Those Evil Liberals: What a Bushist thinks the Left thinks, I think.

Comment is hardly required; sometimes you just need to let their own sincere words stand in all their awesome majesty:


Entropy and Evil Part 2 « Sake White

Global Warming and Global Cooling good indicators of things becoming less entropic or having more entropy. As things cool, energy is lost and current energy is harder to collect. As things get hot, more energy pours in and therefore more can be collected, if only by solar panels. So when the Left says Global Warming is bad, it is only bad for them because they fight for entropy while I would prefer a slower slide into decay and destruction. The Left says any change will spell people’s doom. They said it about Iraq. They said it about social security. They said it about immigration. They said it about welfare after Bush senior. Everything that is bad and is decaying fast in this world, is something the Left is happy to keep the way it is, and if you try to change it like Bush tried to change the Middle East, then the Left will use entropy to unmake you and your plans. Don’t be fooled, the Left’s views on destruction isn’t the same as ours, but they will exploit people’s good intentions and sense of self-preservation if they can.

Now, dealing with the Islamic Jihad in Europe is also a question of decay.
Thomas has an interesting article here about Britain. I would quote Melanie Phillips but I’m time constrained. Suffice it to say that civilizations thrive by fighting against entropy, through building up stores of energy, food, knowledge, technology, and progress. The Left and their allies seek to overthrow, through subversive and revolutionary means, all the gains that humanity has made. And they are not above using the fruits of Western civilization, law, international accord, and so forth to help them. Beware the Left, for their lies sound as honey and their lips leak with the blood of the unborn

The problem with giving practical first amendment rights to every fool out there is that a fool with a good template can look as good or better than people who are not fools.

I'm not going to argue this from a left-right perspective. I'm a centrist on the Left-Right axis and this sort of talk insults both sides of my brain. It's not what the argument is for or against, it's that it's a really, really amazingly STUPID argument. Any argument that is basically founded on the idea - as this, and the materials cited later by the author - that "anything I do not understand must be wrong" is the acme of stupid.

When this is your argument, the politics you THINK you advocate are irrelevant. In this case, the author's own words strongly suggest they have no measurable grasp of the essence of, Liberalism, Conservatism or the socio-political priorities of either Left or Right.

As the saying goes, you have the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

People who "advocate entropy" do not fear change, nor do they say that "any change will spell doom." Whatever you think of "advocating entropy," or whether that is an accurate statement about the Left, it's utterly contradictory with the next concept, which amounts to Cartoon Conservatism; that any change, no matter how trivial or overdue, will lead to the breakdown of civilization.

This is what we refer to as a "flawed argument." No, I go farther; this is a fundamentally flawed premise that demonstrates that the person advocating it hasn't a sufficient grasp of the first principles to be argued with.

The author, apparently quoting himself, cites this comment made in response to a post at another blog as persuasive:

It is easy to know what is true or not true about a claim, but that’s not the difficulty you see. It is figuring out why people on the Left act like they believe in the things that they say. Do they believe in the things that they say about America and the Islamic Jihad? That’s tricky, because of their doublethink. Triplethink, quadruplethink, and so forth. The smarter a person is on the Left, the more conflicting thoughts they can hold in their heads simultaneously at once. It makes analyzing the motivations of the Left, very hard, even if analyzing the truth of their claims becomes easier. (obviously people who don’t know themselves, won’t be able to know anything else for that matter, so it becomes easier to discard their opinions, plans, and descriptions) [emphasis mine]

Yes, so much easier to simply dismiss it all as nonsense, rather than try to grasp the idea that opposing a blatantly evil and unconstitutional war is not the same as not supporting the warriors, who, after all, have rather little say in the matter. Despising the President is not the same as spitting on the flag. Demanding he be impeached is not disrespect of the office of Commander in Chief. I demand it because I DO respect the office and am unwilling to accept it being further sullied.

A person trained in classic liberal thought - which, believe it or not, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being Liberal politically - has no difficulty with admitting that Islamic Jehad may well have persuasive, even very telling arguments, without conceding for a moment that those arguments justifiy blowing up people in wholesale lots. For the Religion of Peace, it's a contradiction in terms.

Of course, a person making that observation must also concede that no matter how seductive the vision of liberty, justice and democracy in the Middle East, it in no way justifies blowing up people in wholesale lots either. Indeed, for those valuing individual liberty, forcing democracy on anyone is a contradiction in terms.

The fundamental premise in this series is that evil is an external, malevolent force; the author directly dismisses the idea that evil is the result of individual choice. This of course leads to the comfortable belief that as long as they are on the Side of Good, they cannot possibly do any evil at all, no matter the depth of the pile of dismembered corpses this reasoning leads to.

I point dryly at a stack of history YEA high in refutation of that premise.

Jesus was pretty straightforward on this; "By their fruits ye shall know them." A pretty tree with "bitter fruit" is firewood. And my, the secductive simplicity and sense of purpose projected by Conservatism over the last two decades has produced a harvest of very bitter fruits.*

There is no real difficulty in discerning the difference between good and evil. The fact that it is said to be difficult to tell, and difficult to understand how a Loving God could permit it to exist is easy.

People who wrestle with such things often do it in order to rationalize away their own culpability and their own tendency to inflict harm on others for their own comfort and satisfaction.

And if God permits free will, the choice to do the wrong thing - and the ability to delude ourselves that it's really the Right Thing - is inherent in that equation.

Willful ignorance, self-deception and the willingness to accept and repeat falsehoods about the actions and presumed motivations of others - these are evil, and they are choices. In the face of that fact, the justifications, political, religious, social or familial may be dismissed as irrelevant, for if the proponent wished to benefit any of these things, they would be making quite different choices - for no good comes from evil, save in the reaction and adaptation of others to it.

*The author concedes that this extremely bad pun is in poor taste and in no way should be taken to suggest that all gays are bitter. He does, however, suggest that being a Gay Republican is a lot like being a "Chicken for Col. Sanders." Perhaps "Log Cabin Conservatives" would be a better name.

tag: ignorance, stupidity, evil, conservatism, chaos, entropy, bitter fruits, by their fruits ye shall know them, Clash of Cultures, Religious Fundimentalism, ethics, morality, Liberalism, critical thinking

This article illustrated with products from Shirt Lords (Union of Evil Overlords) and The Horror Haven (Baphomet poster). Please consider them for help decorating your evil liberal bodies and lairs.

Somewhere on the Self-Rightiousness Spectrum

If there's one thing that pisses me off, it's uninformed, judgmental self-righteousness - from anyone, about anything, even when I happen to agree. No, especially if I agree - because bigotry in my favor sucks away the moral force of a good argument.

I'm pleased to have a truly stunning example of a a bigoted idiologial self-congratulation society that does NOT involve politics, because perhaps then it will serve to illustrate just how universally ugly and stupid such things are. This should serve to nicely illustrate that the words "ideology" and "idiot" have a great deal in common.

I've been getting a sudden huge surge of traffic about the Pokez thing, and it appears to come mostly from a livejournal community called "childfree hardcore."

And just like many other varieties of net-bigot, they have set comments to exclude response from people who might have something to say that would make them question their own bias. Here's what I tried to say there. Since I can't correct them more discreetly in comments, I suppose I need to share it with the world.

Why? Well, here's one sterling example of the mindset:

So today I had some fucking annoying encounters with some moos. At the best buy in the mall, I was walking over to buy at ime card for World of Warcrack, and basically a flock of moos and their turds were congregating and discussing irrelevant shit, so it took them like 5 minutes to realize I had been standing there trying to get through even though I tapped them on the shoulder, shouted out HEY, EXCUSE ME, TRYING TO COME THROUGH for about 5 minutes straight. Then, I wanted to ask a best buy salesperson where to locate a CD disc cleaner, and of course some technology-retarded piece of shit moo didn't understand about how the shitty OS Vista works, so I had to stand around for like 10 more minutes waiting for the fucking bitch to ask her stupid questions while her kids were running around and generally being annoying.

Yeah, I hate moos and breeders who bring their children to stores and clog up the aisles with their filthy turds.

But these things were not what I was responding to:

THIS is: Overstars writes

But it's the principal of the thing and I will not be threatened out of my right to be of the opinion that this guy is an exaggerating bullshit breeder of a man who threatens lawsuits at every little offense and that I still sympathize with the waitress somewhat. Sure, whacking kids is wrong, but I understand the urge. Oh do I understand the urge.

Not only that, but the more I'm forced to read this case, the more I see how selfish people with children can be. This guy wants to take up the time of the police, the district attorney, and a nonprofit advocacy group for an *incident in a restaurant*.

Because they don't have anything better to do, of course.

I was unaware that the choice to be child-free granted the ability to read minds and motives. And "forced to read?" Fuck, kiddo, the next key is your friend. If you can't deal rationally with something on the net, move along.

Hey, it's what I do. It's one seriously effective tactic for not looking like a total putz in public, aside from the ethics of picking a stranger to pick on because you can present that situation in a way that will make you look good to your friends. It's not just unethical - it's 7th grade giggletwit unethical.

But I did try to inject some reason, not realizing that reason was unwelcome.

I'm getting hellacious traffic from here, so I figured I should say something. I'm the "another biased page". I'm not going to take exception to that, since I do have a bias - although it's slightly amusing to be accused of bias seeing all the bias here.

But that's cool too. As it happens, I have never bred, though I actually enjoy children - in controlled doses. :)

Nope, my bias comes, frankly, from being on the AS spectrum myself.

And second - although I think he should sue, I tend to be an unforgiving bastard: Someone else said why better:

Also contact a lawyer, because the restaurant's policy is against the ADA by a longfuckingshot.... As part of that, go into the restaurant sometime, and record all the time that nondisabled adults or kids are allowed to take a long time or be outright disruptive. I would bet she's one of those assholes that thinks it's okay to abuse someone because they look autistic -- the fact that we're the ones put through years of psychologically damaging "training" to hide what we are so people like THAT are more comfortable makes me really angry.

She's biased too. But it's a learned bias, and I second it. Even though I went through all this before autism at a level less conspicuous than non-verbal drooling and spinning was recognized, there was lots of behavior mod used on me, including school officials sicking the bullies on me so that I would "conform" and "fit in."

Meanwhile, Jay (dad) - whom I would bet to be on the spectrum myself - says this:

I'd still be OK with just 3 things from the Pokez owner: a written public apology for David, a statement that the manager was incorrect in his reaction then to support the waitress's abuse , and something (either staff training or personnel changes) to prevent this from happening again. But apparently the restaurant is claiming that we were asked to leave because *we* were rude (LOL.. we were actually reserved and probably the quietest table in the place that night, and I was incredibly polite-but-firm to the manager afterwards), and they are saying that it doesn't matter because David isn't really autistic because he can talk (?!?). Apart from them being utterly incorrect on both counts, even if David was a *neurotypical* child, that still doesn't somehow make it OK for the waitress to grab him and scream in his ear! (scratches head)

Sound like someone wanting to make a quick million at an insurance company's expense? Seems a lot more reasonable than I could be (or indeed would choose to be) under the circumstances.

Re: comments about "just sitting there:" For the longest time, I had just two speeds in handling confrontation - paralysis, or "assault with intent to kill." I'm still unclear how I made it through grade school without causing anyone grave bodily harm.

It took ten years of martial arts to give me some nuance. I've heard and seen enough over the years to realize this isn't just me - it's a combination of factors, both wiring and social that seem to affect a lot of autistic, PDD and Asperger's types. Generally, an apparent paralysis is a better response than the alternate.

Having said all this, I think it's more about her than the boy or his family. Reports of behavior like this regarding this one waitress go back quite a way. I think she's got her own issues, and because it's a family restaurant, and she's the sister, well, she gets cut slack she shouldn't get.

Were she my sister, she'd be on a cruise right now. I'd be babysitting her kids - and I'd be a little cautious about giving them back until I was sure that sanity had returned.

She just happened to pick the worst possible target for her drama, and that means it's not so much about kids or kids with autism as it is about Karma.

For her, it could also be pretty damn good luck, in the long run.

But as I said, responses from non-members are unwelcome. "Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up" seems to be the summa logica of the group, and if it were not so very good an example for my point about the ethics involved - I'd just suck up all the nice free traffic with a faint smile.

I agree with Mae West about "bad publicity." "Just make sure they spell your name right."

But it's also symptomatic of something of real, cultural importance. This is the sort of mindless contempt and in-group tail-sniffing that allows people like George Bush divide and conquer. In other words, it's the sort of behavior no self-respecting freethinker should tolerate in themselves or in their company. It's no different in nature than the sort of vicious, mindless ignorance one hears over at Free Republic or Little Green Footballs. But my point is that this sort of behavior is human behavior -not just Republican behavior.

And just like it's possible to be ethical, and still be Republican, it's also possible to be Child Free and not be a self-righteous pinhead.

Do I object to the choice of being child-free? Hell, no! Frankly, I think folks who feel like this about kids should never breed, just as I feel than nobody should take on jobs or responsibility they KNOW they will suck at just to "fit in." I applaud and celebrate that degree of self-awareness, especially when it is against the tide.

I speak from experience, being raised by those too gutless and conformist to make proper choices based on their own self-understanding ain't a good thing for anyone involved.

And I surely do agree with much of what is said there, there are parents out there that are easily as idiotic as the example above - and with far wider approval of their mindless bigotry. (thanks to the group for these amazing examples of extreme majoritarian cluelessness.) I'm just not so willing to assume that the idiocy has anything to do with breeding or not breeding. I think it's pretty much the same as the idiocy shown in childfree_hardcore: self-righteous, mindless appeals to the pack. Same buttsniffing, different assholes.

Willow Dragon found these:

Baby found dead a a TN Christian College
http://www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm?sid=6567 (watch the video)

but that led me to this...

Naked Classroom Spanking
http://www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm?sid=6578 (there's a video for this too)

School officials in Prince George's County, Maryland are investigating a relative's actions in a charter school last week.

This after a woman walked into the school and spanked her nephew in front of his entire classroom.

Jane Watrel has more on this story.

"I asked him if something had happened and they said, oh you mean the whopping."

Paula Reitan couldn't believe her ears after leaving a school party at Turning Point Academy her daughter and three classmates told her how a fellow second grader was stripped naked below the waist and spanked by a relative in front of the entire class.

The first - Tragic irony at it's best/worst, depending on your personal biases.

The second: Just obscene. There's more, and I'll have more to say about it myself, because it's WTF on SO many levels.

And then there's this. Perpet says

The guy to whom the Duggars look for an excuse to continually churning out kids doesn't have any kids.

That's the wiki-article. You'd think the guy who discourages family planning of any degree would have actually lived the life himself. And he thinks Cabbagae Patch Dolls have demonic middle names and will cause you to be unable to conceive. If you need me, I'll be in the toy aisle.

The only thing that I have to say about that is that the facts are funnier than the presentation. Laughing more and bitching less means fewer wrinkles by the time you are my age. Besides, how many "breeders" take this maroon seriously? I assure you, nobody I would hang with.

This fellow isn't typical of even typically extreme evangelicals. He's a nutball - from an evangelical Christian perspective. So expecting reasonable behavior or any appreciation of irony is along the lines of expecting a cat to bark. He's a funny, tragic example of ... well, what he is. Which is about being a cult-leader and control-freak with very, very strange and silly ideas. It's silly to take it further than that, because whatever he says about what he's pretending to be for social cover is either a lie, or a symptom of his own delusional system.

This is my final bit of advice to the hysterically, abusively and cluelessly bigoted. Stop taking yourself and your ideas so seriously - because it's for sure, nobody worth taking seriously does.

Moreover, it's a mindset that makes it laughably easy to manipulate you into voting Republican, giving money to the 700 club or assaulting 80 year old ladies with 40-year old fur coats. Self-righteousness is like strong drink, and in the words of Lazerous Long, "it can cause you to shoot at tax-collectors - and miss."

Don't bitch about what's wrong with the world unless you are pretty darn sure you aren't a damn fine example of one of it's many symptoms.

Praised with Faint Damns

Is CBS considering revisiting to legitimate TV News? It certainly seems to be engaging in "self criticism" sessions; this is from "Outside Voices." The blurb reads:

Each week we invite someone from outside PE to weigh in with their thoughts about CBS News and the media at large. This week, we turned to Bob Giles, veteran journalist and curator of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University. Here, Giles discusses the harm in U.S. news outlets' lack of tough questions. As always, the opinions expressed and factual assertions made in “Outside Voices” are those of the author, not ours, and we seek a wide variety of voices.


Outside Voices: Bob Giles Has A Tough Question For The U.S. Press - Public Eye

Television’s great advantage is that it can take the viewer along for the interview. The audience can look into the eyes of the news source as he or she responds to the reporter’s queries. It is what sets TV news apart from print and radio news reporting. In an era when elected officials try to manipulate the news and spin it to their advantage, when they are able to speak anonymously or have hired spokespersons speak for them, this special role of television reporting as visual surrogate for the public is critical. The public knows that reporters who can be seen asking strong questions is one antidote to misinformation.

My, wasn't that trenchant? Move over, Bob and let Bob have a swing.

I've become less and less impressed with US media as I've had more exposure to international media, something that's probably true of most other bloggers.

It's not simply the unwillingness to ask "awkward questions" - it's the apparent unwillingness to deal with complicated issues. Very likely this is due to the effect actual news has on ratings; reality is complicated and often requires graphs and numbers to explain. It can be hard to compete with a car chase over on Faux.

But I learned a hard lesson on the web long ago; raw numbers of eyeballs are meaningless. You need the right eyeballs. You need those eyeballs to think of you first, and regularly. Profit comes from the right eyeballs relying upon you and your credibility. That credibility rubs off on the advertisers, it does, and vice versa.

"Crap traffic" degrades the brand. Listen to Limbaugh's sponsors sometime. Viagra alternatives, weight-loss nostrums and get rich quick schemes.

This tells you a lot about Rush's respect for his demographic. It tells you a lot about the advertiser's dependence on the outright gullibility of his audience. One of my key evaluation critera for ANY form of media is to look at who the advertisers are, and what sort of readership sales of their product will depend on.

And there are other factors here. "News as Entertainment" isn't all that entertaining because all that pretending to be news that's worthy of my time gets in the way of being fun.

The Daily Show and the Colbert Report have demonstrated that it's possible to do accurate news analysis and do it with wicked and pointed humor. By contrast, the Big Three seem to have abandoned analysis entirely, along with any detectable sense of humor or irony, leading otherwise respectable journalists to refer to the Daily Show as "Fake News."

My sons and daughters, if it was actually fake, it wouldn't be funny. CBS and the rest of the MSM have been relegated to being the straight man for the Comedy Channel.

CBS needs to hark back to the good old days, voluntarily reclaim the old "fairness doctrine" for itself and by doing that, announce it has grown a pair.

Journos seem terrified that they will be denied access to the President's incoherent ramblings and Tony Snow's nonsense. I figured out years ago that all I need to know about either is that their lips are moving. Why in heavens name would you waste a perfectly good reporter on such a meaningless job?

An intern could do it. Monica Lewinsky could do it. She's pretty good at fluffing Presidents, from what I've been told by the media. Ad Nausium.

Take the pool feed, pick any non answer or prevarication at random and show them to be the fools and liars they are with it. A couple news cycles like that, and the phone will start ringing.

How do you think John Stewart gets some of HIS improbable guests? He's had Dick Cheney. Note to Dick - that didn't go so well.

This administration needs to be reminded that the sword has two edges. They need you to get their story out. So make it clear that it has to be a factual, verifiable story before you put the Tiffany stamp upon it.

It used to be that miscreants feared "Hello, We're from 60 Minutes" nearly as much as a justice department raid or an IRS audit. Let's take CBS back to that happy place, where reporters were named by Nixon on tape with many unprintable adjectives wishing improbable conjunctions upon them.

People like me can do opinion - it takes little more than hubris and good typing skills. Some of us can come up with some pretty good analysis of what the facts mean to our particular readerships. What we cannot do is compete on a fact for fact basis with a professional news organization. We therefore seek out stories, stake out our take on them, and refer our readers to the sources. When I seek out intelligence, my first criteria is that my sources of intelligence do not insult my intelligence.

CBS has not been a source of mine for... well, years now. Why you, when there's Greg Palast? Why you, when there's the BBC? Why you, when there's CNN? Hell, the Daily Show is a better quote.

It would behoove you to pay close attention to your website referrer logs to see how often you are cited, and by whom. (I got to this story via fark.com. But it wasn't a complementary reference.)

When the Right Wing pays pundits under the table while trying to muzzle PBS news, that should tell you something about how much they fear the shock and awe of fact-based inititatives.

And yes, I know, the Owners Object to many factual stories and will kill them given half a chance, along with Dan the Messenger Man. But, well, it seems to me that enough of you journalistic glory-boys and girls have enough loose change rattling around to buy some corporate influence yourselves. Ain't capitalism wonderful? CBS is trading at around $30 a share right now. It' s looking like a not bad investment. Consider how rewarding polishing that tiara could be.

The alternative is stark; I already outsource my news, relying for the most part on CTV news and BBC news for television coverage and The Guardian and the Globe and Mail for print. All of these organizations routinely report domestic news that never appears in US media, and generally in greater depth.

Meanwhile, as all the networks try to integrate their news slants into their shows, I become less and less inclined to watch TV at all. Last night, your hit show "Numb3rs" revolved around a plot twist so very improbable that the lead characters should have refused to show up; it involved smuggled guidance systems for "Katusha style" rockets, which were also being smuggled in via Singapore.

Dear Lord in heaven. I do hope all terrorist plots are that amazingly silly and overcomplicated. Mythbusters made a quite functional rocket using commercial pipe, a chunk of graphite, a tank of nitrous oxide and a large salami. College students routinely build far more sophisticated science projects than a short-range missile guidance system. A really sophisticated one - using, say, GPS navigation or a laser designation system shouldn't cost more than a couple-hundred bucks in parts. Rocket Science just ain't rocket science anymore.

If all I wanted to do was create widespread terror, well, a couple pounds of talc would do as well as anything. But it's not that difficult to come up with a somewhat impressive Fuel-air explosive warhead, either.

According to one Russian military scientist writing for the Russian military magazine Voyennyye Znaniya (Military Knowledge), FAE weapons are effective against exposed personnel, combat equipment, fortified areas and individual defensive fortifications, clearing passages in minefields, clearing landing sites for helicopters, destroying communication centers, and neutralizing strongholds in house-to-house fighting in a city.⁽²⁾ In addition, he stated that "fuel-air explosives are capable…of completely destroying in a given area vegetation and agricultural crops that have been planted." "In its destructive capability, it is comparable to low-yield nuclear munitions."⁽³⁾

(gif animation)

The best thing about a crude FAE is that it doesn't even have to work properly to work pretty well.

The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique--and unpleasant.... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs.… If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents.⁽⁸⁾

Gee, I wonder where I could find someone with enough chemical know-how to put one of these together....

How about any junior college chemistry teacher?

Perpetuating absurdities upon the American people in the name of entertainment in either the news or entertainment divisions is no way to impress folks like me; people with actual three digit IQ's. You know, the demographic you used to have.

Unless you and the rest of the domestic MSM does something to repair it's credibility soon, it will find itself limited to that market segment that relies on rabbit ears from Radio Shack.

And tell me, do, what will THAT do to your stock options?

tag: MSM, CBS News, intelligence gathering, news reporting, 5th Estate, fark, the Internet, foreign press, The Daily Show, Steven Colbert

What sort of people rely on Open Democracy.net?

I got this in my email today.

You may recall that you generously gave your time to fill in our openDemocracy users' survey this summer.

Nearly 3,500 of you did so, a terrific sample. You can click here for a visual tour of the results. We really appreciate your help, it taught us a lot about what you are looking for from openDemocracy.

Survey Says (pdf)...

Overwhelmingly, well educated, well-paid white SMART people, even given a 4% 3d World readership.

In other words, folks like me that the Republican Party has taken for granted for decades upon decades. While the politics of the readership seem weighted heavily to left of center, it's because readership spikes in two places; Center Left (classical liberal, I'd assume) and No Category - where I live, as a Libertarian. "No Category" is arbitrarily placed to the right of Center - which has a lower readership.

From that strong Independant spike (were I bet they did not expect it) it slopes down to bottom out at 3% at Center Right and Conservative. That means a heck of a lot of old-fashioned Center-Right folks are relying on Open Democracy as a reality check - and of course, us generally Anti-authoritarian folks what likes at least three sources before we decide who's al is being gored.

So, my fellow Libs, and fiscal conservatives, dig down and donate. I don't about you, but I always figured the smart money was on freedom. This seems like confirmation to me.

To quote their email to me:

To make the process quick, efficient and secure we are using both a UK and a US service for charitable giving. Anyone in the world can donate, just click here and you can see how it is done.

Do that thing, willya?

tag: Open Democracy, individual liberty, libertarian, 1st Amendment, antiauthoritarian