Bald Eagle Picture


10:46 PM
11-year-olds will have access to morning-after pills without parental consent. What do you expect? 11-year-olds having sex is just another "lifestyle choice." We don't want to impose our old-fashion notions of right and wrong on the young and impressionable. Instead, we'll drop any moral pretenses and hand out pills so they can kill their children.

"School Offers Morning-After Pill to 11-Year-Olds" [via Drudge]

Sean Hackbarth |

10:12 PM
This is the music video Plant/Page/Jones should release to get all the kids hooked on Zeppelin. Don't tick off these felines.

Sean Hackbarth |

12:07 AM
Nick Schulz takes the first shot at The American Conservative. He wonders how conservative Pat Buchanan is anymore since his positions parallel many non-conservatives:

If the folks at TAC believe they can demonstrate that they are truer to some timeless "faith" than anyone else, they have a tough road ahead. Buchanan claims he and his gang speak for genuine conservatives. He's free to make that claim. But let's look at some specific issues. On the question of a potential Iraqi invasion, for example, TAC's positions are indistinguishable from those of Noam Chomsky, Al Gore, former Clinton advisor and Democratic intellectual William Galston, and Lewis Lapham, the editor of the left wing Harper's magazine. Indeed Lapham and Buchanan, in the current issues of their respective magazines, make strong arguments against Iraqi invasions that happen to make the exact same points. Take another issue, such as global trade. It doesn't help matters for TAC that on trade issues, Buchanan's views mirror those of Ralph Nader.

"Standing Pat" [via InstaPundit]

Sean Hackbarth |


11:41 PM
Lynn's fed up with ABC News. I haven't bothered with Peter Jennings and the gang for years.

Sean Hackbarth |

11:31 PM
Eugene Volokh's scenario is frightening, yet plausible. The reason to take out Saddam and liberate Iraq is that if Iraq builds a bomb, it will be used against the United States. Either Saddam would use it as in Eugene's speculative fiction, or terrorists will use it. What I fear most is waking up one day and watching on CNNMSNBCFOXNEWS that Seattle, Chicago, or Houston is now a smoking, radioactive crater. Millions of Americans would be dead and soon after millions of Iraqis would be dead too. At its core, invading Iraq is a war to save lives.

"Some Say Deterrence Is Enough?"

Sean Hackbarth |

11:12 PM
Jim's list of things to do with his new house gives me a whole bunch of reasons never to buy one.

Sean Hackbarth |

10:57 PM
Webloggers and readers with an itch to write, Frontiers of Freedom's can be your chance to start your new career as the next George Will, Thomas Friedman, or--dare I say it--Ann Coulter. Send them a 500-750 word article, and they just might print it. I see this as the minor leagues of opinion writing. Jennifer Roberts of even wrote, "Columns accepted by will be publicized by Townhall through our What's New section and email, and some lucky ones will make our homepage."

Sean Hackbarth |

10:07 PM
USA Today has a lengthy story on possible war tactics against Iraq, but here's the kicker: the whole story might just be a diversion put out by the military. As Dave Moniz writes,

The war will almost certainly be preceded by a lengthy disinformation campaign designed to keep Saddam guessing about U.S. intentions. That effort, some say, has already begun with the disclosure of plans to move a key military headquarters to the tiny Persian Gulf nation of Qatar and the continued leaking of ''war plans,'' including military training for Iraqi dissidents, to U.S. media. Says one former Gulf War planner: ''It's been wonderful to have all those stories out there to confuse Saddam.''

What you can guess is pretty accurate is that the war will be based on speed and accuracy. Bombers will use smart bombs like they did in Afghanistan with troops sweeping into Iraq from all parts of the world. If the guess of around 100,000 troops for this war is correct, it will an even greater accomplishment than Desert Storm.

"U.S. Aim in Iraq: 'Lightning' Action"

Sean Hackbarth |

1:27 AM
Stephen Silver didn't like The West Wing season premiere and hopes the show becomes relevant again.

Sean Hackbarth |

1:07 AM
Brad DeLong on basic statistics:

I wish the New York Times would talk of confidence intervals and sampling variability, but its editors have made a judgment that such discussions would lose too many of their readers. It doesn't. But this failure to talk about the uncertainties of sample-based estimates leaves the door open for sleazy attacks like Slate's.

I agree with him. Tossing around numbers the way the media does only confuses a public who is capable of understand concepts like confidence intervals and makes them more cynical toward statistics.

Sean Hackbarth |

12:48 AM
Jane Galt calls The West Wing "Touched By An Angel for the political class." She's right. The liberal President and his staff are always right, and the opposition isn't just wrong, but stupid. I still like the show because it's about Washington, D.C. and the dialog is so zippy. A failing with the dialog is that any of the characters could say any of the lines, and it would fit. C.J. is just a female version of Sam, who is a male version of Donna, who is a female version of Josh. I'll still watch it because it's better than just about anything else in primetime, and I need something to pass the time until 24 begins its second season.

Sean Hackbarth |

12:08 AM
John Hawkins is tired of the anti-war crowd's lack of an answer to the Islamist War:

This is the big problem I have with the anti-war people. There is a clear and present danger to the United States that in all likelihood will get worse unless some sort of immediate action is taken and the anti-war crowd's solution to that problem is **sound of crickets chirping**. Until the anti-war crowd has something of substance to say about a SOLUTION to the problem we're facing, there's no compelling reason to continue paying attention to their arguments.

Congress is putting together a resolution on the use of force against Iraq. Now is the time for the anti-war crowd to state their case. No longer can they cry out for a debate. The debate is now.

Sean Hackbarth |


11:08 PM
The agency in charge of rebuilding the WTC site has asked for ideas from six architecture teams. Since the state of modern architecture is abysmal, I worry about the resulting plans to be put together by November.

"Six Teams Chosen to Create New Designs for WTC Site"

Sean Hackbarth |

8:00 PM
Best British weblog, as determined by the Guardian: Scaryduck.

"The Duck of the Draw"

Sean Hackbarth |

7:56 PM
Dawn writes,

No one is Pro-Abortion. I am not. I think it is unfortunate and sad, but my desire to keep it accessible comes from the same concern the Pro-Lifers have, preserving the integrity of life.

If no one is pro-abortion then how come so many people scream when even the slightest restriction on abortion is merely considered? How come NARAL hasn't supported any ban on gruesome partial-birth abortion? The only way abortion can perserve the integrity of life is if the mother's life is in danger. That's it. I'm a hardliner. Self-defense is the only moral justification for killing an unborn child.

Sean Hackbarth |

7:38 PM
The University of California at San Diego wants a student group, the Che Cafe Collective, to remove a link to Columbian narco-terrorist group FARC. The univeristy claims it's a violation of the USA Patriot Act. It's not since, according to the law, supporting terrorists includes "currency or other financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials." No one should claim that a hyperlink is equal to "communications equipment."

"University Bans Controversial Links"

Sean Hackbarth |

6:33 PM
In an e-mail, Chris Mosier points out an error in Jacob Levy's post on the 17th Amendment. Levy wrote that before the 17th Amendment "Senators were elected for a stable seven years." A Senator's term has always been six years. The 17th Amendment didn't change anything about the length.

Sean Hackbarth |

6:12 PM
The the inaugural issue of The American Conservative, the Paleo/Neo Conservative wars have moved beyond the Internet and unknown magazines.

AC editors Pat Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos might be taking the term "Old Right" too literally. There's no real content on the magazine's web site. If they want influence beyond the D.C.-New York media center they need to take after Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute gang who publish daily.

Bill Kristol may claim to not care about AC (he said, "I don't intend to pay much attention to it"), but don't be surprised to see a feature article in the next few months in The Weekly Standard skewering AC's political philosophy.

"On a Right Wing and a Player"

Sean Hackbarth |

6:00 PM
Clayton Cramer asserts that the Founders intended the Senate to represent wealthy interests. [via Volokh]

Sean Hackbarth |

5:01 PM
PALEO WATCH: The latest item is indirect. Lawrence Auster covers Pat Buchanan's new magazine and wrote this paragraph about paleos in general:

A similar ad hominem methodology can be seen at work among Buchanan's somewhat more extreme allies on the antiwar right, the paleo-libertarians and neo-Confederates whose main hangout is For the neo-Confederates, the evil American empire does not begin (as it does for the Buchananites) with the Gulf War or the Kosovo War or the Cold War or World War II; it begins with the Civil War and Lincoln's unprecedented exertion of national power to suppress the Southern rebellion. The neo-Confederates hate Lincoln's policy both as unjust and wicked in itself and as prototypical of the current American empire and its client state Israel. Just as Buchanan smears the "rampaging bull" Sharon as the fons et origo of Mideast violence, the neo-Confederates rant about "the blood-thirsty Lincoln" as the sole cause of the South's ruin. This "blood-thirsty" slur contains two false inferences: that Lincoln's primary motive was to kill as many people as possible, rather than to save the United States from dismemberment; and that it was only the evil Lincoln (or Lincoln and his band of radical Republicans) who wanted a large-scale war on the South and forced the rest of the country to go along with that tyrannical policy. The truth, of course, is that it was the majority of the Northern people, Republicans and Democrats, who through their elected representatives supported the war; and that their motive was not to shed blood but to save the Union.

Like Buchanan when he blames Mideast violence on the "rampaging bull" Sharon, and like the neo-Confederates when they blame the Civil War on the "blood-thirsty" Lincoln, McConnell when he singles out the "War Party" is suggesting two slanderous falsehoods. First, he is implying that it is only a small group of manipulative ideologues, the (largely Jewish) neoconservatives, who support the overthrow of the Iraqi regime, rather than, as is the case, the majority of Americans. Second, he is implying that those who support a war on Iraq are motivated by a love of war for its own sake ? for what else is meant by "War Party"? ? rather than by a responsible concern for America's security. For McConnell to admit that the majority of the American people agree with Bush's Iraq policy, and that they do so for rational and patriotic ? not ideological or imperialistic ? reasons, would compel him to engage in rational and respectful debate with them instead of trying to provoke fear and hatred of a neoconservative bogeyman. Unfortunately, it would appear that such restraint is beyond McConnell's ability or desire at this point, as it is for many others on the antiwar right.

"McConnell and Buchanan versus 'The War Party'" [via PunchtheBag]

Sean Hackbarth |

4:51 PM
Lynn Sislo found some links on John Cage's 4'33".

Sean Hackbarth |

3:02 AM
Christopher Hitchens is leaving The Nation. He also offers a simple reason why attacking Iraq is part of the broader Islamist War:

And a friendly Iraq, free again to trade and to make contact with the outside world, could transform the atmosphere of the Middle East.

To take one small example, Iraq would no longer be supplying the more thuggish elements around Yasser Arafat, or offering subsidies to suicide bombers.

And it might be noticed democratic forces among the Palestinians have begun to insist on a mini regime change of their own.

Take that Brent Scowcroft.

Hitchens also goes after the "war for oil" argument:

Just on the material aspect - I love it when people darkly describe the coming intervention as "blood for oil", or equivalent gibberish.

Does this mean what it appears to mean, namely that oil is not worth fighting over?

Or that it's no cause for alarm that the oil resources of the region are permanently menaced by a crazy sadist who has already invaded two of his neighbours?

"We Must Fight Iraq" [via Drudge]

Sean Hackbarth |

12:39 AM
Lynne Stewart, radical lawyer, charged with helping a convicted terrorist release calls to violence shows her cold, inhuman attitude toward the victims of September 11 and civilian casualities in general:

The Pentagon was ''a better target''; the people in the towers ''never knew what hit them. They had no idea that they could ever be a target for somebody's wrath, just by virtue of being American. They took it personally. And actually, it wasn't a personal thing.'' As for civilian deaths in general: ''I'm pretty inured to the notion that in a war or in an armed struggle, people die. They're in the wrong place, they're in a nightclub in Israel, they're at a stock market in London, they're in the Algerian outback -- whatever it is, people die.'' She mentions Hiroshima and Dresden. ''So I have a lot of trouble figuring out why that is wrong, especially when people are sort of placed in a position of having no other way.''

"Terrorist Lawyer" [via David Horowitz]

Sean Hackbarth |


1:18 AM
Chris points out a John Dean (of Watergate fame) article on the Seventeenth Amendment. That's the one that allows direct election of Senators. Chris calls it one of the worst changes to the constitution. Dean argues that it allowed the federal government to trample over states' rights because Senators were no longer beholden to the corporate interests of the states. Instead, they were beholden to the impulses of the voters.

Todd Zywicki's research was mentioned in Dean's article and he adds a little more to the discussion.

Jacob Levy responds [via InstaPundit] to Zywicki. He briefly describes other countries' upper legislative houses. Then he argues that the 17th Amendment may have prevented the Senate from becoming a powerless body.

"The Seventeenth Amendment: Should it be Repealed?"

Sean Hackbarth |

12:47 AM
A Vermont federal judge ruled the federal death penalty unconstitutional.

"Federal Death Penalty Again Ruled Unconstitutional"

Sean Hackbarth |


3:28 AM
Gerhard Schroeder wins, but the U.S. government isn't happy. President Bush hasn't called Schroeder to congratulate him and Donald Rumsfeld didn't meet with the German defense minister in Warsaw.

Is Schroeder's use of the U.S. as boogie-man the sign of a trend in Europe? Will other center-left parties, even extreme right ones, use the threat of the "hyperpower" United States to scare voters into voting for them? Pundits pumped out plenty of words over the political burps of right-wing pols Jean-Marie Le Pen and Pim Fortuyn. One only got a small percentage of the vote (17% in the first round of elections), while the other was murdered days before the national election. Will there be as much examination of the long-term consequences of Schroeder's winning tactic and a deteriorated U.S.-German relationship?

One important consequence to examine is the future of NATO. While already on life support due to its irrelevance (no Soviet army to fight), the lack of support in ending Saddam's reign of terror over Iraq is the military alliance's final exhale. Europe sees itself as more of a competitor than partner to the U.S. Ironically, the best friends the U.S. has in NATO are the new ex-communist countries Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. In all likelihood, the war with Iraq will involve only the U.S. and Great Britain. The rest of NATO will wag their fingers at such awful unilateralism. Then the coffin will be sealed. Eventually, the public will agree with Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) that U.S. troops need no longer be stationed in a country where its leaders compare the their President to Hitler.

"Schroeder Faces More US Anger"

Sean Hackbarth |

3:01 AM
A bunch of historians want a debate over declaring war on Iraq. They don't want a debate over a Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force; they want one over a declaration of war. One problem: a Congressional resolution is equivalent to a formal declaration. Earlier this year, Eugene Volokh was kind enough to point me to a Q. & A. by Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) where he said,

The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what ... against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.

Could it be that these historians are not as concerned about upholding the constitution as much as preventing a war with Iraq? It's fine to be against a war, it's another to use intellectually dishonest means.

No one should construe that I oppose a Congressional debate over war with Iraq. I would actually like to see Congress have the guts to declare war. It hasn't been done since 1941. They didn't even declare war on al-Qaeda; they authorized the use of force. Declaring war has more moral force and seriousness behind it.

"American Historians Speak Out"

Sean Hackbarth |

2:14 AM
I'll add to Matt Welch's comment on supposed U.S. anti-intellectualism by looking at the communications method he's using. Weblogging allows many to read and comment on what "Gore Chomskytag," hawks, doves, and anyone in between has to say. After reading many weblogs for a little bit, you can't help but notice that many of these people aren't mere cranks objecting to thinking. On the contrary, weblogging has given many people the opportunity to sharpen their thinking skills to better take part in the debate.

Sean Hackbarth |

1:36 AM
If the reviewer can really write, it doesn't matter how bad the movie is. Case in point, uber-critic, Roger Ebert on Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever:

At one point in the movie, a man who will remain nameless is injected with one of these devices by a dart gun, and it kills him. All very well, but consider for a moment the problem of cost overruns in these times of economic uncertainty. A miniaturized assassination robot small enough to slip through the bloodstream would cost how much? Millions? And it is delivered by dart? How's this for an idea: use a poison dart, and spend the surplus on school lunches.

I'm waiting for DVD for this movie, but I laughed out loud after reading the review.

Sean Hackbarth |

12:57 AM
Is this a joke?

Cage's ground-breaking silent composition, 4'33," was first performed half a century ago. The piano piece, divided into three movements, consists entirely of silent notes and takes four minutes 33 seconds to perform.

Was the Reuters reporter just having fun? You can't call four and 1/2 minutes of silence a "piano piece" consisting or "silent notes." There aren't any notes, and the piece could have easily been played with a flute, trumpet, or kazoo. What makes four and 1/2 minutes of silence a "ground-breaking composition?" Cage didn't do anything to compose it. It's not like he invented the concept of silence.

"John Cage Silence Plagiarism Case Settled"

Sean Hackbarth |

12:19 AM
Charles Oliver makes a valid point on states' rights:

But this really isn't about the wisdom of physician-assisted suicide. (I have some doubts about it myself.) It's about the right of states to make their own policies. Under what clause of the Constitution does Ashcroft justify his intervention into Oregon policies?

I don't approve of doctor-assisted suicide, but I don't live (or plan to die) in Oregon. Since I think the nation would be better off if the Supreme Court hadn't dictated abortion law on every state when it ruled on Roe v. Wade, it would be a bit disengenuous (hypocritical?) on my part to back something similar.

Sean Hackbarth |


8:52 PM
Not only is Bob Greene a dirty old man who can't have the decency to fulfill his marriage vow, but when his former teenage lover contacts him, he sics the FBI after her.

"FBI Says Contact by Greene Led to Inquiry" [via Media News]

Sean Hackbarth |

7:43 PM
It's bad enough the Packers almost lost to the lowly Detroit Lions--the Lions were only a finger-tip catch away from embarassing the Pack--what's worse is two starters on defense will be out for some time. The defense wasn't playing well even with a healthy Vonnie Holliday and Antaun Edwards. My 12-4 prediction? I'll be really happy with 10-6 and a wildcard birth.

"Holliday, Edwards Sidelined By Injuries"

Sean Hackbarth |

7:32 PM
Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) may have lost her her seat in Congress, but she hasn't stopped telling everyone about the evil conspiracy behind the Bush administration. In her CounterPunch article (it appears to be taken from a Congressional committee speech), she claims that war with Iraq is all about oil:

However, just last Sunday, September 15, 2002, the Washington Post's lead story carried the banner headline "In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil is the Key Issue." The article then went on to describe how US oil companies were looking forward to taking advantage of the oil bonanza, which would follow Saddam Hussein's removal from office.

Apparently, so the article says, CIA Director James Woolsey, indicated that non-US oil companies who sided with Hussein would most likely be excluded from sharing in Iraq's massive oil reserves a*" reserves said to be second only to Saudi Arabia.

The first thing that popped out to me was a glaring inaccuracy. James Woolsey, CIA Director? Isn't that George Tenet's job? McKinney sits on the International Relations and the Armed Services Committees and she doesn't know who currently runs the CIA? I know Tenet's been out of sight--no doubt because more people like me would be calling for his firing/resignation--but one would think that a Congressman who deals with foreign affairs as much as McKinney does would know this. While not as sexy a faux paus this public display of ignorance should be placed next to her claim that President Bush knew all about the September 11 attacks before they happened. (McKinney calls her accusation asking "pretty straightforward questions.")

But what really got to McKinney was plans to protect Iraq's oil fields in the event of war. She calls this sacrificing young men and women for the rich oil moguls. Instead of protecting Iraq's most valuable resource, something that could help immediately integrate Iraq's economy with the rest of the world, McKinney would rather have U.S. troops protect "the new parliament, or the schools or hospitals full of ravaged civilians." I'm pretty sure I'm standing on firm ground when I write this. Unless there was a serious military reason stopping them from acting, U.S. forces would not stand aside and watch civilians being slaughtered. In fact, they might be more inspired to intervene in such attacks because doing so would eradicate more of Saddam's forces--the primary reason for attacking.

"Another Oil War"

Sean Hackbarth |

3:55 PM
Dean Bartkiw offers this comment on the GOP:

"The GOP hasn't done much wrong in the past 20+ years. "

Let's not get carried away. Consider that even this President has sold out the taxpayer in favor of the "family farmer", and sold out the consumer, the longshoreman, the manufacturer, etc., in favor of the highest paid laborers in the world - US steelworkers.

This type of economic liberalism is nemesis of the thinking man, in the GOP. Sadly, we (presumably deep thinkers) are forced to vote GOP, simply for the general move to lower taxes.

Us "deep thinkers" will never find a candidate that perfectly fits our political vision. Dean opposes steel tariffs (as do I) while I oppose the death penalty. If we were to vote for the perfect candidate that fit all our policy positions both of us would have to write our own names in every time.

The goal of the GOP is to win elections. That means they must convince 50% + 1 of voters to pull the lever with the "R" by it. If the voting public moves away from backing GOP issues, then the party will move their position over to capture more votes. The name of the game is politics not political philosophy. It's the role of deep thinkers like Dean and I to constantly let the GOP know that conservative positions are political winners.

Now, let me re-address my point of 20+ years of national GOP leadership. When I wrote that the GOP hasn't really done anything wrong, I meant it in a general sense. During the time of GOP Presidents and a GOP Congress, the country has had continued economic growth (with a couple small recessions), a technological boom not seen since the early part of the 20th Century, and we won the Cold War. Historians will look at these past two decades and notice the peace and prosperity of the U.S.

That doesn't mean everything was hunky-dory. The culture continued to coarsen, and the Culture of Death permeates. But I think it would be a pretty easy case to make that 20 years of GOP leadership is better than 20 years of Democratic leadership. Young people who have lived through GOP leadership know instinctively that things went pretty well and are more comfortable with the Republicans.

Sean Hackbarth |

1:41 AM
Andrew Sullivan wonders about the Democrats' young male gap. This poll shows men 18-44 support Republicans for Congress over Democrats 55% to 35%. Part of the popularity of the GOP among them is Social Security privatization. They don't believe it will be there for them, so they might as well invest their own money themselves. Another is the fact that those in this group have lived with Republicans in power for much of their lives. There were the Reagan/Bush Presidencies, then the Gingrich Revolution. During that time the country has been rolling. The economy grew by leaps and bounds, and the U.S. won the Cold War. I'll use Orrin Judd's words describing today's young:

They've always known conservatism to be a powerful and popular political movement, frequently wielding the power of government, always and quite publicly challenging liberalism, and to a great degree the sole source of ideas in our recent politics. They've witnessed the victory of conservative ideals in the Cold War and in tax fights and over unionism and in welfare reform. The military actions they've watched have been either won or exited so quickly that dissent has been rare and rather quiet. They've been governed by a Republican Congress. They can easily imagine that soon conservatism will effect reform of education and Social Security and abortion law. In short, they've lived through twenty-two years that have been much different than the preceding fifty, when conservatism was routed and liberalism not only the ascendant ideology of the West but seemingly the only possible ideology of thoughtful men and women[.]

The GOP hasn't done much wrong in the past 20+ years. Also, in a time of war, muscular talk and action are needed, and we don't find much of that from the Democrats.

Sean Hackbarth |

1:30 AM
An Enron auction starts on Wednesday. I'm looking for deals. I could use a cheap ThinkPad or a box of hacky sack balls. But Dovebid isn't eBay. To bid in real time they require you to download software AND have an open phone connection. It's kind of hard to be online and using the phone with dial-up.

"Enron Auction Begins this Week"

Sean Hackbarth |

1:06 AM
With a scribble, Gov. Gray Davis codified the Culture of Death into California's legal code.

"California Backs Embryonic Stem Cell Research"

Sean Hackbarth |

12:33 AM
HUMOR: Scientists discover the cause of evil: it's the United States. Damn, I hate it when the whiny French, Germans, and Canadians are right.

"Science Discovers Cause of Evil, Cure to Come Soon"

Sean Hackbarth |


1:15 AM
Who would have thunk? Arabs against Saddam. Cato the Youngest adds some media criticism:

It probably won't get much major media play, because, according to the media, all Arabs oppose action against Saddam. If all Arabs oppose action against Saddam, this couldn't happen, so therefore, it didn't happen.

"Hundreds Show Up For Anti-Hussein Rally"

Sean Hackbarth |

1:10 AM
Israel will strike back if attacked by Iraq. Bush, Rumsfeld, and the gang don't like that because it could enrage Arab countries. Unless, there's some really slick plan being developed to knock out Iraqi Scuds before they could be launched at Israel, expect Israeli retaliation to complicate matters.

"Israel Tells U.S. It Will Retaliate if Iraqis Attack" [via Drudge]

Sean Hackbarth |

12:46 AM
If someone really likes me and TAM, my birthday's coming up, and I'd love a set of Adam Smith's works. It's the perfect gift for the econ geek in all of us.

Sean Hackbarth |

12:16 AM
Orrin Judd may have the smartest comments in the entire blogosphere (yuck, yuck, awful word!!). Where else would you find a comment like this?

It is not only the comparison to Marxism that is skewed. Rather, his "logic" is more like an impressionist painting full of non-Euclidian twists to produce the image in the artist's mind, than any linear construct.

Sean Hackbarth |

When I'm not pondering the fate of the universe, I'm reading, writing, or selling books. Here you'll find comments on politics, culture, books, and music. Not necessarily in that order.


Iraqi Democracy graphic
Support democracy and human rights in Iraq!

My Bloginality is INTP!!!

« LibertyLoggers »
< ? wiscoblogs # >


AP International
AP National
AP Politics
AP Sports


LA Times
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
NY Times
Washington Post
Washington Times

The American Prowler
The Atlantic
City Journal
Enter Stage Right
First Things
In the National Interest
National Review
New York Times Magazine
Opinion Journal
The Weekly Standard

Cybercast News Service

All Consuming
The New Republic
New York Times
Town Hall Book Club
Washington Post
Weblog BookWatch

Wired News

Mallard Fillmore
The Onion


Powered by Blogger Pro™
Dreambook Using blogBuddy
Comments by: YACCS
template by HELQUIN