Here's an excellent story by the fine folks @ NeoLibertarian on the hypocrisy of liberals and other "progressives" when it comes to "cultural imperialism".

From NeoLibertarian:

Today’s object lessons are the importance of international treaties, consensus, and organizations and one of the bugaboos of the left, American cultural imperialism.

One of the consistent, and not always incorrect, themes of criticism of the Bush administration has been its tendency to ‘go it alone’ or more provocatively ‘cowboy’ its way through the world, scorning international associations and treaties and provoking international opinion.

A more general criticism, as in of the whole United States not just of the Bush Administration, is that America practices ‘cultural imperialism,’ i.e. supplanting local culture with our own. This is accepted as always bad, since evidently there is no bigger threat to cultures the world over than being able to get a decent hamburger, but I digress . . .

From the NY Times:

A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will soon rule on whether the cover story of the October 23, 2006, issue of Maclean’s magazine violated a provincial hate speech law.

This series of articles examines commonplace aspects of the American justice system that are actually unique in the world.

Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions here last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean’s violated the law. As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.

“It’s hate speech!” yelled one man.

“It’s free speech!” yelled another.

In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence.

The Maclean’s article, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called “America Alone” (Regnery, 2006). The title was fitting: The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many other areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path.

You Decide!

An excellent rant detailing the differences between these two philosophies comes our way from Robb Allen over at The Line is Here:

I shouldn’t blog angry, but if I took the time to calm down before I wrote anything, you’d get biannual posts and like it.

So, this morning I’m talking with a friend at work. Said friend (we’ll call him “Sally”) is a flaming Democrat. Sally tends to be fairly even headed and not a complete socialist twat, but he still has that core belief that for every problem, the is an equal and opposite government program to fix it.

To Sally, the government is a benign entity that only can be corrupted by Republicans. If only Democrats were in charge, nothing bad would ever happen, hence, it is totally permissible to submit every last facet of your life to Uncle Sam’s caring and compassionate scrutiny.

Yet he thinks that the government shouldn’t butt into your home life. Go figure.

Could it be possible that libertarians may have some serious clout when it comes to this year's presidential election?
Could be.............could be.

From an article in the New York Times:

So maybe it isn’t very “live and let live” for libertarians to assemble en masse in the hopes of exerting power. But some libertarians, feeling a little heady after their party’s national convention last weekend, are making a bold claim: this is the year their voting bloc will hold some serious sway in American politics.

“We are in the beginning of a libertarian moment,” said Nick Gillespie, editor of Reason, the libertarian monthly.

Meeting in Denver, the Libertarian Party chose as its new standard-bearer Bob Barr, the former four-term Republican congressman from Georgia who has already been branded a spoiler by Sean Hannity, the conservative commentator from Fox News.

The most well-known libertarian figure, the Republican Ron Paul, has a book at the top of the best-seller list and has raised millions on the Internet while gathering 1.1 million votes in the primaries and caucuses so far. (In the libertarian strongholds of Idaho, Washington State, Montana and North Dakota, he got more than 20 percent of the Republican vote.)

Michael Kinsley, writing in Time magazine last fall, predicted that voters with libertarian leanings are going to be “an increasingly powerful force in politics.” The auguries come even from Hollywood, where a film adaptation of the libertarian writer Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” is planned for release next year starring Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, both of whom are said to be Rand fans.

The Libertarian Party faithful expressed their hopes that if Mr. Barr can tap into the well of Ron Paul supporters, it could be their biggest election yet.

More here.

Is climate change, or global warming or whatever you want to call it, real?
I think that the cyclical nature of weather and climate make global "warming" inevitable. But, I also think that the notion that humanity is to blame for climate change is simplistic and for the most part untested.

I will gladly jump on the global warming band wagon if it can be proven (objectively) with out a shadow of a doubt that global warming is caused by humans.

But here's the rub; I don't want to be forced at figurative gun point to blindly accept that global warming is: a) a crisis of immense magnitude, and b) caused solely by human activity. It goes against the very principles of persuasion and scientific observation.

With that said here's an interesting piece by Charles Krauthammer over @ Townhall.com


*Note: The story I've linked to is a little old but points out some good points about environmentalism and it's parallels to communism.

The Internet, that miraculous series of tubes, is a wonderful, relatively new platform that allows everyone to have a voice, much like in the days of yore when news was spread by word-of-mouth. To date, the Internet has remained blissfully free of government regulation. Its backbone resting in the private sector, requiring no licensing for use, and is seemingly beyond the reach of those who would like government regulation of online behavior such as "hate" speech, obscenity, and too much control by a few corporations.

So everyone should be thrilled that the Internet can deliver unprecedented levels of free speech, right?

Maybe not.

From Pajamas Media:

In a recent editorial, the NY Times welcomed federal regulation of the Internet under the benign-sounding cause “net neutrality,” warning us that Internet service providers might suppress ideas they do not like. The Times ignores the fact that the First Amendment is designed to protect us
against suppression of ideas by the government, not the private sector, which has neither the power nor the motive to suppress ideas.

Moreover, as the Las Vegas Review-Journal tells us, “Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.” It has not been given a chance to surface, much less an opportunity for the marketplace to fix this hypothetical problem. It is a weak reason to allow the irreversible step of government regulation.

Another party that is uncomfortable with free speech on the Internet is the Orwellianly-named group “Free Press.” They are pushing for the FCC to regulate the Internet similar to the way it regulates broadcast TV, calling for a national (read “government”) broadband policy to regulate price, speed, and availability. They also want the government to provide municipal broadband service to everybody, even though this model has already collapsed in the marketplace.

And of course, the U.N. and its many dictatorships is no fan of free speech on the Internet. Last November, the United Nations’ Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held its second annual meeting with a not-so-hidden agenda for a U.N. takeover of the U.S.’ private sector control of core Internet systems.

More here.

Can a 13 yr old girl be a sexual predator when her victims are of legal age?

Read this and decide for yourself.

Here's a movement that wants to make an openly worn handgun as common an accessory as an iPod or cell phone. And it isn't a bunch of kooks or nuts that are doing this either.

From the LA Times article on the subject:

For years, Kevin Jensen carried a pistol everywhere he went, tucked in a shoulder holster beneath his clothes.

In hot weather the holster was almost unbearable. Pressed against Jensen's skin, the firearm was heavy and uncomfortable. Hiding the weapon made him feel like a criminal.

Then one evening he stumbled across a site that urged gun owners to do something revolutionary: Carry your gun openly for the world to see as you go about your business.

In most states there's no law against that.

Jensen thought about it and decided to give it a try. A couple of days later, his gun was visible, hanging from a black holster strapped around his hip as he walked into a Costco. His heart raced as he ordered a Polish dog at the counter. No one called the police. No one stopped him.

Now Jensen carries his Glock 23 openly into his bank, restaurants and shopping centers. He wore the gun to a Ron Paul rally. He and his wife, Clachelle, drop off their 5-year-old daughter at elementary school with pistols hanging from their hip holsters, and have never received a complaint or a wary look.

Jensen said he tries not to flaunt his gun. "We don't want to show up and say, 'Hey, we're here, we're armed, get used to it,' " he said.

But he and others who publicly display their guns have a common purpose.

The Jensens are part of a fledgling movement to make a firearm as common an accessory as an iPod. Called "open carry" by its supporters, the movement has attracted grandparents, graduate students and lifelong gun enthusiasts like the Jensens.

"What we're trying to say is, 'Hey, we're normal people who carry guns,' " said Travis Deveraux, 36, of West Valley, a Salt Lake City suburb. Deveraux works for a credit card company and sometimes walks around town wearing a cowboy hat and packing a pistol in plain sight. "We want the public to understand it's not just cops who can carry guns."