N.O. Pundit

Vote Your Truth

Powerline points to Joseph Perkins' piece on Al Gore's litigious legacy.

I met Tom last night (you may remember him from this post), and we got to talking again about the election. Two things we came away with: we can agree to disagree and still respect the other's choice (I am voting for Bush, he is voting for Kerry), and that civil discourse between voters is increasingly hard to come by. Oh, a third byproduct is that we came away from that conversation last night stronger friends.

I read the Perkins piece (please go and read it now if you have not already done so), and I got to thinking how I want you to vote. I want you to vote your truth.

If your truth is in your head, and you've weighed each candidate's arguments rationally and come to a conclusion, vote your truth.

If your truth is in your heart, and you've decided that one candidate's goodness or badness clearly outweighs the other, vote your truth.

If your truth is in your gut, and you just have a hunch that one candidate will be a better president, vote your truth.

If your truth is in your values, and you believe one candidate clearly demonstrates those values, vote your truth.

If your truth is in making a statement, and a vote for a third party candidate best makes that statement, vote your truth.

If your truth means having to hold your nose in choosing the lesser of two scoundrels, vote your truth.

But if your truth is in obstructing another's ability to vote or committing vote fraud, through coercion, or vandalism, or illegal electioneering, or dual state registration, or violence (actual and threatened), stop and consider yourself a part of the problem about which Joseph Perkins writes.

No matter how "right" your candidate or party is, now matter how "wrong" the other candidate or party is, no matter how certain you are of the apocolypse if candidate X wins, you will forever bear the mark of dishonoring one of the United States' most sacred institutions.

If you can rationalize your actions with the notion that no one will know, then I can conclude only that you must consider yourself to be no one.

If you can rationalize your actions with the conviction that the end justifies the means, then I must ask, aren't you killing that which you are trying to save? Is your logic any different than the spurned lover who kills his ex out of "love"?

If you can rationalize your actions because "the other side is doing it", then I simply ask that you be strong and understand that your ultimate reponsibility is to yourself, not to your candidate or your party. Let the other side bear the mark if they choose.

Please note well that I am not implying that you should act like a peeping tom, passively recording any deceit you may witness. Confront it, safely. Report it, definitely. Take your digital camera with you to the poll and record it. Al Gore's actions in 2000 has opened Pandora's box, and we must do everything we can as capable, honorable citizens to shut the lid. The future of our magnificent country depends on just one person: you!

Semper idoneus!

The October Surprise?

Just go read it. As Drudge says:

Developing ...

A Rant

I posted this comment over at Kim du Toit's blog just now.

Some thoughts.

I agree with Matt: "The problem with violent revolution, of course, is that there are really only two outcomes carrying probabilities high enough to be worth measuring. Either the revolutionary conspirators are cut down in the streets and their homes by the overwhelming firepower at the disposal of the government, or else the revolution eventually "succeeds" and the government which replaces ours turns out a whole lot WORSE than the one we have now."

We are most certainly allowed to discuss all the ways the the state of affairs in the US sucks, and in many ways the laws meant to "save" us sow far greater harm. But to think for a moment that the US method of governance isn't the best form of sovereign nation governance ever in the history of mankind is, in my opinion, simply wrong. I believe, along with many other folks, that the left especially is doing great harm in their quest to retain power (both politically, and over others individually in the form behavior laws), but I have great faith the system can find a corrective course. To pray for, or contemplate, any form of wholesale upheaval in the US is to, I think, not appreciate just how right this 228-year experiment has gone thus far. There is no Phoenix awaiting in the ashes of the US Constitution.

I am quite sanguine about the future of America. Why? Blogs. Please pause for one moment and bear witness to what you all are participating in. None of us know each other. None of us probably know Kim. Yet we have freely chosen to assemble in the Kim du Toit Roadhouse to speak our (sometimes feisty) opinions on the perceived ills of government. No one here will be "disappeared". No one here will be interrogated and charged with crimes against the state. Is the system corrupt? In places. Is the system inefficient? You bet. Have we all been stung by unfair treatment at the hands of the state, be it a bogus traffic ticket, an unscrupulous tax assessor, a corrupt judge? The answer is probably yes all around. What would you prefer? Chirac's socialism? Putin's "democracy"? Saddam's death chambers?

The revolution is already in progress. Nerdy lawyers in Minnesota are chopping away at our sacred cow media establishment with swipes that would shame Paul Bunyan. Reservists who are dentists and accountants in the US are completely bypassing the traditional information brokers and communicating daily the successes they see in Iraq as easily as if they were on the phone with you. Housewives are speaking out, not to their tired husbands just before they turn out the light, but to the entire nation of vote fraud in rural Ohio tonwships. If you think for one minute that Bush's chances of reelection aren't vastly improved because of blogs, please reconsider. Those that thirst for power solely for power's sake are throwing truckloads of shit at Bush, hoping that something, anything, will stick. That pig don't fly no more.

I read the Carl Drega story above and I wonder how it would have turned out if he had had the ability to start a blog. Those puny-minded civil servants probably would have had the smirks wiped off their face if they were fielding a thousand phone calls a day asking them "Who made you fucking king?". We all would have been talking about it. If there's one thing a snarky municipal employee doesn't want, it's the public's attention.

I say: let's watch history unfold. You sure can't say we live in uninteresting times. Let's enjoy this newfound government and media accountability for a while. It may not turn out perfect, but it probably won't suck either.

Quotable Quotes

The Voyager's Favorite Quotes Page

Why George Bush Will Win

George Bush will win the 2004 presidential election. Here's why: the political marketplace of ideas has grown dramatically more efficient in the last four years, and this fact will translate directly into votes for Bush.

You might call me a pan-freemarketer. I am a small-l libertarian and I believe not only in financial free markets, but ideological free markets as well. In an ideal world, legislative bodies would take great pause in erecting laws which inhibit market behavior. In my opinion the litmus test for whether a law is good is whether it increases marketplace efficiency. An example of this would be traffic laws. An anarchist (and even some nutty Libertarians) would argue that traffic laws inhibit their ability to drive the way they wish. I argue that the presence of traffic laws allows me greater efficiency and safety in my creative pursuits. In other words, I am more productive as an individual precisely because of the presence of traffic laws. While not all traffic laws add utility (eg, the federal 55 mph speed limit), the vast collection of traffic laws are quite sensible and beneficial to society.

In the marketplace of political ideas, while it can be strongly argued that there are no legal impediments to espousing and marketing any political position, there have been strong mechanistic obstacles in this marketplace which have resulted in inefficiencies. The allocation of broadcast spectra due to scarcity, and the consolidation of media companies in the past several decades are but two. Even as a libertarian, I argue that the original mandate of the FCC (strictly to allocate broadcast frequencies, but not to monitor and censure content) was not unreasonable. Traffic laws for the airwaves as it were. Again, as a libertarian, I am quite loathe to see government intervene in order to "solve" the perceived ills of media consolidation. I do believe quite strongly that this consolidation has brought a decrease both in the range and mobility of political ideas. In addition, I believe that this is not a generic decrease in efficiency: I take the stand that Democratic, liberal, collectivist (politics based on group identity) ideals have enjoyed increased marketshare beyond what an efficient marketplace would allow, and that Republican, conservative, individualistic ideals likewise have suffered decreased marketshare beyond what an efficient marketplace would allow. I will provide data later in this essay to bolster this conclusion; for now those who may want to explore this possibility, start at the Media Research Center and go from there.

The beauty of the marketplace is that, barring legislative obstacles, it will eventually correct towards increased efficiency. Witness the rise of the blog. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that blogs (especially political blogs) have exploded in popularity in the last several years. The $64,000 question is: would this explosion of popularity have happened if the political marketplace of ideas was already near 100% efficiency? Most likely not.

One of the rules of the free market is that there are not insurmountable obstacles of entry. While it may take a capitalization of several million dollars, anyone can enter the retail automobile marketplace. However, having successfully entered a market in no way guarantees any level of ascendance or success. A newly-minted automobile dealer may suffer years of "paying dues" when faced with the competition from established dealers who have long client lists, established business-to-business relationships, and name recognition.

Likewise, I am quite convinced that a new entrant into the political marketplace of ideas would have to struggle just like our tyro auto dealer if in fact the marketplace was humming at near efficiency. Why would anyone reinvest their "attention capital" in a new outlet if the current marketplace satisfied their needs? The meteoric rise of political blogs indicates a strongly inefficient market. This strongly inefficient market has been in place for decades. It is only with the advent of the blog that the costs of market entry have been reduced to the point that virtually anyone can enter the Agora and be heard. As it should be, not everyone will rise to the top, only the best.

To bolster my two premises that the political marketplace of ideas is left-heavy and right-light, and that the most popular blogs are political in nature, let's turn to supporting data. The Truth Laid Bear blog conducts an impartial and free ranking system of blogs that wish to participate. As of October 27, 2004, here are the top twenty. I have notated in parentheses those that I judge left-leaning (L), those that I judge right-leaning (R), and those that I judge apolitical (A):

1.Instapundit.com (R)
2.Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall (L)
3.Daily Kos :: Political Analysis and other daily rants (L)
4.DRUDGE REPORT 2004® (R)
5.lgf: there is no hell. there is only France. (R)
6.Eschaton (L)
7.Power Line (R)
8.www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish (L)
9.The Volokh Conspiracy - (R)
10.Blogs For Bush (R)
11.Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things (L)
12.Wizbang (R)
13.The Washington Monthly (R)
14.The Command Post - A Newsblog Collective (R)
15.Captain's Quarters (R)
16.Michelle Malkin (R)
17.LILEKS (James) The Bleat (R)
18.NRO's The Corner (R)
19.Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters (A)
20.Tim Blair (R)

[Inline update at 5:45pm 10/28/2004: Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit often chuckles when someone labels him "conservative". My use of the term "right" is not meant so much to imply conservativism as it is to imply libertarianism. Inline update at 1pm 11/1/2004: Not satisfied with "libertarianism" either. The R's are generally conservatives and libertarians who are all leaning towards Bush. This categorization problem arises mainly because there is not a fiscally conservative/socially liberal party.] There are 5 left-leaning blogs, 14 right-leaning blogs, and one apolitical blog (of the 19 "political" blogs most discuss non-political issues as well). To me this indicates a strong correction in the political marketplace of ideas because if the market was efficient, there would neither be so many political blogs nor so many more right-leaning than left-leaning blogs. As an aside, three of the blogs, James Lileks, Captain's Quarter's, and the pervs at Powerline (c'mon: Big Trunk? Hindrocket!?), all hail from Minnesota (folks, if you want to tip The Land of 10,000 Opinions into Red State territory, go here right now).

It is arguable that the Democrats are better election run-up closers. Neal Boortz thinks so. Historically, he may be right. But this ain't 2000. It is true that the Democratic playbook still contains all the canards, er, plays, of Social Security cuts, voter disenfranchisement, and racial and religious pandering, each perhaps meeting with some success. Unfortunately, their water boy (aka the Mainstream Media) has been lacing their Gatorade with cyanide instead of steroids (dang! the light bulb in the locker room's pharmacy closet must be burned out again!). Take but two examples: CBS memogate, and the most current, the 380 tons of explosives gone missing in Iraq. What are we to think of the man who continues to smoke cigars when the all the previous ones blew up in his face? Even Pavlov's dogs would quit smoking.

Let's wrap this up. Look above again at the top twenty blogs. Right-leaning traffic dominates left-leaning traffic by a nearly 3 to 1 margin. Viewing voting as the currency of the political marketplace of ideas, which shop do you think voters will spend their "money"? George's Cowboy Hat Emporium (free drawl with every purchase!), or John's Brie Chalet (of course, ma'am, the samples of Brie are free, but the table waters are five cents extra)? My advice: you better think twice about betting against an efficient market breaking 3 to 1 in one direction. Unless of course you're a U.S. Senator.

Update 1pm 11/1/2004: Trackbacking to Les Jones' election prediction roundup. While I don't have an electoral map breakout, my prediction is for Bush to win in a landslide.

Update 1pm 11/1/2004: Trackbacking to Wizbang.

Cuyahoga, OH Ballot Irregularities

Background at Powerline.

In order to get maximum exposure, I am writing them right now:

Dear Powerline,

This is not a resolved issue! Here is Jaqueline Maiden's own quote from your site:

Absentee voters are supposed to ignore the arrows and punch out the chad that matches the candidate's number, Jacqueline Maiden, a coordinator with the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, said Wednesday. The punch cards and arrows are designed to work with machines used by people who vote in person on Election Day, she said.

"When the ballots are placed in the machines, the numbers line up with the arrows," she said, sliding a sample ballot into a machine similar to the ones that will be used Nov. 2 to show how it lined up correctly.

The clear implication is that these ballots are simply ballots disassembled from the actual voting machines. Think about this. When voting via machine THE ONLY HOLE BUSH VOTERS WILL BE PUNCHING IS HOLE 14, NOT HOLE 4. They will follow the arrow to the punch hole and unless a different ballot card will be used (a possibility of near zero since the Cuyahoga election officials clearly didn't go out of their way to produce an absentee-voter-friendly version) only hole 14 can possibly be there!

This is an unmitigated crisis in my book. What you have here is an unresolvable cognitive dissonance: is it 4 or 14? is it 4 or 14? can I punch both? why is 4 not punched when I just voted for George Bush? Unless these ballots are fixed now, no amount of cleverness or mental gymnastics can assure the voter that he has successfully voted for George Bush.

CORRECTION: I have gone back and looked again at the ballot picture at Powerline, and while the gist of my post stands, the punch numbers in question are 4 and 14, not 2 and 12. I have already corrected the errors above.

The Scots-Irish Vote

Just read The Scots-Irish Vote on The Opinion Journal by James Webb.

My father's side of the family is 100% Scottish. My dad is so very proud of his heritage that he singlehandedly prepared a geneology of our family back to 17th century Scotland and gave bound reports to us kids for Christmas last year. Very thorough, and very thoughtful.

At first, when I spotted the link on RealClearPolitics, I thought it was going to be a humor piece (really!). My suspicions were not dispelled when sighting a caricature of a cigar-chomping, kilt-and-sporn-wearing hillbilly holding a double-barrel shotgun and a beer, complete with a tam-wearing hunting dog at his side.

His essay though is flattering of this ethnic group. One particularly admirable trait that Mr. Webb paints is one I bore witness to as I grew up, and that is to live one's life in the service of God, family, and neighbor, and that there is no room in the day for complaints.

My paternal grandparents were farmers (as were all my paternal ancestors since their emigration from Scotland in the mid-19th century). They lived in the township of Caledonia, Illinois. Down the street around 10 miles is the township of Argyle.

In the same way that fish would not have a word for water if they could speak, these Scots I watched as I grew up certainly do not have a word for the daily, moment-to-moment dignity with which they conducted themselves. My grandfather was the walking, talking, hard-working personification of dignity. From the age he could lift a pail he rose well before dawn every day of his life to perform the daily chores of a farmer, first for his father's family, then for his own. Come fall, all the farmers would band together to make shorter work of each other's harvesting than if they worked alone, all with no money trading hands.

This is not to say that this group was a farmer-tanned version of the Stepford Wives. My grandfather drank. Yes, he drank one glass of Harvey's Bristol Cream every Christmas day, clearly hinting of a dependency problem. He had a tremendously sly wit. But he wasn't a joke cracker. There was a time to be serious. Grandpa and grandma were extremely devout Christians who participated in the Scottish Presbyterian church as parishioners, volunteers, and elders.

They knew their job was not to raise us grandkids, and when we slept over (a rarified treat indeed), we could pretty much do as we please. Being out in the middle of rural Illinois, though, there was not too much mischief to get into. Grandma would always have frozen dinners in the freezer and we would heat them up, always remembering to take them out five minutes before they were done to carefully peel back the foil on the peach cobbler so the top would crisp.

One of my very earliest memories (perhaps '65 or '66) is being present when grandpa was cutting down hay with a very dangerous farming mower (think of the blades of a barber's clippers, one toothed blade stationary, one reciprocating, six foot across, being dragged behind and to the right of a tractor). He killed a kitten that had unfortunately tried to hide in the grass because of the racket. It was sheared nearly in half. He held it and took it away. I am too young to remember exactly what he did with it, but I imagine he simply dug a small hole and buried it. What I do remember is his face. Or should I say countenance. He held the kitten chest high, and looked at it as he walked away. He did not hold it high, in some histrionic ritual of forgiveness, nor did he hold it near his thigh, as if it were just some field stone that merely needed tossing over the fence. His face reflected both pain and peace. I imagine he was talking to God just then, and he was being forgiven.

Perhaps that's the essence of the Scottish soul. A profound respect for life, human and animal. Livestock were accorded their special place, and were not just property. My grandparents slaughtered well into their adult lives. Slaughtering was a ritual borne of necessity, and thus the animals who gave of themselves were accorded a very special level of respect.

My grandfather got angry at me exactly once. I was visiting on a sleepover stay, and to pass the time I got out the garden hose and started pointing the spray at Silver, grandpa's Samoyed dog. Silver tried to get away in the fenced yard, but was more or less cornered along one fence line. My grandfather tore out of the house (I had never once see him do anything other than walk), ran up to me, swatted me on the butt, yelled right in my face, "Don't do that!", and walked back into the house. That's it. Don't do that. I was absolutely dumbstruck with shame, for I knew quite well that what I was doing was wrong. I walked back into the house and it was as if nothing had happened. We watched TV for a while, and then he asked me what I wanted to eat for dinner. My behavior was not discussed. Words would have diluted the lesson I received that day: you don't disrespect life.

Like the word "dignity" above, the word "respect" does not convey that which I had the extreme privilege of witnessing as a child. In the Protestant benediction, the final line spoken by the minister is usually something like, "Father, grant us the peace which passes all understanding."

What is "peace which passes all understanding"? In plain Scots talk, it might mean peace you can't explain, peace you can never explain. In my experiences, there are (precious few) times when I am in that plane of peace. You're golfing, or rehabbing your kitchen, or visiting old friends at your high school reunion, and some fun and bubbly person comes up to you and asks most innocently: why are you so content? There you are retreating at the speed of light ass first out of the tunnel. The question itself utterly destroys the state. To contemplate it is to end it.

For my grandfather, respect for life is what you breathed, not what you thought about. Who thinks about air, fer crying out loud? I saw in my grandfather the day the kitten was killed, the day I teased Silver with a garden hose, and every day God blessed me with his company, a respect for life which passes all understanding.

Being an American

Varifrank has now become one of my new favorite bloggers. His name has popped up before, but I came to scan many posts by way of Gumbopie (say, do you a have a recipe?), one of my fellow New Orleans' bloggers.

In his post entitled The Secret Weapon, Varifrank lays out one of the most compelling essays I have ever read on America, how America works, and what it means to be an American.

Huh? Why are you still here? Go read it!

Weekly Reader Goes A'Lynching

I first took note of the ChannelOne election results over at LGF. Quite pleased I am with America's teens: Bush wins 55% of the popular vote and 393 electors, Kerry wins 40% of the popular vote and 145 electors. A much larger than expected third party turnout (2.7% in Mississippi to 10.8% in Alaska) probably helped GWB immensely. Is the large third party vote a harbinger of things to come in November? Here is the electoral map from Channel One:

Proceeding to the comments Tim McNabb pointed out something I find extremely troubling. He went over to Weekly Reader (you remember Weekly Reader, waiting in the dentist's office as a kid trying to find the hidden lollipops and umbrellas in the drawing?) to see their election coverage and found this icon pointing to their "Convention Roundup":

Yes, you are seeing correctly: there is a hangman's noose hanging over the very Republican elephant. You "round up the dogies" with a lasso or lariat, not a noose. On top of that, the actual URL that the icon points to is:

http://www.weeklyreader.com/election/dnc.asp

Convention roundup points to a file named "dnc.asp".

I wrote the following email to pr@weeklyreader.com:

Dear Sir/Madam:

What in God's name is a noose hanging over the Republican elephant on your icon pointing to "Convention Roundup" on your election coverage page? And why does it point to a file named "dnc.asp"? Is this your best shot at subliminal suggestion to America's youth? Be like Avis: try harder.

Who knew that something as innocent as Weekly Reader was part of Liberal Media cabal?

Loonitarian Party

I'll get back to this later

Lysistrata Redux

Yahoo! News - Schwarzenegger Says Pro-Bush Speech Cost Him Sex

Speak Now, Or Forever ...

Enough is enough. The Left's violence against the Right's freedom of speech is beyond unacceptable. It is one thing to cause a little frat boy mischief, quite another to shoot the windows out of campaign headquarters, burn swastikas on lawns, break the bones of campaign workers. If you don't know about these incidents, please read Stanley Kurtz, Michelle Malkin, the Kerry Spot, or Professor Bainbridge, to get up to speed on the thuggery taking place in America.

There are millions of Americans right now who are being intimidated into not exercising their right to speak for fear of retaliation. No Bush placards in the window, no Bush bumper stickers on the car, no political conversation with even the closest of friends and colleagues. I stand up and count myself amongst this group. What a shame. Yes, we should all be ashamed that the threat of a broken window or a keyed car is keeping us from supporting Bush and getting involved in the most important presidential election since perhaps Lincoln/McClellan.

You know what? I think that Bush will win, and will carry a mandate back to the White House. Does this justify our silence? No, for three reasons.

One, the Democrats need to be crushed. Crushed in a Bush mandate, crushed in Congress, crushed in the Governor's races, crushed at all levels (I say this as a staunch small-l libertarian, and as no great friend of the Republicans). Why? Stephen Green wrote THE ESSAY on why. He, too, is not a Republican, just a very concerned citizen.

Two, behold bravery:

Do you think she worried about having her car keyed? How about being shot. Or beaten by her male relatives. Or stoned to death. We silent types don't know the meaning of bravery.

Three, the most important reason of all. We're all friends of Kim du Toit (aren't we?). He recently reposted an email he received in July 2003 which is a solar plexus punch on why we must now stand up and speak. Please read it before you continue. I'll wait.

Here's what I carry away from that post (you did read it, right?):

Your offhand comments about speech supporters who do not, themselves, speak up hit a nerve.

I've seen the light, and I'm here to testify.

To those of you who grew up in outspoken families, I expect that what I'm about to say will seem painfully obvious. But I came to class late, and what I learned there is still fresh and vibrant.

I thought, all my life, that I couldn't speak safely, that no one could, really. Free speech was dangerous and icky. Even after I realized that the First Amendment was not quite the shriveled, antiquated appendix I'd been taught by my public school teachers, for a couple of years or so I still wobbled around with the training-wheel comfort of believing that while not all free speakers were necessarily smarmy, laminated-hair, talking-head TV pundits, I myself ought not to speak freely. I was too clumsy and careless, and free speech was still dangerous and icky.

Just before 9/11 I woke up to how quickly my liberty was eroding, and in a fit of anger and defiance started speaking my mind by blogging. (Thanks to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit) When I actually spoke out (to the horror and confusion of my friends and family), speaking around the house, speaking in my car, talking about it, showing it off, and of course blogging about it, taught me what I could not learn from books, magazines, classes, or even Usenet:

It taught me that freedom takes practice.

I thought I'd practiced. I'm as full of opinions as the next guy, but I thought that having the strong opinion was the freedom. I read banned books and underground comics. I've watched the picket lines and hung out with undesirables. A teacher's kid, I pointedly made no effort in school. I've thought stuff that Wasn't Allowed.

But when I spoke my first opinion, I discovered it had all been safe, padded, wading-pool-with-floaties dabbling. After near on to fifty years, I finally started to grow up. If my Grands are any clue, I've still got twenty or thirty years to work on it, and get to be something like mature by the time I go senile.

It's not just that rights are useless if they are not exercised, not even that rights must be used or be lost. It's that exercising your rights, constantly, is what instructs you in how to be worthy of them.

Speaking out goes far beyond simple self-protection against morons or even moonbats -- it's an unequivocal and unmatched lesson that you are politically and morally sovereign; that you, and not the state, are responsible for your life and your fate. This absolute personal sovereignty is the founding stone of the Republic. "A free-speaking citizenry" (where citizenry is "the whole people") isn't just "necessary to the security of a free state" because it provides a backup to (and defense against) the Democratic Party and the Mainstream Media. More importantly, speaking freely trains sovereign citizens in the art of freedom, and accustoms us to our authority and duty.

As Eric S. Raymond wrote [remember, this is a reinterpretation of the post you just read; you did just read that post, right?]:

"To believe one is incompetent to speak out is, therefore, to live in corroding and almost always needless fear of the self -- in fact, to affirm oneself a moral coward. A state further from 'the dignity of a free man' would be rather hard to imagine. It is as a way of exorcising this demon, of reclaiming for ourselves the dignity and courage and ethical self-confidence of free (wo)men that the speaking out of one's mind, is, ultimately, most important."

Unless you have some specific impediment (and most impediments can be overcome), speak. Find out who you really are. (Yes, there are many paths to self-knowledge. But this tests something you cannot access any other way. No one path goes everywhere.) You'll probably discover you're not all that bad. And if not, well...

Think of it as evolution in action.

I cannot think of a better reason to speak than to affirm my political and moral sovereignty. Tomorrow morning I am heading down to the New Orleans Republican Party headquarters on Lee Circle and get placards and bumper stickers. Why don't a million or so of y'all do the same. Not to rile the Democrats (though that is a fun game), not to help Bush (though that is a good reason), but to instruct yourself in how to be worthy of the right of freedom of speech.

UPDATE 3 pm 10/20: People, it works. No sooner had I pulled my signs out of the car and set them up in my flowerbeds, than my neighbor came up and asked if I had one more. I did (I was going to put it in my window). I gave it to him and he put it up on his fence. Guess when the last time he displayed a political sign? Eisenhower!!!

People are starving all around you who want the validation of knowing they are not alone in supporting Bush. Let the sun shine in!

UPDATE 3 pm 10/23: One of my two signs was stolen sometime between late last night and now. My neighbor (the one from above) found it this morning in the garbage, put it back, and it is now stolen and not found back as of now. Car is not yet keyed. One sign still standing out front. Sheesh.

Turn Turn Turn

A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep*

And a time to apologize.

Hugh Hewitt points out Senator Kerry's invocation of Mary Cheney in last night's debate and calls it not only a big political blunder but a demonstration of terrible taste as well. He is calling on John Kerry to apologize:

A simple apology from Kerry (and Cahill and Elizabeth Edwards) will quell the controversy, and it is owed.

I agree. But I have never heard John Kerry apologize. Not to the Vietnam Vets he slandered in 1971. Not to the Secret Service and other aids he belittles all too frequently. Not to the Coalition of the Willing he denigrates with words like "coerced" and "bribed".

I predict that The Man Who Would Be King will not apologise to Mary Cheney.

*Look here (or perhaps here) for the rest of the words.

The Funk Broker Blues

Dear Funk Broker,

You weep (comment #3): "Are you guys for real?"

Yes, and no. I am for real. So-called latinopundit (the commenter at funkbroker) is not. You may want to ask the real latinopundit (link removed to latinopundit whois record at request of latinopundit) if he is the one who responded in comment number 2.

Funkpundit: I paid $15 to secure funkpundit.com. Latinodoorknob did not secure squat. You want funkpundit.com? Email me. It's real. It's free to you. I'll give you the domain with 362 days left. Email me at nopundit -at- nopundit -dot- com.

C'mon, Luke, join the Dark Force....

Double Standard

I start out my mornings with a steamin' cup of Neal's Nuze (and so should you!). A tidbit in today's edition:

Sinclair Broadcasting Group, a broadcasting company that owns 62 television stations, has decided to broadcast a television movie before the election called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal." This is a 42-minute movie about The Poodle's anti-war activities when he came back from Vietnam. It will be shown on all of their stations, many of which are in battleground states.

As expected, the Democrats are up in arms over this. They're outraged that a company would choose the programming it wants to run on its own stations. At least18 senators have come out against it. The film includes interviews with Vietnam war POWs, their wives, and others that were affected by Kerry's testimony about atrocities. The company has invited John Kerry to be a guest on the program. That's not enough for the DNC.

What say the Democrats? Since they don't like the content of the broadcast, they are trying to get it banned from the airwaves. We call that "censorship." The Democratic National Committee is going to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission today, complaining that the broadcast amounts to an illegal contribution to President Bush's campaign. To state it in the plainest possible terms, the Democrats are asking the Imperial Federal Government to use its monopoly on the use of force to prevent a private corporation from airing programming Democrats don't like. Censorship is the only word that really applies.

Do you remember what happened back in June?

Lawmakers are accustomed to late nights on the job. But when the Senate did not finish work on a defense bill until 11:30 p.m. Wednesday, there was a bit of grumbling in certain Republican quarters.

The reason? Votes were pushed back until 9:30 p.m., according to senior Republican aides, because some Democrats wanted to attend the premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11," the new Bush-bashing movie by the filmmaker Michael Moore.

The premiere, at the Uptown Theater in the Cleveland Park neighborhood of Washington, was attended by the filmmaker himself, as well as about a dozen Senate Democrats, including Bob Graham of Florida, Max Baucus of Montana, Dianne Feinstein of California and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.

"I saw roughly the first half of it," said Mr. Graham said afterward. "It was very, very tough on President Bush. I think it will energize the Democratic base and it will irritate the Republican base. The question is what will it do to people in the middle."

Matbe the solution is if the Republicans actually showed some nads now and complained to the Democrats about broadcasts which are illegal contributions to Senator Kerry's campaign.