No rumor of the foe's advance
Now swells upon the wind;
Nor troubled thought at midnight haunts
Of loved ones left behind;
No vision of the morrow's strife
The warrior's dreams alarms;
No braying horn or screaming fife
At dawn shall call to arms.

Their shriveled swords are red with rust,
Their plumed heads are bowed,
Their haughty banner, trailed in dust,
Is now their martial shroud.
And plenteous funeral tears have washed
The red stains from each brow,
And the proud forms, by battle gashed
Are free from anguish now.

The neighing troop, the flashing blade,
The bugle's stirring blast,
The charge, the dreadful cannonade,
The din and shout, are past;
Nor war's wild note, nor glory's peal
Shall thrill with fierce delight
Those breasts that nevermore may feel
The rapture of the fight.

Like the fierce Northern hurricane
That sweeps the great plateau,
Flushed with triumph, yet to gain,
Come down the serried foe,
Who heard the thunder of the fray
Break o'er the field beneath,
Knew the watchword of the day
Was "Victory or death!"

Long had the doubtful conflict raged
O'er all that stricken plain,
For never fiercer fight had waged
The vengeful blood of Spain;
And still the storm of battle blew,
Still swelled the glory tide;
Not long, our stout old Chieftain knew,
Such odds his strength could bide.

Twas in that hour his stern command
Called to a martyr's grave
The flower of his beloved land,
The nation's flag to save.
By rivers of their father's gore
His first-born laurels grew,
And well he deemed the sons would pour
Their lives for glory too.

For many a mother's breath has swept
O'er Angostura's plain --
And long the pitying sky has wept
Above its moldered slain.
The raven's scream, or eagle's flight,
Or shepherd's pensive lay,
Alone awakes each sullen height
That frowned o'er that dread fray.

Sons of the Dark and Bloody Ground
Ye must not slumber there,
Where stranger steps and tongues resound
Along the heedless air.
Your own proud land's heroic soil
Shall be your fitter grave;
She claims from war his richest spoil --
The ashes of her brave.

Thus 'neath their parent turf they rest,
Far from the gory field,
Borne to a Spartan mother's breast
On many a bloody shield;
The sunshine of their native sky
Smiles sadly on them here,
And kindred eyes and hearts watch by
The heroes sepulcher.

Rest on embalmed and sainted dead!
Dear as the blood ye gave;
No impious footstep here shall tread
The herbage of your grave;
Nor shall your glory be forgot
While Fame her record keeps,
For honor points the hallowed spot
Where valor proudly sleeps.

Yon marble minstrel's voiceless stone
In deathless song shall tell,
When many a vanquished ago has flown,
The story how ye fell;
Nor wreck, nor change, nor winter's blight,
Nor time's remorseless doom,
Can dim one ray of glory's light
That gilds your deathless tomb.

"What Went Down"In my last blog, I gave you droplets of thought and a torrent of opinion. "The Autopsy of an Election" was really just meant to be the final nail in this two-year coffin. For those of you who aren't really interested in that whole reading thing, here's a visual summarization of what went down this election day.





Of course, we've all seen this map outlining Obama's victory over McCain. Really, though, from that map, a quick glance would lead us to believe that it was almost 50/50. Due to the electoral college and how that is set up, a different picture is painted...




This is a map of the United States that has been warped to display national population density by state, essentially reflecting how the electoral votes are distributed. Really, it is unfair to give Wyoming the same amount of electoral votes as Connecticut when, on this map, CT is about 3X larger than the state with the larger land area, WY. Note that the blue (Democrat) states that went for Obama are massively huge while the red states, with the exception of Texas, Georgia, and some other states in the Bible belt, are quite a bit smaller. This is how McCain won so many states but ended with so few electoral votes.




This map shows each state by electoral votes. Notice the similarity to the above map of national population density.Though it is difficult to note the difference, open two instances of Firefox, one on each map, and click back and forth rapidly to see the disparity.



This map is my favorite of them all. It shows the voting map broken down by county. I have enlarged it so that you can pick out your own county, unless you are surrounded by similar-voting counties. Note how Ohio and Indiana are primarily red. Pennsylvania and Virginia, two other swing states that McCain had to win (but didn't) are almost entirely red except for their major metro areas, Philadelphia and Washington DC. This is because in these four states, the minority counties that swung Democrat carried a huge proportion of the population.



Though this map is of no use to the casual observer, let me explain. It shows the national electoral map distributed by country, then warped according to each county's population. Note that the east and west coasts, along with a belt extending from Pennsylvania to Illinois, the Senator's home state, are almost entirely blue.




This map is by far the most telling. Again, it shows counties, but this time they are colored on a scale from red to blue based on the actual vote, not electoral vote or who won in the end. Note that large swaths of the poorly populated areas in the midwest are the most purely red. This carries little significance, though, when you factor in how few people these actually are. The majority of areas that Obama won, on the contrary, are bluish-purple. There are very few mostly blue areas. Note the bottom edge of Texas, which McCain won, is almost perfect blue. This is undoubtedly due to the large Hispanic immigrant populations along the border.

Sante Fe, NM, is by far the brightest area of blue on the map. Again, this could be marked up to a large immigrant population. I can't place the shining blue county in what looks to be right on the southern border of South Dakota. It's placed rather oddly. Further, note the corridor of blue along the lower edge of of the Mississippi River, which Gov. Huckabee referred to as the "Delta" on Fox this morning. There is also a rightward streak extending from this delta to Atlanta. Even Illinois and the markedly liberal New England is purple with some red inroads.




This map better than any other shows us how President-elect Obama captured the high office. This is the scaled map above adjusted to show a population cardogram, like earlier maps. There are nine giant bright blue blobs throughout the map with only small fiery red inroads. The major urban areas successfully captured the electoral votes of those states, and thus, the Presidency for Barack Obama.

-Ze Baron

Americans all have the right to vote, even if they vote wrong. Though I was confident in a Republican victory in 2008, it was not to be.

November 4, 2008 -- After getting home, I turned on the election coverage. When the first data started coming in, whoo-hoo, McCain's in the lead! Then as liberal New England states started getting called, Obama crept ahead. As the sun started setting on the Midwest, McCain fought back, only to fall short. Karl Rove says he still has a chance, though, but he has to win x out of y swing states, which would be difficult in a regular election.

He and Brit Hume walk over to the giant green screen where Rove consults his notes and starts pointing things out on the green screen. Of course, he can't see what is projected behind him because it is done in the computer, so he's just gesturing at a 'green screen.' He points out that McCain has to win Ohio or else the election is pretty much over... as he says this, I'm thinking, "Why is Ohio blue? It's blue on the map. Does he know that? Why is it blue? Is it is glitch? WHY IS IT BLUE?"

Then Brit Hume puts his hand to his ear, nods, and interrupts Rove: "Karl, I've just been informed that Fox News has called that Obama has won Ohio." Rove looks visibly crestfallen. I get up, take my McCain yard signs out of the window, and sit back down.

At almost 11:00, CNN projects that Obama is the 44th President of the United States. I shut off my television.

November 5, 2008 -- Throughout the day, I was questioned by Republicans and Democrats alike. The only answer I could give was "The country always gets what it wants... not always what is best." More succinctly, "Shit happens." I don't know that truer words have been spoken.

Of course, I was harangued by the occasional Obama supporter throughout the day. At one point, someone mockingly asked me, "So who is the President?" "George W. Bush!" I snapped, leaving them dumbfounded into silence. Another who has been quite the viral Obama supporter pointed his victory out to me, grinning like a Cheshire cat. Here's how the rest of the conversation went, paraphrased for convenience:

Baron: "Yeah, Obama did win last night."
Obama Supporter: "See? I told you so all along."
Baron: "You were right. So, uhh, what city is Barack from again?"
Obama Supporter: "Hmm, umm, I don't really..."
Baron: "That's okay. I can't remember his wife's name, though."
Obama: "Oh, she's... well, it beings with an "M"
Baron: "...and I know they have kids, but how many?"
Obama: "Two! They have two kids."
Baron: "Yes, I'm sure they and their mother, Michelle, will miss Chicago."

Dumbass.

Look, there are intelligent Democrats out there just like there are intelligent Republicans, but let me assure you that this election was not won like the 1992 or 2000 election. Essentially in those instances, politics was removed from society and it was just the informed, educated, and uppity politicos that chose the President.

In this election, Obama did exactly what a Democrat needs to do to win against the Republican machine: inject himself into everyone's lives. He went mainstream. As much as I may sound like a bad McCain ad, he went from being a politician to being a pop culture icon. Which leads me back to my discussion with the Obama supporter:

He won because every idiot with a vote chose him.

I've got to put it blatantly, and frankly I'm sorry if you think this is some bitter partisan rant. This is as objective post-election coverage as you're going to get on the blogosphere.

Obviously this lady didn't know the first thing about Obama outside of the fact that he's "cool" and black, much less any policy positions. This is exactly what Obama needed to do, and he did it. Your or my educated vote is worth just as much as the socialite that gets an Obama button and decides that way. Your or my educated vote is worth just as much as every other American's.

Obama captured about 68% of the youth vote compared to John McCain's 30%. Have you ever wondered how things like Hollister clothing or rap music get popular, then fade off really quickly? It is primarily because easily molded youth are the epitome of herd creatures. Of course, when their favorite music artist writes a song about Obama, it makes it cool to support him. Thus, a trend is born.

I am painting a picture of utter ignorance now, though this was not the deciding factor in the election.

It's the economy, stupid.

Remember way back when this whole election thing started up, just before the 2006 Congressional elections? What was the big issue back then? Do you remember? It was immigration. In fact, one Republican, Tom Tancredo, even tried to run on a platform of securing the border and fixing immigration. While this has always been a personal motive of his, it was a hot-button issue at the time and (falsely) convinced him he had a chance.

Now, in the last month (even two months) of the Presidential election, can you honestly tell me if immigration came up once in a serious manner? I heard it in passing on Fox once and never on CNN. But seriously, in the last two months of election coverage, did you heard the word "Iraq" more than you can count on your fingers? Probably not.

No, this election was hustled by a 52-foot semi barreling out of control with the words "Economy Down" across the side. America got some extreme tunnel vision when the economy started teetering.

Now I'm no economist, but I honestly feel that if Americans need to be told that we're in a recession/depression, then we're not. The only places that the average Joe’s economy is being pinched are some stocks or 401(k)s and things like that. On the larger scale, the only major problems are at the tippy top of the economy where giant companies reside (re: Lehman Bros).

This could translate into bigger problems, especially if these major creditors seize up and it starts to choke off struggling small businesses that are the lifeblood of the economy. Some suggest this could be happening already what with the job losses escalating.

Regardless... Yesterday one of my friends was voicing his opinion on how he thinks single-issue voters, specifically pro-life voters, are casting an uneducated vote. Realize that he's pro-life just like I am, but I can see his point. You have to consider the wider candidate when voting for any single issue: For example, the economy.

The MSM has got the American people so wound up about this impending doom (TIME's recent cover, check it out), a large majority of people think that their personal finances are going to come crashing down around them, even though they are only suspended by thin lines holding back the debt. People think, "If this is going down, Obama will help me out."

Summary: When you want to save business, elect Republicans. When you want to save individuals, elect Democrats. The present problems are currently boiling over only in the business sector, and Obama is going to do slaughter to them. I forsake the days ahead.

As I said above, Democrats are traditionally the ones called in to save the people from the economy, but what is Obama's specific record on the economy? Has he ever actually done anything? Can he point to something he did? A vote here and a vote there don't count, all that is is an opinion rendered.

John McCain was out-campaigned through Obama's injecting himself into pop culture, but the real reason he lost was because Obama inadvertently used the weapon he has been preaching against from day one: Politics of fear. Instead of using a terrorist crisis as basis for radical measures (9/11 → Patriot Act), he successfully positioned himself around this financial crisis as the savoir, winning him the election on people's fears.

Thankfully, there still is hope. The Democrats did not gain nearly as many seats in the House and Senate as they did in 2006, though the predictions were that they would make those same large gains. They only maintain a low majority, allowing Republicans the ability to filibuster (which I look down on) and possibly fight off bills like they did to the bailout bill.

Even so, Nancy Pelosi of the House and Harry Reid of the Senate are extreme liberals, out of the closet and ready to fight. Though this was Obama during the primaries, he mellowed out considerably during the general election. I predict that we're only going to see a traditional Democratic presidency these next four years, something on the lines of a Hillary Clinton/ Ted Kennedy, for he still has a reelection bid to win. Should that happen, though, I fear what he will do.

Hidin' Biden

Remember this quote?

"Mark my words: It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator President of the United States of America. Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

It was not twenty-four hours before a generated crisis tested this president-elect. Let's see... Kennedy was tested with the Cuban missile crisis, where Russia put missiles near the United States. On November 5th, Russia announced plans to put missiles aimed towards our allies on the Russia-Poland border to balance the power where we are adding a missile-defense shield. How's that for self-fulfilling prophecies?

I'm gonna sound like a latte liberal when I say this, but I'm going to blame this whole thing on George Bush. Though he did the best he could do with the hand dealt to him a little after a year in office, he left the political landscape inhospitable for Republicans in the near future. He really ought to be excommunicated from the GOP. I still like him as a president, but I resent what he has sentenced us to through his own ignorance.

You really have to congratulate McCain on keeping it even with Obama until the end, even surpassing him once or twice in the polls. He had an advantage against generic Republican from the outset because he is a maverick (blech, I will never say that or "bitter" again) and quasi-moderate. Still, the "R" after his name sentenced him to a loss from the outset.

I have a feeling, though, that in a month or two when this economy thing is solved and relegated to the latter pages of the New York Times with immigration and the war, Americans will wake up as if after a great night of sex, roll over, notice the bed is empty, and think... What have we done?

-Ze Baron

... I BELIEVE free enterprise and personal initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth, and prosperity.

... I BELIEVE our nation needs to protect the dignity of every individual and guarantee the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

... I BELIEVE in a limited government that practices fiscal responsibility and works to lower taxes so individuals can keep more of their hard earned money.

... I BELIEVE in a strong national defense to ensure that Americans remain safe, terrorists are defeated, and democracy flourishes throughout the world.

... I BELIEVE the Republican Party is the best vehicle for converting these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

www.pagop.com

Friends, please read this.

Though this election is by and far too close to call, with Obama's lead in battleground states closing or being eclipsed, John McCain is already being written off. The world has already crowned Barack Obama their king. Michelle Obama is in the Oval Office measuring for new drapes. Joe Biden is accepting bids on a rail line from the White House to the Naval Observatory (VP residency) so he can stump in 2012 that he still takes the Amtrak to work every day.

This is not to be. Most polls are showing the race within the margin of error, making it almost irresponsible to to call the outcome.

Today, I went to my county Republican HQ for the second time this election season. I picked up a bunch of literature to give to Obama voters in and close to my family, something I've never done before.

I have a favor to ask of you, though, my virtual friends. Let's start a blitz campaign -- change your headshot to the McCain/Palin sign I have in this blog. Everybody. Let's whiteout peoples' friends lists to the point that there are more of these signs than not.

Show your colors!

Ze Baron

I am going to host a Thanksgiving Ball sometime around the holiday. Thanksgiving is on November 27th, a Thursday, this year. The party will begin at approx. 10:00 PM EST, but I haven't yet figured out what day it is going to be. I am creating a poll here with the days I will be available, so vote! Please note I will be unavailable that Friday night.

Anyway, as always, you have to come costumed. You can either come as an Indian or a Pilgrim. Whichever you choose determines what kind of food that you "bring" to the party. Also, you should come with a guest. For fun, s/he should come opposite you. If you are an Indian, s/he should be a Pilgrim, though that's just a suggestion.

For those of you who have never been to one... to get "costumed" you set the picture as your avatar that night or the day before. To "bring" food or drink, you give me the picture or URL in an email along with your Multiply ID. If you do not already know my email, please ask me or one of my friends for it as I am not forward about posting it in a public blog.

You can invite anyone. If you were invited by one of my immediate friends, you can still invite people. If you were invited by someone who was invited by one of my immediate friends, you can invite people. All you need to do is RSVP in this blog so I can send you an "invite" card a few days before the party as a reminder. More information is forthcoming!

I get my news from Google News to try and ensure a fair and well-rounded media diet, rather than just Fox and CNN. Anyway, today as I was browsing the news there was a story called "Rolling Back Threats: Wal-Mart Leaves DRM Servers Running." I wasn't too sure what DRM servers were, but I'd heard of DRM because it is a type of encryption that is used on music (and more so on DVDs) to prevent pirating. I checked it out.

Apparently the music won't work unless it is connected to these servers, and since Wal-Mart was getting out of the business they were going to shut them down. After an "outcry" from their customers, they are leaving them for a bit longer. The article cited an email that was sent to customers who used this service:

"Based on feedback from our customers, we have decided to maintain our digital rights management (DRM) servers for the present time," reads the e-mail sent to customers, reports engadget.com. "While our customer support team is available to assist you with any issues, we continue to recommend that you back up your songs by burning them to a recordable audio CD. By backing up your songs, you insure access to them from any personal computer at any time in the future."

Do you see any grammar, usage, or syntax errors in that paragraph? (Write your guess down on paper before scrolling to comments.)

I noticed one and it stood out at me like a sore thumb. Can't the biggest retail store in the United States, with sales bigger than most nations' GDPs, write a competant email? I was much too dismayed to finish the article (that, and I had to rush over here and blog it!)

So... what's the error? Shout it out in the comments.

-Ze Baron

(Article: http://www.crn.com/retail/211100203)

What is it like to be funny?

It's weird, really...today I was talking with a few people about nothing in particular. We were all laughing and as the conversation broke up, one of the people said to me "Everybody thinks you're funny but you don't have a sense of humor!" I took this as a compliment but I couldn't really assemble anything coherent to reply to that. I think I said, "I'm not trying to be funny, it just happens...!"

I don't really know what to think of this. Dave knows my deep dark secret: I sold my sense of humor at a pawn shop. My problem is that I still make people laugh. I think they might not have gotten all of it out!

I don't really understand what dry humor is, but people tell me that's what I am. What do you think of dry humor?

GENIUS!

This is basically the only word I could sputter out when people asked me (the chief politico) what I thought about her. I consider myself pretty knowing when it comes to American politics, but I really did not know who the governor of Alaska was, who Sarah Palin was, or that McCain was considering either of them -- let alone the fact that they were one and the same!

I thought this plan was good because it would get the enraged Fem-Nazis who just want to see a woman in the White House to vote for McCain. It would also harbor support from those people who are voting for the black guy to reassure themselves that they are a good person. I would bet this type makes up a fair sized part of the voting mass.

Republicans? The stogy traditional party wants a woman in the White House? Diversity from the GOP? It can't be! Yes, people thought this was a monumental election... a woman and a black guy. Well, Hillary got knocked out and here another woman crops up. 2008 is a year for the record books.

Sarah Palin is the first woman on the GOP's chief ticket. She's also likely the only candidate except Teddy Roosevelt that knows how to field dress a moose. This woman is exceptional. She knows how to disassemble, clean, and reassemble an M16. She's got five kids, one with Down syndrome and one in the military. She comes from Alaska (where ANWR is, sillies!) and she advocates drilling! Granted, it pays to align with McCain's message and current trends, but if it were really as disastrous as the greenies would have us think, Palin wouldn't be advocating destroying her home state.

Speaking of remarkable women... Cindy Hensley McCain owns a beer distributorship and she's in an automobile drift-racing team with one of her sons! The Republican ticket has a war Veteran/Veteran Senator, a beautiful First Lady who owns a beer company and races cars, a gorgeous woman Governor who fishes and hunts with a second-man who is a professional snowmobile racer.

The Democratic ticket has a freshman Senator lawyer with a grumpy, unpatriotic lawyer wife. Anyone up for a quick poll?

Remember how Democrats would attack Bush for 'sending our boys into harm without offspring in the military', to paraphrase? John McCain has one son in the service and one in the Naval Academy while Sarah Palin has one that just left for Iraq. I think that if they think the mission is important enough to risk their own children, well, the Democrats have little room to squirm.

I was watching Newt Gingrich give a small talk on C-SPAN during the RNC. He was talking about a variety of things, but when he got to Sarah Palin he said that a reporter came up to him and said, "What about the experience problem?" Newt replied, "I think Senator Obama has a huge problem to overcome." That captures the essence of it right now -- though Alaska has the population of San Diego, though Wasilla AK has only 8,000 residents, VP Sarah Palin has more executive experience than would-be Prez Obama.

Does that scare you?

This is a big election. Obama's "lead" over John McCain is less than the margin of error in most polls, which means they are essentially tied. Obama's lead is maintained because young people think it's cool to vote for the black guy, if for no other reason. While they're voting uninformed, it's their American right.

Oh, and another thing -- during the DNC Obama was repeatedly touted as the first black Presidential candidate. No, that's wrong. Obama is just as black as he is white. Remember, he's biracial. Using that logic, he's also the X-hundredth white candidate nominated for the White House.

Obama's other big lead comes from his excitement: Yeah, Barack! Whoo-whoo! Fancy catchphrases! Empty words! Let's cheer! Well, I think he can expect that lead to shrink, even to transform into a deficit because of Palin/Biden. Everyone was pumped about Obama's veep. Who was it going to be? It'll be exciting! He's the candidate for change, remember? Well, you could hear the media and idiot-America let out its collective breath when he picked Joe Biden.

John McCain has been painted by Obama as a representative of Old Washington, that is, what he's been meaning to reform. John McCain took office in 1987. He's been a Senator for 21 years! Who could be more fresh than Obama, who is fresh in Washington he doesn't know where the men's room is in the Capitol building?

Not Joe Biden! He took office in 1973! That's right -- 35 years in Washington. He took office when Barack Obama was 12. How can that be a representative of change? Obama popped his own balloon filled with "FRESHNESS & EXCITEMENT!" by picking this thorough Washington insider.

John McCain isn't integrated into the Washington machine -- he doesn't even feel compelled by duty to his party, as noted multiple times during the RNC to my confused state. Why tout his maverick, voting-against-party style in a room filled with Republicans?! Sarah Palin surely is the freshest of all four. I doubt she's even vacationed to Washington!

I checked out a magazine rack today. A quick glance at the 20 or so magazines (not all political) showed Obama on one, McCain on two, and Palin on at least half a dozen. While they weren't all feature stories on the candidates, and while they all weren't necessarily good reflections of them, the key to getting these votes is the spotlight. Sarah has stole it from Obama.

Sarah Palin is supposed to be this conservative god that will be there weighing on McCain's decisions and ready to take office should anything happen to McCain (who's 90+ y/o mother attended the RNC). Bristol, her seventeen year old daughter is five months pregnant by her eighteen year old fiancee. Granted, pre-marital sex and teenage sex are sort of big no-no's in the conservative movement, but these attacks that paint Sarah Palin as irresponsible are terribly wrong. We're electing the mother, not her teenage daughter's poor decisions!

The liberal media loves nothing more than to point out conservative hypocrisies on the topic, sometimes by comparing the comments denouncing 17-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy with the support for Bristol and Sarah Palin. I would hardly consider it hypocritical. Jamie Lynn Spears is a celebrity. Young girls, preteens and teens look up to her. She has a show on a children's channel. She's a role model, whether America and the parents of the kids who watch her show want her to be or not. A girl who is going to have no impact on anyone else's life getting pregnant is a bad thing, sure, but it will not have an effect like Ms. Spears' pregnancy did.

People also like to point out how Sarah Palin fired Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan for refusing to fire a trooper who had a bitter divorce and custody battle with her sister. "That's abuse of power!" screams the liberal media. Oops, I guess they forgot to mention that the trooper Tasered his own stepson and threatened to kill his ex-wife's (and Sarah's) father.

Well, those facts aren't important anyway, are they? Just so long as we can sling mud at the conservatives for Savior Obama.

Someone asked me what would be the best strategy for Barack Obama to get elected. I told them, "He should have changed his name to Brock O'Bama and passed himself off as an Irishman."

Thinking back, it might have been more advantageous for him to just become a Republican.

-Ze Baron

These are perilous times for America. I hate to sound cliche or fear-mongering in my first blog in nearly a month, but I've had this pervasive feeling in the back of my mind for the last while. It's percolated past a previous precedent to pestilent proportions.

The pernicious problem presides in Congress.

Besides having one of the lowest approval ratings in Congressional history, and in all rating systems ever, most likely (yes, that means they have worse ratings than The View), Congress is doing something else that's reasonably suspect. They're limiting our freedoms.

I've always pictured myself as a hybrid between a conservative and a Libertarian, which is sort of an awkward cross. A truly far-right conservative puts values on some personal restrictions to preserve (or, *cough*, "conserve") traditional family values. An example of this might be gay marriage. As a conservative, I can't see giving them a "marriage" as the right thing to do. I want to give them something else that's similar, but not really the same thing. That's the legal aspect of it. The Libertarian streak in me says that when it comes to two consenting adults in a private bedroom, they can do whatever the hell they want. That's personal freedom.

A firestorm erupted when the Supreme Court was considering taking up the DC handgun case. It escalated to a higher degree when they actually did take it up. The Supreme Court, to simplify it, is really at a four-four lib-conservative split. It's almost always one judge who is the wild card that makes the decision -- and his name escapes me. I believe it's Anton Scalia or Justice Kennedy.

Anyway, point being that all this hell was raised: "Are they gonna take our guns away? Will it set a precedent for further measures to take more guns away?" and "Will it make our streets safer? Will it set a precedent for further measures to make the streets safer?" Really, though, it came down to splitting hairs on an amendment that pretty much spells it out.

As an avid gun shooter and owner of multiple firearms, as a person who hopes to be able to defend myself should the need present itself, and as a right-wing Libertarian, I'm ecstatic the decision was made to overturn the handgun ban.

It would have been a monumental blow to our rights to have a Supreme Court spit in the face of the Second Amendment like that. Freedom loving Americans can breathe a sigh of relief. My axe to grind, as I mentioned earlier, is with Congress.

Our rights are being nibbled at more and more every day that Congress meets. This is a fairly repeated phrase, really, and people just tend to nod their heads and walk along. Apathy is what's killing America.

On December 19, 2007, Congress eliminated a freedom that will affect undoubtedly every American with nary a blink from Big Media or the populace. I blogged about it about a month later in an entry called "Live Green or Die Trying." 43 people saw the entry. I don't think any of us realized the repercussions of that particular measure, though.

Congress banned incandescent bulbs, the round kind that most of us have, by 2014. The only viable alternatives right now are compact fluorescent bulbs and whale blubber. (Damn, the Japanese have a monopoly on that market and the eco-libs vow energy independence... CFLs it is, then.) Frankly, I suspect they are going to phase-out the bulbs by disallowing the sale of the bulbs which'll have a trickle-down effect, but I plan on stockpiling incandescent. That, of course, is another rant entirely...

While freedom to light bulbs isn't in the Bill of Rights, I believe that "liberty" is in one of those old documents -- "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Frankly, I think Congress has more important issues to deal with than what light bulbs we use. Besides, this is America and I want to choose my own damn light bulbs.

There might be some caribou on an ice float in the ozone layer that'll be impacted by my desk lamp, but it's my decision: freedom of choice. I know that there needs to be some regard shown to the environment, but it isn't like America -- at least in theory -- to do things this way. Tobacco is bad for people, but can you imagine the uprising if Congress tried to phase it out, first cigars, then cigarettes, then chew, and finally Nicorette?

I think the government took a pretty good road with tobacco, actually. You can still get tobacco, but there is an exorbitant tax on the stuff. If you want it, you can get it, for a price. That is using the economy and the markets to influence people's buying habits. I think that while this is still questionable when orchestrated, it's a better alternative to just banning the stuff outright considering it happens all the time. Look at the sudden upswing in people taking advantage of public transportation. The force of economics taking form of $4 gas is forcing people's habits, likewise with tobacco. Tobacco users should be allowed to do what they want -- even if that means giving themselves lung cancer in the privacy of their own home.


The average incandescent is what, $0.50? Most CFLs are about $3. As they get used more, of course, the price will come down. But let's say that instead of phasing out the bulbs, Congress put a $2 tax on the 100-watt bulb in 2012, $2 on the 60 by 2013 and $2 on the 40-watt by 2014. While it would have undoubtedly made some people angry, that money could go towards corn mash, dry ice, and parachutes for those caribou stranded in the upper atmosphere or some other environmental project of your choosing.

You see, though, it's not just big decisions like the DC gun ban case or the amendments to the FISA that are pieces of your freedom at risk. It happens every session Congress meets.