Monday, October 31, 2005


What the hell's wrong with that?!

I'm spouting off, before I study what THEY have to say.

I will study it. Let's see where that leads, eh?

My apology to Ron

To cut right to the chase, here's the last line:
My first comment was harsher than I intended. I'm sorry about that. The rest of what you said I agree with.

Here's the comment exchange from this post:

Gold. Hm. Not enough of it in the world to cover our 10 trillion a year economy. And not enough of it in our country to cover the dollars floatig around the world. The only thing that we have backing up our currency is the good name of our nation. Our backs so to speak. Our honor. If there is a succesor fed chairman that thinks that inflating our currency would be better-n-deflating it he needs only to remember Chile under Pinoche. Or Stagfaltion back in the late 70's under Jimminy Carter. If he is looking at prestige he needs to to remember the Fed Chairman who residgned/was canned in disgrace over those money policies. What was his name? Hm. Maybe that is what I mean. I remember Paul Volker who stabilized our money supply and committed us to the policies we now have.

As far as a minable gold supply? The Ocean has an estimated 500 tons disolved per cubic mile of ocean water. Now if we could only figure out how to get it out of there.

My my, the guy that invents that process will Be rich. Rich I tell you. Filthy stinking Rich.

Jam 5:3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.

Besides the bible warns against it.

If I were going to store up anything I would store up dry goods because like the little song we sang in church a loaf of bread will by a bag of gold.

Or in my case I like Mac and Cheese.
ron | Homepage | 10.28.05 - 6:30 pm | #


You really need to read Human Action, Ron. Tell me where to send it and I'll mail you my spare copy.

Your econ teacher was mired in Keynes--or, if you were lucky (and I doubt that you were)--Monetarism. Study a theory that's not steeped in Statism.
Old Whig | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 4:39 am | #


Okay, I guess I wasn't too clear. This is what I thought was wrong, "Gold. Hm. Not enough of it in the world to cover our 10 trillion a year economy."

That 10 trillion number wasn't inevitable. What has the purchasing power of a Double Eagle done since we dropped it as our currency?

It was the $20 bill in 1900. You could get a really nice suit for that then. For the value of an ounce of gold now, you can get a really nice suit.

My first comment was harsher than I intended. I'm sorry about that. The rest of what you said I agree with.
Old Whig | Homepage | 11.01.05 - 12:37 am | #

But I strongly encourage everyone to read A lot of BS could be prevented that way.

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Rosa Parks is lying in state at the Capital.

First woman ever to receive that honor.

Can you think of anyone more deserving of it?

I guess it's sad that the honor was still there to be given, yet... Who better?

The Packers and Vikings both lost.

I expected that. Considering the lack of healthy players, the Packers' loss was considerably less ignominious than the Vikings'. But the Vikes lost Culpepper, maybe for the season.

I may not be a true Vikings fan, but I am a Culpepper fan. I think he's great.

I hope it's just a sprain.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Ah, the benefits of Googling yourself...

I just found a guy who quoted my Amazon review of Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty.
Central Planning

I rather like a comment on Friedrich A. Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty, made by Alan Erkkila on Amazon:

Probably the most important insight in my own personal life [from this book] runs to the effect that the gap between the wisest among us and the most foolish among us is not as great as the most sophomoric among us think. It is, unfortunately, the last who suffer the cravings of power the most and wish to run our lives for us. This is my paraphrase, Hayek was much more polite.

posted by James DeLong @ 11:35 AM | Markets

He pulled out the good part. Even at that you can see my tendency to try to stuff too much into a single sentence. Ten years of German takes a toll.

I ran across an unlikely quote from Fabian Socialist

George Bernard Shaw: "You have to choose between trusting to the natural stability of gold and the natural stability of the honesty and intelligence of the members of the government. And, with due respect to these gentlemen, I advise you to vote for gold."

I got it in the free newsletter Money and Markets. They believe Ben Bernanke is so afraid of deflation that he's going to inflate the money supply. Of course the Fed chair isn't a dictator, but the concern is that Ayn Rand's right about committees: they're run by the most persuasive member. At least when the members are more worried about power and prestige than accomplishing the goals for which they were founded.

The advantage of gold is that it serves the Market, not the whims and fashions of politicians. The Market has the virtue of being the aggregated decisions of a vastly larger and more diverse collective--indeed, the largest and most diverse collective possible. It's not infallible, but it does a better job of aggregating human wisdom than any smaller group can. See James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds for examples.

Capitalism Magazine has published the second chapter

of Craig Biddles', Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It. Here are a few quotes:
If there is such a thing as morality, it is not merely an issue of effective means; it is also--and more fundamentally--a matter of proper ends. The concept of "morality" logically presupposes a proper end; without such an end, morality cannot exist. So the question is: What is a proper end?

Then, from part II:
The is--ought gap is the secular subjectivists' technical retreat. It serves as their linguistic asylum from the imposition of any moral standards. It is their ticket to "get away" with whatever they (or their group) feel like doing. And it is why no one can answer them when they say: "There are no moral absolutes" or "Morality is not black and white" or "Who's to say what's right?"

People who make such claims are counting on our inability to name a fact-based, logically provable, objective standard of moral value. Consciously or not, they are relying on the is--ought dichotomy to defend moral subjectivism. And, consciously or not, they are supported by the likes of David Hume and the legions of subjectivist college professors who each year teach another batch of future intellectuals that moral principles cannot be derived from the facts of reality.

What do Hume and company propose as an alternative? How, in their view, are people supposed to determine what is morally right and wrong? How are we to distinguish virtue from vice? Their answer: By reference to a "moral sense," which they also call "sentiments of pleasure and uneasiness" and, you guessed it: "feelings."

The problem is not: "If there is no God, anything goes." The problem is: If there is no objective standard of value, anything goes. If there is no rationally provable standard of value, there is no way to defend with moral certainty what is right or to condemn with moral certainty what is wrong. The alternative is not religion versus subjectivism, but reason versus subjectivism--and the secular subjectivists know it.

And, from part III:
The is--ought gap represents a moral abyss. If we care about human life and happiness, we need to bridge it. We need to ground morality in reality; we need to discover a rationally provable ultimate end--a standard of value derived from observation and logic.

Fortunately, the problem has been solved; the gap has been bridged; morality has been tied to reality. An objective standard of value has been rationally proved...

And I don't have to dig out my copy to verify my summary, it's the title of the book: Loving Life, i.e. live in such a way that you love living. Interestingly, there's a pretty good explanation of what that means in Andrew Bernstein's series Villainy: An Analysis of the Nature of Evil. (That's part I, there are links to the rest on the right. Part IV is due on Saturday.)

You may have noticed that I made little effort to defend Ayn Rand a few posts back. The fact is that I when I examined Kant and his most faithful intellectual descendants I had to say that it looked to me like she had mischaracterized him. Without doubt the most famous philosophers post-Kant promptly shoved their heads up their asses, but Jakob Fries actually advanced the philosophy and some others have as well. Schopenhauer wasn't a complete loser.

Having said that, I still think Rand and her descendants are more correct with regard to "Practical Reason" than Kant was. But I'm a lot closer to being an expert on Objectivism than anything else.

Rand, Bernstein... Yaron Brooke, Craig Biddle, Tara Smith... do a lot better job of defending Objectivism than I could. I've come to realize that my strength is doing more than... well, I think well, but I don't have confidence in my debating abilities.

That's why I've decided to do capitalism, rather than just talk about it. I'll keep you apprised of the results.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

RIP Rosa Parks

"I thought back to the time when I used to sit up all night and didn't sleep, and my grandfather would have his gun right by the fireplace, or if he had his one-horse wagon going anywhere, he always had his gun in the back of the wagon," she wrote. "People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in."
--from My Life, by Rosa Parks (quoted in the Washington Post).

Friday, October 21, 2005

For those of you who've never gotten around to reading FA Hayek's classic, The Road to Serfdom

this is a quick downloading version of the cartoon edition published by Look Magazine.

Hayek, by the way, is the originator of the name of this blog (the Old Whig part, not the Brain Dump part - that latter part's my fault).

I discovered BK Marcus via the fact that he wrote this excellent intro to Mises' first published piece upon his escape to America in 1941: a German history lesson printed in the New York Times for those who may have been confused by Goebbels' propaganda in answer to a speech Wendell Willkie had had broadcast to the German people.

[Sorry about the awful sentence. Maybe I'll edit that later. Who can say?]

Might as well throw in the towel, boys!

France claims cultural victory over America
By Colin Randall
France claimed a significant victory last night in its relentless battle against the march of American culture with the adoption of internationally-backed protections.

As Tom Sawyer said, "Just 'cause you say so, don't make it so."
Supported notably by Canada, France was the driving force behind a "cultural diversity" convention agreed by 148 of the 154 countries which took part in the vote at the Paris general conference of the United Nations arts and culture agency, Unesco.

Good thing Bush decided to revive our funding for that, eh?
America was virtually isolated, with Israel the only other country to vote against the treaty and four nations abstaining.

It failed to force through a series of amendments to weaken the text, which reaffirms the rights of countries to "protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions".

For the French establishment, indignant at failures to resist invasion of "Anglo-Saxon" - which usually means English speaking - entertainment, the treaty amounts to a "manifesto for an alternative globalisation".

France devotes huge resources to protecting francophone arts, spending many millions of pounds each year to prop up French cinema, theatre and opera.

But that is not enough to satisfy the influential cultural lobby and a string of single-interest trade groups.

Commentators routinely deplore the perceived simplistic morality and emotional shallowness of American cinema, as well as the cheap thrills of Euro Disney, despite their popularity.

You can't convince your compatriates that your products are superior to ours, so you resort to empty political maneuvers. This is not a cultural victory. Your culture buys our stuff. This is a victory of political elitists.

If you want to defeat America and Britain in the culture war, you need to free your culture from the burden of your political class. Quit politics and write a novel, poem or screenplay.

If you keep fighting your culture war with your antiquated weapons, well... to appropriate a phrase from that fallen prophet, Nikita Khrushchev, We will bury you.
The courts even ruled that the First World War film, A Very Long Engagement, starring Audrey Tautou, was not French enough to qualify for state subsidies.

The fact that they wanted them is plenty cause for shame.
Rival French film makers objected because most of the production budget was met by Warner Bros through its French subsidiary. Yet the film was made in France and in French, with a French cast and production team, providing work for 2,200 people.

Britain supports the convention but not without differences of interpretation that could trigger future rows.

The Brits need to read Anthem. That kind of appeasement doesn't end well.
Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, the French culture minister, hailed the "recognition that culture is not merchandise like any other".

Tell it to the guy trying to make a living selling books or movies.

I just noticed that Steve Gigl changed the title of his blog

to Perspective and Soda (formerly known as GigglePundit).

He's unloading a '96 Mercury Sable, if you're interested.


We got CAKE and ICE CREAM and everything!

Rosie's 9, so the place'll be crawlin' with little rugrats. Or half-grown rugrats, or whatever they are.

You didn't get an invitation?

Call our customer service line at 1-800-LETEMEATCAKE.

Hey, did you guys see this post by John Lott

on the... well, here's the title: Why Judges Aren't Smarter The less sterling a candidate's record, the more likely Congress is to confirm. By John R. Lott, Jr., resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

So politicians don't like smart people. Xenophobia, I guess.
Using the work of legal scholars like Stanford's Lawrence Lessig and the University of Chicago's William Landes, I also looked at measures of quality once a judge was on the bench, including the number of citations to their opinions and the number of published opinions. I found that the more influential the judge, the longer it took him or her to be confirmed. For instance, after accounting for tenure, I found that each 1% increase in citations of a judge's opinions increased the length of the confirmation process for circuit court by 3%. Looking at the data, it appears that fights over nominees such as Robert Bork had much more to do with their influence than their somehow being more extreme than other nominees. Fourth circuit court of appeals judge James Wilkinson is another example of a highly-cited judge who took a long time (273 days) to be confirmed.

How does anybody manage to get nominated in the first place? Oh, silly me, I keep thinking people are advanced according to their merit. We're talking politics, not some rationally run enterprise.

Monday, October 17, 2005

I've been a little distressed about the fact that my studies of Objectivist philosophy and Austrian economics,

which I believe are pretty much correct, over the past decade haven't led to any practical results - i.e. a material improvement in my quality of life - and wouldn't be likely to do so for anyone looking to better their* own condition. So I've begun to study the actions of people who actually practice Capitalism. I judge those practitioners their adherence to the teachings of the philophers: Objectivists and Austrians both preach honesty and openness - Glasnost and Perestroika, if you will - with customers, partners, investors and neighbors - anyone who might be harmed by fraudulent claims or destructive practices.

Since marketing and sales seem to be the capitalistic activities most under attack these days, I have decided to focus my attention on them to see if the attacks are warranted. Not being a "people person" myself, I thought I'd particularly be suited to join the marketers. I want to learn marketing and join them to see if the claims made are accurate as well as to find out if the claims of those who push marketing as a career will help guys like me achieve prosperity. [bad--edit]

*Unlike Robert Ringer, and many others, and also unlike more politically correct types, who would have us use he/she, his/hers or other cumbrous terminology, I'm inclined, by the fact that I had three older sisters very close to my own age to use the plural "they" as my generic term. I'm emboldened by the fact that Finnish has a non-sex-specific third person pronoun "h¨an"; and, even with that, they've taken to using "se," which means "it," as their colloquial third-person pronoun.

Sunday, October 16, 2005

I watched the Vikes embarass themselves on the field

to complement their antics on the boat.

Those people who like to blame the QB for everything, well, I saw him make a couple mistakes, but really Culpepper's problems are a lack of protection and sorry receivers.

Anybody remember when I said I'd post a sexy pic

if I happened to be up blogging at about midnight Saturday night?

Image Hosted by

No, that's not what I meant. My blogs are my donations the Universe, not [really not - and, trust me, my wife doesn't let me forget it] money making ventures.

I said Dr. Ruwart is hot. I offer this proof (I'll never again go to an event she's involved in without a great digital camera, I promise):

Free Image Hosting at

Now, I'm 6 foot even. I have a good friend who's 6' 7". I can vouch that Ms. Ruwart is at least 5' 5" and probably one or two inches taller, so Ken Sturzenacker, former Chair of the Libertarian Party of PA, has to be at least 6' 6". He's probably more like 6' 10".

Friday, October 14, 2005

Since I saw him over on

Robert Ringer Blog, I've been waiting breathlessly for the next installment of From the Desk of Michael Ross - Objectivist. The signs say a new post is immanent.

I must have given a Ross to the universe. They keep coming back to me: this guy, Kelly Ross of, Ross McKenzie, E.G. Ross... Can Diana be said to be in my life?

The success literature is just loaded with that kind of Karma talk. If it's science, as Wallace Wattles would have it, then it doesn't matter if I doubt it.

There's been a blimp flying around town saying "Enough is Enough": I want to be able to afford one of those. [Yeah, I thought that phrasing was funnier.] Out of the 70% of my net income left over after saving, investing and tithing.

I'm visualizing that.

But I don't know how I gave out Rosses to get so many back, so I'm not getting any insight into how to give blimps to the universe to receive blimps back.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Steve lured me over to The Conservative Philosopher

where I ran into this article, On Rand's Misunderstanding of Kant, by William Vallicella, which I'd like to summarize, but he's really quite succinct. Read The Whole Thing.
[T]he question is not whether Kant's ethical doctrine is true or reasonably maintained; the question is simply whether Rand has fairly presented it. The answer to that is in the negative.

So I persist in my view that Rand is a hack, and that this is part of the explanation of why many professional philosophers accord her little respect.

This is the comment I intend to leave, if and when I get approval for commenting there:
It appears that she confused Kant with Compte. And didn't do any research to verify her position.

Although she does discuss Compte elsewhere, if I remember right, she still blames his errors as stemming logically from Kant's.

I also think that she's considering the fact that immediately after Kant the most influential philosophers were Compte, Hegel and Marx. Then, soon after, we get Stirner and Nietzsche.

The claim could be made that their failings were a failure to understand Kant. It seems to me that they pretty much ignored his more important points and took off in other, fanciful directions instead of building on his foundation. They rebelled against scientific thought.

Jakob Fries, on the other hand, made important revisions and original contributions to Kantian thought. See for elaboration.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

The funniest item from James Taranto's

Best of the Web column in the WSJ today:

Say What?
"Outer Space Fish Balls Real Chinese Take-Away"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 12

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Dr. Mary Ruwart is offering $150 in premiums

to those who buy Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression tomorrow, Tuesday Oct. 12. I have a copy. It may be time to get another.

I have the earlier version as well, personally signed by her. My brain turned to complete mush when I met her at the MNLP convention in 2000. Primarily because she's stunningly beautiful; I didn't know her work then. I do now. She has a stunningly beautiful vision for the world as well.

I wonder if that web page is Ringer's handiwork. He does that sort of thing, and he'd definitely do it for her. I'm pretty sure he's been writing the fundraising letters for The Advocates for Self-Government lately.

Speaking of Ringer, I'm adding David Kuhn's Society of Ringers blog. Or actually, the blog is called Robert Ringer Blog. And I'll probably put up Ringer's article archives along with it.

Monday, October 10, 2005

Here's the hook I made at the blacksmith's shop:

Free Image Hosting at

I just realized that the brassing doesn't show in this picture. The wife was telling me it was dumb to try to shoot it after dark, but I never listen to her.

Partly it's that I chopped it out of this picture:
Free Image Hosting at
My camera claims to be good for close-ups, by I've always been disappointed with my results.

What I dearly wish I had a good picture of ("...the best writers of English have always ended their sentences with prepositions." --All right, I forget which great writer of English wrote that, but I guarantee you'll see it in Chaucer, Shakespeare and the KJV.) was Rosie and I dancing over the rocks of the breakwater leading out to the lighthouse at the Superior entrance to St. Louis Harbour on Wisconsin Point.

Wisconsin Point was, until the 1990s, one of the great bastions of freedom in the world. There was no Authority there at all. The camping was wonderful, and the partying was awesome.

But the government's there now.

Of course, they didn't stop us from running out to the lighthouse, as dangerous as that is. Rosie was cautious, but she made it. If you don't trust your balance, it's like rock is rock climbing--it'd be very easy to break your leg. For a semi-decent athlete, it's a challenging jog and a good exercise in concentration. But, of course, I didn't want to leave my beloved Rosie behind to fend for herself, or let her become discouraged, so I tried to show her the easy way and sometimes let her find it for herself.

She often makes me proud, and she did that day. That's just about my favorite thing in the world to do, and it was wonderful to share it with her. As I did with the boys 15 years ago.

Here we are today:
Free Image Hosting at

Free Image Hosting at

I should mention that my cheap digital camera has a three second delay after you push the button, so that explains why Niina's not smiling and Rosie's book has closed. It's an HP Photosmart 120. Hopefully they've figured out some of these problems since 2003.

Robert Ringer has this purported quote from The Buddha

in his book, Action! Nothing Happens Until Something Moves (p. 50 of the hardcover):
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.


And your own research and experience.

I'm particularly enamored of the section beginning on that page: Universal Principles:
All of life is based on universal principles or laws. We cannot create or alter principles; we can only try to discover them, and once discovered, find ways to use them to our advantage. A principle is a natural law that has always existed and will continue to exist as long as there is a universe. A principle is the essence of reality.

the foundational principle of the universe, as well as all aspects of secular life, is well known to everyone: Actions have consequences. If I push you (an action), something will happen: i.e., there will be a consequence. You may fall down, you may stumble, or, at the very least, you will feel pressure against your body. You may also get mad at me, walk away, or push me back. The point is that I cannot escape the reality that my action, no matter how small, will have consequences. Where I start to invite problems into my life is when I delude myself into believing that I can push you without there being any consequence at all.

Believing that one can create his own principles is a futile and dangerous way to live life. Of course, a person has a perfect right to go on believing whatever he wants to believe, but truth isn't discriminatory. It will mere our negative consequences just as harshly to a well-meaning, ignorant individual as to one who is malicious and self-delusive. Not once has truth excused anyone for being well meaning.

You can find more of what he has to say at (those are his article archives).

Friday, October 07, 2005

I just stopped by The Will To Exist blog.

We had a debate here awhile back about what could motivate a rationally-selfish person to perform heroically in combat.

Trevor Snyder has more insight into that than I could ever have [since I failed miserably in my effort to join the Marines in 1981, Al said, bitterly -- but I digress].

Free Image Hosting at

I just want the world to know that some of us pragmatic-libertarian/Objectivists, who know full well the ideals that are worth fighting for, are actually putting our lives on the line for them.

BTW, 25 For Freedom is looking for a few good men and women. I'm a recruiter (not the only one). Show me your stuff.

I'm sure we're all praying for Trevor's safe return.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

In keeping with my desire to become an Aristotle scholar,

I picked up a book at the library called Aristotle's Children, by Richard E. Rubenstein. Subtitled, "How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Dark Ages."

Just about dead center in the middle of the book, P. 176, there's this interesting paragraph:
It is Odd to think of professional heresy-hunters [the newly-founded orders of the Dominicans and Franciscans] as the advocates for a revolution in thinking, and a scientific revolution at that. From a modern vantage point, one would expect the more secular-minded masters of arts to have been the Aristotelian movement's strongest advocates, and theological zealots its most adamant opponents. But the Dominican and Franciscan theologians were not "fundamentalists" in the modern sense. They were passionate conservatives who believed that the European awakening was irreversible and that the tools of reason, even those developed by pagan philosophers, could be used to advance the long-term interests of orthodox religion. As a result, the most militant and confident defenders of the faith, at this crucial juncture in Western intellectual history, were also the most committed advocates of the new learning. This potent combination of religious fervor and intellectual power virtually guaranteed the acceptance of natural philosophy and "scientific theology" at the University of Paris. From this influential base, Aristotelian ideas and methods would spread unstoppably throughout Europe's other universities, generating new controversies and stimulating new debates.

This was about the early- to mid- 13th century.

My only quibble with what he says is that I know quite a few fundamentalists. I doubt that their understanding of the term "fundamentalist" - which they proudly acknowledge - overlaps much with Mr. Rubenstein's.

I am, of course, speaking of the American, Christian fundamentalists whom I know. I've known one who might live down to the level of bull-headed ignoramous that rabid, left-wing atheists like to portray as typical. But I haven't talked to him in 20 years. (The guy drove me to Nietzsche.)

Hide the Salami?!

[Here, let me edit this.]

I just caught a segment of Limbaugh's show. He played a sound bite of Howard Dean saying it wouldn't be appropriate for the Administration to play hide the salami with Harriet Miers' records.

I hadn't heard of that fetish. Maybe that's what Sandy Berger was up to, but he was in the previous administration.

I suppose, with that precedent, it's necessary make some warning noises to discourage further incursions against propriety.

Legislation to follow.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

You know, I think the thing that most killed my blogging buzz

lately was all the stories of rapes and murders in New Orleans. I suppose I have a moral right to rant about the faulty news coverage, but I'm just too relieved to find out that most of them never happened. I hope the duped reporters exact terrible revenge. Right after they extract every possible lesson from this mess about how to find news.

While those things weren't going on, I was at Rendezvous in Pine City.

I competed in a few contests: took a major whuppin' in the Men's Footrace, had a decent showing in the stone toss, but didn't place... I guess it was only two.

I went to the Sunday Service at the Blacksmith's tent. He talked about how and why to live right. He seems to be doing it, which is a plus.

I spent a lot of time with him - he invited me to make a hook for hanging lanterns on the tent pole. It's pretty cool to pound on red-hot iron and make it into something useful. I'll have to get some batteries for my digital camera and show it to you.
Eric, I'm still thinking about the 10 Big Things Meme and what you said.

My life goals at this point are to Be a Great Father, make 10 mil, learn seven languages and master Aristotle. Do any of those count?
Took me six days to write this. Can you tell?

Tom the Pooklekufr has a "First rant against Miers the Doughnut-Gatherer"

"Anyone who thinks the Constitution should yield to the will of the Sharia-embracing dictator-appeasing genocide-abetting anti-Semitic bureaucratic f[censored]weasels on the UN, ought to be kept from the Supreme Court with attack dogs and pepper spray. Or at least a resounding Nay vote."

I don't know. She looks like a nice lady.

Monday, October 03, 2005

Whoops! Didn't mean to make a new post!

Funny that I never feel like live blogging anything other than a Packers' game. I didn't know that about myself.

But it makes me feel proud.

Yesterday, I found myself in Cloquet, MN, blasting the Vikings game from my truck radio in the Walmart parking lot. When I realized the Vikes were embarassing themselves, I developed a smirk.

I thought I was a half-assed Vikings fan.

I took a sadistic pleasure in the frowns I was getting.

But, it 26-7 Carolina now. Turnabout's fair play, as my mother always used to say.


Donald Driver! 24 yards!


Yeah!!! Brett!!! GGGGGooooo!!!

First down, baby!!


Driver to the END ZONE!!!

Goin' for TWO!

AGH! 26-13 Carolina.


Well, s**t!

Carolina's drivin' to the end zone.

They get the TD. Go for the two.

Nope. 32-13 Carolina.


Whoop! While I was distracted, the Pack brought it to 32-21!


OOooh! Sack Deeeee!


Hey!! TD Chapman!

Robert Ferguson Gets the two pointer!


Well, It's going to end at 32-29....

Just got the baby to bed.

AAAaaaggghhh!!! I'm missin' the Packers' game!!!

It's on ABC which doesn't come in very well in the basement.

Oh, good! Pack 7 - Carolina 7 in the second quarter.

Carolina just (barely) kicked a short field goal.

Pack to the 22 on the reception.

Four on the running play.

Short of the first on the next pass.

Fourth down and short.


10-7 Panthers, don't forget.
Well... Carolina scores after 3 plays.

Extra pt. blocked.

Carolina 16-7.


Well, whattay say?
Favre's movin' it and his receiver won't fight to keep the ball.

Interception. Carolina moves it back for a touchdown.

23-7 Panthers.


Murphy's down on the kickoff reception.

3 & out for the Pack.


Did Carolina do something?

The Packers did an ugly drive to run out the half.


Night Stalker? Can they equal Darin McGavin? God! I loved that show!

Nobody deserved a personal vehicle more than Darin McGavin. See A Christmas Story ASAP if you don't believe me. The guy was magnificent!

Oh, s**t! How can I resist this!


Pack kicks off for the second half.

3 & out for Carolina. Can I call them "The Pants?"

Pack has the ball.


3 & out.