Few and far between

31 August 2007

I found a great post about supporting Ron Paul for pres; not very many people in Maryland are doing that.


 Funny excerpt: Just as an aside, I was walking past the Jews for Jesus booth a couple of booths down from GOP booth. One of the Jews for Jesus calls out to me, “Oh, Ron Paul, give me 5 good reasons”, which I promptly rattled off. He agreed with me, surprisingly, but unsurprisingly opined that we didn’t have a chance. I said, well, you don’t know unless you try, and anyhow, we are on an unsustainable path as a nation, so change is either going to come from ourselves or from external agency. He agreed, but asked if it were possible to make the RP changes without marching on DC in an armed revolt. I said, don’t know until you try, and we can’t just stand by and do nothing. A nice exchange, but left me shaking my head at the irony of a Jew for Jesus admonishing me about long-shot campaigns.


Slate: we report, you decide. 🙂


Ron can

30 August 2007

Well, it would be nice. Ron Paul in 2008?

Gonzo gone

30 August 2007

Yay!!!!!! It will take a while to tote up all the carnage at DOJ…



25 August 2007

..and priceless to see that smirk wiped off Simon’s mug.

Run, Newt, run

21 August 2007

This country is bipolar.


Giuliani is running for President of 9/11…


Oh, no, he didn’t!

18 August 2007

Ironic, to say the least.


 Dick Cheney

Crisis of identity

12 August 2007

Who needs Iraq? We’re winning at the source!


Wow, did you know this?

12 August 2007


Then, last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California introduced the same First Amendment clarity to political cyberspace in another important decision, Porter v. Bowen. The case had much of its genesis in an article I wrote for Slate on Oct. 25, 2000, introducing the idea of Internet “vote-trading” to avert the catastrophe of a George W. Bush election a few weeks later. My suggestion was that Ralph Nader’s supporters in swing states (like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida) should go online and communicate their intention to vote for Democratic nominee Al Gore in return for the agreement of Gore supporters trapped in hard-core red states (like Texas, Louisiana, Utah, and Alaska) to vote for Nader. This multipartisan interstate political coalition would allow Gore to hit 270 in the electoral college while not harming Nader’s effort to reach 5 percent in the nationwide vote to qualify for federal financing. “If just 100,000 Gore supporters and 100,000 Nader supporters in the key states registered and kept their words,” I wrote, “both a Gore victory and federal funding for the Greens could be accomplished.”

Read the whole thing. This strategy, while initially struck down, was later upheld by the court of appeals. I too have been troubled by some recent SCOTUS decisions, particularly the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” kerfuffle.