NY-23, Free Speech & the Fog -UPDATED

Read this.

The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama’s administration refused to disclose due to “national security” concerns, has leaked. It’s bad.
ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet — and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living — if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

Read all of it.

This is the biggest fish that needs frying. If you don’t have free speech, you don’t have free anything else.

“Remaking America” should be called “The Fog of Obama.” Except, it’s not just Obama, or his assorted rights-eroding, speech-silencing, sovereignty-surrendering, cognitive-dissonance-embracing, and utterly hypocritical elitist pals.

We are living in an era of sublime phoniness – phoniness such as Holden Caulfield never imagined or articulated – and the one tool that can penetrate through that increasingly dense and lingering fog of fakery, the internet, is being seriously imperiled.

We need to call out, “unmask, unmask, unmask,” and solidly reject the hypocrisy we have too long acquiesced to in our government and our leadership, within both parties.

Don’t be fooled into thinking anyone is inherently evil because they have a D after their name, or that anyone is pristine because of the R or the C after their name. The fog wants you to believe that a person’s depths can be so easily ascertained, but that is a lie.

Things can look very different, in a fog, and much can be hidden, which is why aggressors love them so.

All of our “public servants” are imperfect; all fall short, of course, but in each party the majority seem to serve nothing but their own ambitions, their own interests and their own pocketbook. They serve nothing but illusion, and right now our political class seems like a multi-floor convention of magicians; a million masters of misdirection, all deceiving their respective, and receptive crowds.

Much is being written about last night’s elections; the White House and the press are spinning two large GOP wins in New Jersey and Virginia as inconsequential. A small special-election for a congressional seat in upstate New York, in which a Democrat won, is being touted as the harbinger of “the end” of the civil-war-torn Republican party, and a solid statement of support for Democrat policies.

In that congressional race, the GOP put up a candidate who danced so far to the left that she won the endorsement of the internet’s most virulent “progressive” sites. Her Democrat opponent was a perfectly decent-seeming fellow, a veteran of our Armed Forces and -importantly- a man who lived, worked with and identified strongly as belonging to his area.

Conservatives within the GOP, unhappy with the left-leaning candidate they’d been given and uninterested in a man with a D after his name and “imperfect” social credentials, put their power behind the Conservative candidate, a rather goofy fellow who seemed a bit like Barney Fife in a decent suit. The conservatives lost and the Democrat won, and today we are being told what all of that means, by experts and gasbags who hardly ever get anything right.

The outcome of the NY-23 election does not mean anything that anyone is saying it means. NY-23 was not about candidates, which is why I haven’t even bothered naming any of them. NY-23 wasn’t even about ideologies, per se. It was about the noise and fog of war and the manner in which that fog obliterates the clarity needed to focus on the proper target, effecting the change necessary to, in the end, beat back the larger and encroaching evil.

The larger, encroaching evil is contained in the first link of this post. It is huge; it is not remotely connected, in theory, to NY-23, because it is a worldwide, global evil.

But in NY-23, after a great deal of political grasping and some mild hysterics, the best candidate actually won. He won after politicians of national prominence came in to work against him. He won, even though there was a momentum-gaining force at the back of his opponent.

He won because, despite all of that fog, voters -who now understand that they were nothing but grifter’s marks in 2008, victims of a shameful bait-and-switch that has left them distrustful of all political machination and all mainstream media- looked at who they trusted to represent their most pressing immediate interests. And while those interests may include social issues, right now the social issues take a backseat to a more immediate concern: how can I live my life as I choose, working as I wish, taking care of my family as we pursue our modest dreams? How do I do that with dignity, and with a sense of steadiness and personal autonomy?

NY-23 voters asked themselves those most fundamental of questions and then looked at their choices. They voted for the candidate who might be imperfect (as all candidates are, unless you’re deeply into the fog and willfully looking for the illusion) but who seemed to have the least connection to the machines, to the manic, to the momentums, to the media and to the entrenched and established whirlwinds.

So, for that matter, in different ways, did the voters in the Gubernatorial races of New Jersey and Virginia.

The small, unimportant elections of 2009 are evidence of something resilient in America, something that is going to have to be nurtured and grown and strengthened, if America is going to survive the relentless attacks against individualism and fundamental liberties to which she is currently being subjected by interests both foreign and domestic, and within every party.

NY-23, and the New Jersey and Virginia elections were won by Independent voters, by those who trust their own instincts and interests and put them before any party, in particular.

Just like our founders.

On twitter, last night, the world “revolution” was being thrown around a great deal. Last night was not a revolution. But it could be the beginnings of one, if people are willing to step out of the clinging fogs of their own allegiances to corrupt parties and the “movement” personalities who feed on them.

If we are going to defeat what is encroaching, we will have to free ourselves from the illusions and the illusion-masters. We will have to dissolve the parties and the political class -and all the heavy mists they lay upon us to distract, confuse and disorient- so that we may reclaim our exceptional nation and the exceptional nature of our ordinary lives.

In order to do that, we will have to first strengthen and support the most fundamental of freedoms: the right to say, to write, to sing, to shout whatever message we wish to. Our established parties, which want us back in the fog, where we can be corralled and controlled, will not help us with that.

Go back to that first link and re-read it. There is the battlefield on which we live or die, and it is a fight that should not involve party lines, at all. If we lose sight of it in the fog, we lose everything.

“The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disentrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. ”
— President Abraham Lincoln, Message to Congress, 1862

Perhaps we may only preserve our union is by ridding ourselves of our enthrallments, as Lincoln observed, including our enthrallments with political parties.

Welcome Instapundit readers, and thank you, Glenn, for the link. It was the indespensible Insty’s link to boingboing that helped me gather my thoughts

UPDATE: Election Reactions:
Nate Silver: What Happened and Why (must-read via JOM
Gateway Pundit: Who are you going to believe?. Believe what you know.
Bookworm Insight: If it’s not about Obama…
Ed Morrissey: Palin Empowered, Bloomberg, too, but maybe not the Prez
Peter Wehner: Comprehensive Analysis
Reynolds in NY Post: Obama Magic Fades
Conservative Energy: Michelle Malkin
Mark Steyn: Quietly musing
Drew @Ace:Elections a little something for everyone
Rick Moran: Die GOP, that ye may rise!
Sundries Shack: V-and Voting
Jennifer Rubin: Can Dems get serious?
Crittenden: He had a bad day…
Just One Minute: End of Health Care Reform?
Fausta: NJ Up close and personal
Protein Wisdom: Snort
Watcher of Weasels: If Dems are happy with Obama’s election night choice, so am I

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Tewkes

    I read it, and I agree with you 100%, Anchoress. I am grateful you have posted about this since your blog is read by so very many. I hope other bloggers pick up on this post so the issue can be spread throughout the blogosphere. Pray, pray pray, everyone! Then start telling your friends about the treaty and what we know so far about it’s contents. Thank you Anchoress for bringing this up for us all to see.

  • Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » FOLLOWING UP ON BOINGBOING, the Anchoress has some thoughts on Obama and Internet freedom. …

  • http://deschler.comandthedeaconstudio Bernard Deschler


  • http://feedyouradhd.blogspot.com Dr. Dave

    Excellent stuff, Anchoress. (From your SnarkyBasterd twit on Twitter.)

    I saw this Churchill quote somewhere today, on Twitter or Facebook or maybe even as graffiti on a wall. I can’t remember, the ADHD is ravaging my brain so badly today.

    “This is not the end; it is not even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

    That’s right about where were stand at this moment in time. So let’s all get moving toward the beginning of the end.

  • tim maguire

    Nicely done. Parties are useful as a mechanism to organize a campaign, a machine to get the word out.

    But we have had two parties for so long, and partisanship for so long that people have begun to get the equation backwards–that the purpose of the base is to support the party, rather than the party to support the base.

    The responsibility of the voter is to vote for the candidate who will best represent their interests, regardless of party affiliation. The party should have a philosophy and sell that philosophy through articulate capable candidates. Nominating someone because of their electability is a short-sighted strategy, as the Republicans (hopefully) are learning.

  • Tully

    Re NY-23: Oh my yes.

    For all the thud and blunder, the people of NY 23 voted for the top candidate they felt most likely to properly represent them and their own views. Had the indie not entered the race and pushed the “R” into third place, they might well have chosen the “R”.

  • http://www.savkobabe.blogspot.com Gayle Miller

    Once again, dear Anchoress, you are doing the job that the elite media refuse to do. It isn’t that they aren’t capable, just unwilling and too doggone lazy to move their arses when necessary to dig out the story. This treaty that is deemed so secret must needs be ratified by the U.S. Congress in order to have the force of law. I will grant you that the fogmeister-in-chief would prefer to avoid that little detail (constitutionally required) as he avoids so many little details that are so required, but in this case – not likely! Once the cat is out of the bag – it just goes running all around the neighborhood intimidating the dogs in the neighborhood into submission (oops – forgot this wasn’t my neighborhood and my cat we were talking about). At any rate, you know what I mean. Don’t make me unleash Sam the Wonder Cat on your hapless Congresspersons!

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » ‘I Am A Proud Conservative Day’ – Taking Back The Republican Party

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com Bender

    NY-23, and the New Jersey and Virginia elections were won by Independent voters

    Perhaps, but let’s not make the mistake of equating independent with moderate. As a conservative, I have not really called myself “Republican” ever since the nomination of Bob Dole. That is true of many conservatives. Far from being middle-of-the-road moderates, like most political and media elites seem to think that independents are, in the modern-day, a large section of the so-called independents are actually conservative disaffected former Republicans.

    They may not put party first, but they still do put principle, philosophy, and ideology first.

    If the lesson learned is to go after “independents” by going left toward the “middle” and seeking the support of “moderates,” if the lesson learned is to take an ad-hoc, rudderless and relativistic approach to issues, then the GOP will once again crash and burn, as it would deserve to do.

  • bc

    Hear, hear! The assault on freedom of speech, and access to the truth uniquely afforded by the World Wide Web will intensify as our elites see the threat it poses to them. “People, ideas, hardware, in that order!”. If people start dying, then we must reassess. Until then, freedom of speech, above all else.

  • T Harris

    Too bad one side plays against the other. The middle class loses out! Who speaks for the majority of the middle class? Why am I paying taxes for? To subsidize healthcare, or to subsidize big business tax breaks? If not one side gets to my pocketbook, the other side does! And it’s non partisan. I guess that is the only thing that is non partisan… my purse!!!!

  • dry valleys

    We are fighting a massive battle to overturn the ghastly British libel laws & prevent them being introduced to other parts of the world- you might like Jack of Kent & my favourite blogger Heresy Corner in this regard.

    I do not believe this to be something innate to Obama, I just think it’s an expression of world leaders’ outrage (they’re all trying to do this together, remember) at the free speech being exercised on the internet. Brown has been truly hideous on the matter too.

    I don’t think, however, that Obama is capable of exercising true control over the web. This will just be a petty, expensive inconvenience that doesn’t end up achieving (achieving what exactly?) I remember Google going into China, people complained that thay were enabling the regime but I knew they weren’t. People won’t stand for it & the web will be invaluable in securing this, however much it is restricted, provided some glints of light get through.

    Them as have been Obama supporters, are glad of the NY-23 result & glad that he won last year, won’t be taking this lying down. We haven’t, in my view, lobbied hard enough as we’ve tended to have an excessive confidence in “them” as opposed to our own power to bring about change.

    If something is bad it should be opposed & hopefully people will realise as much. You should accept your strange bedfellows on this ussue & realise most of them are unlikely ever to support right-wing candidates or causes, but will agree on a matter.

    [That's sort of my point. This is not specifically an "Obama" issue, although he is part of it. This is more about a threat to all of us, which is why we need to dissolve the parties, which are at this point claiming too much allegiance for too little return (on BOTH sides) in order to unite against this encroaching evil, and yes, it's a real evil. And I don't know why your stuff keeps ending up in my spam filter. Odd, that.-admin]

  • Pingback: Video: Nancy Pelosi Positively Giddy Over Election Night Results « Nice Deb

  • dry valleys

    If you are that much into free speech you can try liberating my earlier comment from the spam filter ;)

    I am waiting to see whether my pals make anything of this, which they quite possibly will.

    We are all bloggers- we’ve seen many an instance of left & right uniting for some cause or uniting against some foe. I think not enough is made of the fact that we all have one quite important thing in common, at least, an interest in the welfare of the sphere.

  • dry valleys

    Obama is indeed involved. You won’t see me defending his stance today.

    I tend to prefer Democrat to Republican candidates unless I am given an overwhelming reason not to (I have a correspondent in NJ who is a rock-solid Democrat & refused to vote Corzine because she has so many objections to him, saying that a Republican victory would be a price worth paying if it got local Dems to stop being complacent… complacency being what happens in safe seats).

    I am actually quite sceptical about independent politicians as it is often hard to pin them down in detail, whereas if I’m barmy enough to vote Labour I know what I’m letting myself in for.

    I tend to favour a multiparty system such as exists in a lot of European countries. Partly it’s the public who will bring this about, but huge difficulty is involved in setting up new parties & getting support for them.

  • gs

    Long time no see, Anchoress. Hope things are well with you.

    After repeatedly remonstrating with you regarding your (IMHO) excessive apologetics for the previous Administration, I am happy to see your statement that the current power grab crosses party lines.

    This boingboing commenter notes that ACTA began under Bush. Recall Orrin Hatch’s role in making intellectual-property legislation as draconian as he could. Recall how the GOP has refused the seize this golden libertarian issue and prefers to pander to its implacable enemies in Big Media.

    This commenter points out–pessimistically–that such attacks on freedom could be thwarted if Internet users had the same level of commitment as gun owners. (Almost ten years ago I expressed your concerns to a twenty-something who said not to worry, this stuff would be reversed when his generation became more politically aware. Yeah, right. Now he’s almost 40, and here we are.)

    [If this began under Bush it began under Bush, that doesn't change the fact that it is abhorrent. Now it belongs to Obama, but it is not about either president. It is about us. -admin]

  • soozie

    Gosh Anchoress. Is this the beginning of our version of “The Troubles”?

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention NY-23, Free Speech & the Fog » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com

  • Learning

    First Things should understand until we conquer the sin and the culture of Death, we will not have peace or prosperity. The wages of Sin is death.

    That is not a partisan issue. I am a social conservative who is a Ron Paul republican not for ideological reasons but because both major parties are slaves to the same sellers of sin and Death. We need to vote them all out. Shrink Leviathan but to do that we need a moral people. Social concerns are paramount.

  • Pingback: We’ve Got a Bigger Problem Now. | Little Miss Attila

  • Michael

    Hey Anchoress, good analysis, especially of NY 23. I’m wondering if you’ve read Roger Simon’s ridiculous analysis. Let me boil it down to its thesis: Gays are good and holy, people only care about money, so the GOP needs to completely abandon social conservatives and tell them to shut the hell up.

    Any thoughts?

  • Pingback: Quotes of the Day « Obi’s Sister

  • Diamondback

    And you think last night’s winner in NY-23 won’t support Obama’s Agenda against free speech?…how naive.

  • Joseph Marshall

    “In order to do that, we will have to first strengthen and support the most fundamental of freedoms: the right to say, to write, to sing, to shout whatever message we wish to.”

    Anchoress you and your cohorts are completely clueless about what “free speech” means. When people don’t agree with you or don’t listen to you or don’t believe you, your “free speech” has not been suppressed one jot.

    In fact those of us who believe in freedom to think might really get annoyed about this constant demand that nobody ignore you impinging on our freedom to think. But exercising freedom to think means that you understand voting with your feet when conservatives start talking such nonsense is sufficient remedy for it.

    This is ALL that has happened. People have not agreed with you, people have not listened to you, and people have ignored you. Nothing else. Poor babies! I defy you to show me anything else that has happened to you, any concrete case for anybody stopping you [individually or collectively] from saying, writing, singing, or shouting anything you please.

    In fact, I have noticed a steady increase in the shouting part of it on your side of the political spectrum with every passing year. Maybe you have on mine too.

    I would also remark that I remember your hit stats passing seven figures a long time ago, though First Things apparently does not publish them now. Your talent deserves it, but you misuse your talent when you so chronically claim that either you or your views when expressed by someone else have in any way been prevented from reaching people.

    Show me the person who disappeared in the dead of night because they wrote for Pajamas Media. Or because they listened to Rush Limbaugh. Tell me the story of anybody who spent the night in jail for anything they did by throwing teabags and being uncivil in “town meetings”.

    I personally remember facing down tear gas, billy clubs and bayonets almost 40 years ago. The men who were my age now back then had plenty of memories of company goons coming with blackjacks and brass knuckles to break up union picket lines. And the men maybe five or ten years older than me had just come back from Mississippi Burning and the casual Klan murders in certain very nice parts of the country.

    Sing to me [since you want to be free to sing] about those conservative protest meetings that broken up by thugs with blackjacks and brass knuckles while the police looked the other way. Or of people killed or maimed for throwing teabags, like they have been on a regular basis the side you don’t support in the abortion wars. You can’t do it.

    Do conservatives sometimes face personal prejudice because of what they have to say? And does that sometimes translate into lost opportunities in the real world because of it? Or even very hurt feelings? Of course. But you [collectively] should start taking an adult attitude toward it.

    An attitude willing to acknowledge that there are plenty of places in this country where expressing “liberal” views receives the same sort of shunning and career inhibition that I find people like Roger L. Simon always whining about.

    And the people who shun liberals in those places and won’t give them the time of day are always talking about it being the Real America and Flyover Country.

    Which it is. I know. I live here too

    [Right, Joe, that's what I was saying: anyone who disagrees with me is impinging on my right to free speech. I'm that stupid and unreasonable. Thanks. -admin]

  • Revnant Dream

    Hear ! Hear! Well said.
    Wonderful post.
    I do believe that America has woken up to the dangers of this personality cult.

  • Dagwood

    Poor Joseph. Always good for an old-fashioned “Emily Litella” moment around here.

    Click on the link, for goodness sake, Joe! What it describes is, if accurate, a potentially devastating threat to expression and communication for all sides. Quit insisting that every blog entry or comment be twisted so that it fit your preconceived and prejudicial internal narrative of who we are and what we believe.

    Believe me, Joe, those of us who recognized the whining of celebrities such as Sarandon and her boy toy, who cried “Censorship!” several years ago when their inflammatory words got them dis-invited from appearing at certain events, are mature enough and level-headed enough to recognize it even in those with whom we agree.

    You should realize by now that you’ll find regulars at this site who are willing to engage in civil debate over most topics presented here – something that somehow seems to be missing at the Kos and Huffington sites. But no one cares to have words put into their mouths or thoughts placed into their heads that were never intended or suggested.

    To suggest as you do that the paragraph you copy/pasted is, in light of the link above it, nothing more than a whine about not getting enough attention shows either incredible stupidity or incredible arrogance, or maybe just incredible carelessness. Unlike you, Joseph, I won’t accuse you or try to infer which of these I think it is in your case.

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com Bender

    Yes Joe.

    Although many of us were not politically involved 40 years ago, we can read all about the political violence of those days. We can all read the history of Democratic businesses in Democratic northern union towns like Detroit hiring goons to bust up unions, while Democratic union thugs busted up businesses and attacked everyday workers who merely wanted to do their jobs. We can read all about the Democratic mobs who rioted in those Democratic cities. We can read all about the Democratic politicians in the Northern Democratic cities, like Chicago, who called in the police to bust heads of protesters. And we can all read about the Democratic politicians in the solid Democratic South who attacked protesters with dogs and water cannons, not to mention the Democratic Klu Kluxers who went around lynching people. We can read all about the Democratic Jim Crow laws and the Democratic segregation now, segregation forever mindset. We can even read about Democratic secession and Democratic promotion and defense of slavery. And we can read all about the despotic and autocratic tendencies of their “fellow travellers.”

    We get it. We get the long history of Democratic goonery and thuggery.

    But do you get that many if not most of we modern-day “conservatives” (who are more accurately classical liberals) would have been on the receiving end of that Democratic violence had we been politically active 40 years ago? Do you get that?

    I would tend to doubt it. Just as you currently deny the oppression, blacklisting and other de facto suppression of speech by the left in most institutions today, from education to media to law to medicine to the arts to government. And then there is the ocean of blood on the hands of the left from the slaughter of innocents ranging from the womb to countries all over the world.

    We get it. We know exactly who we are dealing with.

  • Mr. Graves


    Thank you for your wonderful column.

    I’ve posted a link and some sample text from the copyright article to my Facebook profile, and I encourage others to do the same.

    Thanks again. I rely on your column for a dose of common sense, and you’ve never disappointed!

  • Jim Hicks

    You made a key point when you mentioned the NY-23 Democrat candidate seemed to belong to the area.

    That is important on several levels. Particularly when you consider the Conservative candidate did not even live in the 23rd district! While that is not not required by law (you only have to live in the same state) it will be important to voters, particularly conservative, Republican leaning voters who consider such an issue to be important. To those who say all politics is local, not living in the district should be an issue.

  • EJHill

    The political statist class has found a new way to enforce censorship and limit free speech through international treaties, which per the Constitution, have the force of US law.

    By slipping them into treaties it goes mostly unnoticed by the public and never really gets debated on either the floor of the House or Senate.

    The Obama Administration announced an effort with Egypt recently that the October 6th Weekly Standard described like this:

    “The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that ‘the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . .’ which include taking action against anything meeting the description of ‘negative racial and religious stereotyping.’ It also purports to ‘recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media’ and supports ‘the media’s elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct’ in relation to ‘combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.’”

    So, forget the Fairness Doctrine. This is how they will Hush Rush and Check Beck. Virtually all of the big AM stations that carry Limbaugh’s and Beck’s programs are 50,000 watt clear channels that can be heard in either Canada or Mexico. Friendly socialists in those country will file complaints, the radio stations will be assessed huge fines and they will be forced to dropped the programs for more politically correct fare. All in the name of our international “responsibility.”

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Joseph, I really don’t understand how the Anchoress’ calling for rejection of hypocrisy on all sides of the political spectrum, and saying we need to take a long, hard look at all political candidates, whether or not they have a “D” or an “R” after their names somehow translates into, “The Anchoress and her cohorts (the Anchoress has “cohorts”? Who knew?) are all being conservative whiner babies!”

    Her stand seems pretty reasonable to me, but apparently, you see it as being totally unjustified, and unreasonable. Why? Isn’t taking a long, hard look at all politicians a good idea?

    And isn’t freedom of speech important enough that we should look long, and hard, at anything that might threaten it, such as this copyright infringement ruling (which the Obama administration doesn’t want to reveal), which would be bad for the blogsphere, and limit freedom of speech there. No, we haven’t been hauled off to prison, yet, or attacked by thugs with brass knuckles—-and we’d like to keep it that way, thank you very much, so, yes, we’ll keep an eye on this.

    You, personally, might not like the song we’re singing, but we do want to go on singing it.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Yes, E.J. Hill, I knew about that Egyptian treaty, and find it troubling.

    Are we not supposed to notice things like this, or are we just supposed to settle back, not look beyond the fog and obey politicos (be they “D”‘s or “R”‘s unquestioningly), because to oppose them, or ask too many questions, is somehow being silly, and oversensitive?

  • Doc

    Anchoress, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of evil. I assume you agree that abortion is evil. Democrats support abortion in their party platform. Their leadership holds abortion up as a hallowed, untouchable sacrement. Until we force them to change this, Democrats support evil. Even Democrats who claim to be pro-life support this same evil. They are nothing more than numbers who contribute to a majority that places Pelosi, Frank, Rangel, Waxman, Conyers, and the rest of the fanatically pro-abortion leadership of that party at the heads of their committees and leadership positions. Any congressman with a (D) therefore contributes to evil. A vote that places them in office does the same.

    I would guess that it would take no more than 2 election cycles for American Catholics to force the Democrats to drop abortion from their platform if they voted Republican at the same rate that Jewish and African American voters vote Democrat.

    Then Catholics could resume voting Democrat, and they would simply be wrong on many issues, but no longer in support of evil.

  • dry valleys

    I have not seen this mentioned on any of my blogs, a number of which are pro-civil liberties, legal specialists, & wouldn’t dream of pulling their punches for any politician. Furthermore, I know many are Boing Boing readers, but they still haven’t made a song & dance about it.

    We should be vigilant towards Obama & other servants & representatives of we the people, worldwide. But this seems not to be getting treated as being as bad as some of what’s been inflicted on us. Perhaps it really isn’t.

    With regards to Joseph Marshall, the fact that we’re not being marched off to death camps does not mean all is well with the world. But we should always steer a fine line between mindless acceptance of what the state does to us & opposition to everything.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    It’s by keeping an eye on the state that we prevent things, such as death camps, being silenced by thugs with brass knuckles, the midnight knock at the door.

    You don’t oppose everything, but you do watch everything, as much as you can.

  • dry valleys

    I agree with the above, I hope I didn’t give you to think otherwise.

    Don’t get used to having my agreement though :)

  • frmike

    The best candidate won in NY23? God help us if that is true.

    From Ace of Spades:
    Owens indicated in a press release that he was now in favor of the bill in direct contrast to his earlier position during his campaign. During his campaign for Congress, Mr. Owens assured voters that he felt the public option had no place in the health care reform bill. Contrary to that position, Mr. Owens now indicates that he intends to vote in favor of the bill even though it now contains a public option.

    Owens also promised to vote against cutting Medicare benefits, taxing health care benefits, and increased taxes on the middle class. All of those are features of the House bill.

    [Yes, unfortunately, I gave the man more credit than he deserved, more fool me -admin]

  • Pingback: Steynian 396 « Free Canuckistan!