It's so hard to go back to sleep," I say, smoothly, giving up on reading the paper.

Wife: "Well, I dreamed that I kept going from room to room, looking, looking. I looked in all my closets." (NOTE: not a dream, entirely. She does have three closets in our house.)

"What was wrong?" I asked.

Nearly crying, she said, "I couldn't find that cute little black top I like so much. I kept looking and looking, but I couldn't find it. How could I sleep after a dream like that?"

(BIGGUSDICKUS!BIGGUSDICKUS!BIGGUSDICKUS!STUDY THE PAPER!)

But, again, you have to respond. I am barely under control, but I keep it together.

"That's a bad dream, when you can't find something. It is upsetting. I'm sorry, dear."

She is studying my face intently, fully aware of her Pilatian power in this case. Then, the topper (and I am NOT making this up): "Well, I was also distracted, because I was being chased by a wild boar. I think it killed me."

WAH! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I lose it. And, of course, staying sympathetic through the "I couldn't find the cute black top" tragedy gets you no credit, BECAUSE YOU LAUGHED AT THE "I was killed by wild boar" topper. WATCH OUT FOR THE TOPPER.

And, for the next week, move over nice dog. A mean old dog is moving in.