November 07, 2004

Donít Get Cocky

Immoderate Republicans are having fits about Arlen Specter, a liberal Republican from Pennsylvania, who is slated to head the Senate's Committee on the Judiciary. Specter, you see, isn’t too jazzed about packing the Supreme Court with righties.

Hugh Hewitt issues a wise warning.
The opposition to Specter seems headquartered at The Corner. Many friends post at The Corner, so I paused, considered their arguments, and thought it through. On reflection, it seems to me a very bad idea to try and topple Senator Specter from what in the ordinary course of events would be his Chairmanship. I hope my colleagues on the center-right that embrace pro-life politics will reconsider.

I understand that Senator Specter voted against Robert Bork, and that Senator Specter is not a friend of the pro-life movement. But genuine progress in the fight to return American public opinion to an affirmation of life before birth cannot be made through strong-armed tactics and almost certainly will not be lasting if it is accomplished through a putsch.

Unlike Hugh and most of the folks at The Corner, I am not “pro-life.” Sorry. I’d like to be, just as I’d like to be anti-war. But I’m not. So, of course I’m biased in Arlen Specter’s favor. I’m counting on the likes of him to put the brakes on the Republican Party and get them to govern from the center. I may have voted for Bush this year, but sure as the stars come out at night I don’t support any right-wing social agenda. There’s no way my split-ticket vote can be construed as lending support to a mandate for either side. That’s the whole point of voting split-ticket. It is only half-hearted partial support. It is explicitly anti-mandate.

The swing-voting center put the Republican Party in power this year. 2006 isn’t very far away. The right had better look out. For we who giveth can also taketh away.

UPDATE: See also Andrew Sullivan.
Here's a fascinating piece of data. The percentage of people who said in 2004 that their vote was determined by the issue of "moral values" was 22 percent. In 1992, if you add the issues of abortion and family values together, that percentage was 27 percent. In 1996, it was 49 percent. In 2000, it was 49 percent. So the domestic moral focus halved in 2004. Obviously, the war took precedence, especially if you combine the categories of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism more generally. Again: the Republicans should be wary of over-playing their hand. If they believe the entire country is the religious right, the backlash could begin very soon.
Yeah. Like, real soon. Watch it. Last week's election wasn't the last one.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at November 7, 2004 06:29 PM

Comments

Michael,

there is no "pro-life" litmust test. What Bush wants on the Court is a strict constructionist. If that means Roe v Wade is overturned, then so be it. Any honest legal scholar knows that Roe v Wade was just a clever bit of legal fiction.

And what does that mean for you, the urbane Michael Totten and your fellow travellers in the "center"? I means the issue goes back to the individual state legislatures and you get to vote for the abortion bills of your choice.

That's what it means to be a conservative. Rule by the people, not judges.

Posted by: David at November 7, 2004 06:59 PM

and ps., if you're not going to use your mandate to get stuff done, then why bother.

Posted by: David at November 7, 2004 07:18 PM

I was watching a program on C-Span hosted by E.J. Dionne with Republican and Democrat pollsters talking about the election, strategy and the future of their party's. The issue of the role religion played in the election came up and the republican pollster chimed in.

He was directing the crowd to remember the third debate when the issue of supreme court judges came up and Bush said 'I don't have a litmus test' and how you didn't here a peep out of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. The reason being as the Republican pollster said is that they know he 'does' have a litmus test.

As for

"That's what it means to be a conservative. Rule by the people, not judges."

That has nothing to do with conservatism idealogically or culturally.

Posted by: Epitome at November 7, 2004 08:13 PM

I believe early abortion, before neural development begins, ought to be legal. But there is no way any honest person can read the constitution and come to the conclusion that a 'right' to an abortion in contained within it. Abortion should be left to individual states, the worse that can happen is that women will have to travel to a more liberal state to have an abortion, big deal.

If Arlen Spector says he won't allow judges who won't pretend that there is a mysterious abortion clause, to be appointed, then he is not fit for the post.

Posted by: R.F. at November 7, 2004 08:15 PM

>>>"That has nothing to do with conservatism idealogically or culturally."

it does today. Liberal judges legislating from the bench have made it so.

Posted by: David at November 7, 2004 08:25 PM

My Rabbi, a very smart guy, said the Supreme Court might make abortion illegal. I had to inform him that the Supreme Court CANNOT make abortion illegal. It can only return to State Legislatures the right to do so. And frankly, under the jurisprudence set forth by this very court, Congress would lack the authority to impose such a ban on the states under Article II of the constitution. We need to debate the facts here. There are probably about 10 states that would ban abortion if they could. The rest would either set reasonable restrictions or leave it alone. I think it should be legal but I see no reason such a result is guaranteed by the constitution. Nevertheless, given the passion involved, I myself would prefer to see the Court merely tinker at the edges as they have done by permitting a number of reasonable restrictions than actually overturn it. This should satisfy the majority of abortion opponents who can continue to advocate against the practice to make it less and less common. They have to know that if Roe is overturned abortion is not going to disappear.

Posted by: Doug at November 7, 2004 08:28 PM

My Rabbi, a very smart guy, said the Supreme Court might make abortion illegal. I had to inform him that the Supreme Court CANNOT make abortion illegal.

Doug,

the feminazis on the Left have done everything in their power to ensure people remain ignorant of that simple yet all important fact. They really do want people to believe Clarence Thomas is about to make abortion illegal. They're shameless.

Posted by: David at November 7, 2004 08:34 PM

RF,

Specter probably removed himself from the chairmanship by his "shot across the bow" interview. He could have kept his mouth shut and he might have been OK. He has given personal assurances to the President for expeditious treatment of all nominees and a straight up or down vote. Instead he chose to exhibit the same arrogance that caused him to issue his "Scottish" verdict on Clinton. The Rep leadership needs to move him to the back bench as soon as possible as a matter of discipline. If he wants to yap all day like the attack Yorkie that he is, fine. But attack Yorkies don't get chairmanships.

Michael,

I'm sure the President appreciates your vote but you made it clear that you voted for Dems for the legislature. As you watch what happens to Specter it might be helpful for you to review Johnson's methodology when he was majority leader. Robert Caro's volume on those years is about the best I've seen. This is a disclipline issue more than an ideological issue. Party discipline is the primary lens that should be used in evaluating what will happen. If Specter is brought to heel, he may yet get the chair. I wouldn't give it to him but Frist may receive the necessary assurances.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at November 7, 2004 08:38 PM

Michael,

I am still supporting the choice for women but not sure how long. I still fully support, and will forever, abortion in the case of incest, rape, or when the life of either the mother or child is in danger, or in the case when the child's life would be meaningless due to some kind of disease.

However, I don't know for how long I can support abortion of convenience. There are other ways to protect against pregnancy. Condom. Pills. Abstinence (how novel).

The main reason I can support abortion less and less, however, is the kind of society it creates. This is far bigger than a woman's right to "choose". (again, condoms and pills are there). Here are some cases which sway my opinion to the anti-abortion side:

1. "A Perth abortion clinic objected to plans for a childcare centre on a neighbouring property because the sight of children might upset its patients." (source: http://realpolitik.us/archives/001830.php)

"the sight of children might upset its patients?" What kind of society is it where an idea something like this can even emerge?

2. In Canada, the health care is socialized, and in many parts, private health care is not allowed or is at least frowned upon. Yet there are private abortion clinics, and in some provinces, fully covered by the government. I just read a couple of weeks ago that some US doctors wanted to venture into Ontario in order provide mobile MRI servicesfor a fee, and the gov't practically wanted to hunt them down. (There was a good article about it a couple of weeks ago in the Editorials/Comments section in National Post). So providing private MRI checkups is looked down in Ontario yet "The Government of Ontario fully covers physician fees related to abortion performed in private abortion clinics in Ontario. Facility fees are also fully charged to the province." (source: http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:yKZBLyhg0eMJ:www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/PrivateAbortionClinicsFunding-%25202004-09-24.doc+canada+%22private+abortion+clinic%22&hl=en)

3. I feel that there is a huge overlap among the people who support abortion rights and those who don't support the death penalty. So it is OK to "murder a child" (I don't like to use this loaded expression but I do use here) but it is not OK to execute a murderer? What about this two excerpts from the BBC?

3.1. The European Union has criticised the new US President, George W Bush, [article from 2001] for blocking federal funding for international groups that perform or advocate abortion. (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1132127.stm)

3.2. A mass grave being excavated in a north Iraqi village has yielded evidence that Iraqi forces executed women and children under Saddam Hussein. ... The body of one woman was found still clutching a baby. The infant had been shot in the back of the head and the woman in the face. ... Tiny bones, femurs - thighbones the size of a matchstick. ... Mr Kehoe said that work to uncover graves around Iraq, [...] was slow as experienced European investigators were not taking part. The Europeans, he said, were staying away as the evidence might be used eventually to put Saddam Hussein to death. (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm)

So the EU doesn't like when President Bush doesn't provide for "abortion advocacy" (what is this?), but is not willing to dig a mass grave full with women and children since they don't want to nail Saddam?

I am not religious. Not at all. I don't believe in the existence of God, in Jesus Christ's Godness (but I do believe he was a living person, crucified, I just think he was a mortal and not God's son), and I truly dislike the Church. However, if I have to choose, and there is no other choice, between the morals of the right, or the morals of the left, I will choose the morals of the right. There might be things I don't like there, but if I have to choose between being forced to pray every morning, or to ponder about "the sight of children might upset its patients", then the choice is clear for me.

4. Just think about the aforementioned "abortion advocacy" complaint of the EU. So the EU supports "abortion advocacy", but their numbers are decreasing in such a rate that their societies are in a very serious danger?

All in all, just by looking at the abortion side, or at those who fervently support abortion, I am driven more and more away from them.

Vilmos

Posted by: Vilmos Soti at November 7, 2004 09:03 PM

I don't understand the hysteria over the possible overruling of Roe v. Wade. If Roe v. Wade is overruled, it doesn't make abortion illegal. It will mean that the federal government won't be able to decide it. Most state governments protect abortion, and will continue to do so in the absence of Roe. Those states that choose to limit abortions will do so at the mercy of their electorates. So while a Supreme Court of 9 Antonin Scalia clones may well overrule Roe, most of the country, including our Oregon, will still be sucking the life out women's bellies. If you are worried, stay out of Alabama.

Posted by: Gullyborg at November 7, 2004 09:25 PM

Vilmos,

that was a great post. The Bible says that the Lord has inscribed his laws (right vs wrong) on the hearts of men (even those that don't believe in Him); and all men rebel against that knowledge, some more than others. Your post shows that you know right and wrong, with or without "the church" to tell you.

Posted by: David at November 7, 2004 09:32 PM

Michael,

It is interesting that you (and those you link to) are arguing as passionately that this election was NOT swung by the religious right and represents NO mandate for a right-wing social agenda as those on the religious right are arguing that it emphatically DOES represent said mandate.

You've put a lot of faith in President Bush that it is you, and not they, to whom he will listen. You think The Corner is what made Specter whistle a different tune? I think the hand that jerked the leash is a lot higher up than Jonah Goldberg.

"There's no way my split-ticket vote can be construed as lending support to a mandate for either side."

No way? Why did Cheney use the word "mandate" when he introduced Bush for his acceptance speech? They construed a 5-4 Supreme Court victory as a popular mandate in 2000, when Al Gore won more votes than anyone but Reagan in '84.

The real power in the Republican Party doesn't care about the religious right OR security liberals like yourself. The Republicans can consolidate a lot of power in two years, and they'll have people like you to thank for it.

That's not a "conspiracy theory." Look what Tom DeLay got away with in Texas. Only the beginning. Didn't I read that Bill Frist may engineer a change in the Senate's cloture rules? So long, checks and balances. Hello, Chief Justice Scalia.

Posted by: pk at November 7, 2004 09:44 PM

The real power in the Republican Party doesn't care about the religious right OR security liberals like yourself.

pk,

would you care to expand on who the "real power" in the GOP is? I'm interested.

Posted by: David at November 7, 2004 09:46 PM

So, Michael, you thought the President was lying when he spoke (albeit in code) about appointing judges who would overturn Roe v Wade?

You think he's lying about pursuing the FMA?

Hell, he didn't even pretend to be a "compassionate conservative" this time around.

If you look at what he did after he lost the popular vote, why on earth would you expect him to govern from the center after actually winning the election.

(BTW - David - re your first post - do you consider Bush v Gore as a judgment that reflects "strict constructionism"?)

Posted by: Mork at November 7, 2004 09:57 PM

pk,

The Democrats could argue even more plausibly that I gave THEM a mandate. I voted for a lot more Democrats this year that I did Republicans. But they can eff off if they think I support them to the hilt or that my vote means any such thing.

Cheney says he and Bush got a mandate. Well, they didn't get one from me. I voted for several of their political opponents, and the subject of this post is one of the reasons I did that.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 7, 2004 09:59 PM

Mork: why on earth would you expect him to govern from the center after actually winning the election.

I don't expect him to do it willingly. That's why I voted for people who will antagonize him.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 7, 2004 10:00 PM

Michael,

Take comfort in the fact that if the GOP abuses one-party rule, we'll likely see a resurgence of Democrats in 2006. I'm much farther to the right than you, and I hope the Dems can come back as a strong opposition in order to serve as a check.

Posted by: Mason at November 7, 2004 11:15 PM
MJT: Unlike Hugh and most of the folks at The Corner, I am not “pro-life.”

I don't want the president to appoint judges because they are "pro-life" or "pro-choice". I want him to appoint judges like this guy who realize they have no business legislating their personal moral views from the bench:
[The] recognition of the separate spheres of Church and state is not just the teaching of the first amendment to the United States Constitution, it is also, I think, the teaching of Jesus Christ, who spoke of rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and is not recorded as having indicated any preference about government except one: he did not want to be king.
....
It just seems to me incompatible with democratic theory that it's good and right for the state to do something that the majority of the people do not want done. Once you adopt democratic theory, it seems to me, you accept that proposition. if the people, for example, want abortion, the state should permit abortion, in a democracy. If the people do not want it, the state should be able to prohibit it as well.
....
Maybe my very stingy view, my very parsimonious view, of the role of natural law and Christianity in the governance of the state comes from the fact that I am a judge and it is my duty to apply the law. And I do not feel empowered to revoke those laws that I do not consider good laws. If they are stupid laws, I apply them anyway, unless they go so contrary to my conscience that I must resign. But the alternative is not to do what is good or apply the law. the alternatives are: apply the law or resign.
Michael, are you open to the argument (made by, among others, TNR's Jeffrey Rosen) that Roe v. Wade is bad constitutional law? Are you distinguishing constitutional and policy arguments? Posted by: MDP at November 7, 2004 11:41 PM

I don't expect him to do it willingly. That's why I voted for people who will antagonize him.

Gee, that sure worked in the last four years, didn't it.

Posted by: Mork at November 7, 2004 11:41 PM
Gullyborg wrote:
Those states that choose to limit abortions will do so at the mercy of their electorates.
It's ironic that people who claim individual rights to free speech or to bear arms under the Constitution would make an argument that matters relating to reproduction (including abortion) should be subject to the whims of the electorate - worse, subject to the will of a legislature heavily lobbied by ideologues.

We're about to be taught (for the Nth time) the wisdom of keeping the government out of certain matters.  Will we ever learn?  Beats me.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet at November 8, 2004 12:20 AM

ATTENTION ! IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE PRO-CHOICE AND AGAINST ROE V WADE.

Roe v Wade, as well as this entire flap over gay marriage are perfect examples of why we need to return to the doctrine of "states' rights". Abortion will remain legal in most states, probably all of them in fact. If Roe v Wade is overturned, the same people ( feminists, libertarians, etc ) who are pro-choice will exert the same pressure to keep abortion legal. The only difference is that they will have to do it in a decentralized way. Many constitutional scholars will tell you that Roe v Wade is questionable as far as something that passes the test of legitimate consitutional law.

Regarding 06, the Republicans may indeed produce a backlash if they push too hard. But if Democrats regain seats in Congress in 2 years, that does not affect the underlying problem of the Democrat Party.

The Democrats have trapped themselves. They cannot advocate the necessary reforms in entitlements, education and tort reform, because to do so would offend the very groups ( AARP, teachers unions, trial lawyers ) which make up the base of their party. And those groups which form the core of the party are corrupt statists with a vested interest in the status quo. So, Democrats MUST favor the status quo, and hence by default have ceded the territory of policy innovation to Republicans.

The Democrat Party as presently constituted is simply unable to constructively address the issues of this era.

Until Democrats find a way to break out of this prison, they will continue to decline as a party, regardless of Republican Party hubris.

Posted by: freeguy at November 8, 2004 12:58 AM

The backlash will depend on the phraseology Bush adopts on FMA. He has stated he is not against civil unions, of some sort -- but IS against "marriage" for gays.
I think this IS the moderate position. The radical one is full "marriage" rights for gays. The reactionary one is to have the Christian sin of homosexual activity be reflected in law, punishing homosexuals.

But best would be language specifying that there is no "right" to be found in the US, or any State, Constitutions -- which restricts the power of judges to find such a right. It doesn't restrict the power of Congress to grant such privileges, if they democratically approve them.

And the FMA prolly WILL go to vote -- that's what Bush's base demands. And if it's voted on, it prolly WILL pass, because those reps. who favor gay marriage are still representing voters who are mostly against it.

And if the FMA does pass, the pro-life folk will focus on Roe, next.

Thanks, Vilmos, for a great post. Please note that any woman in America today can have an unwanted baby, and give it up for adoption. It's not so hard. I wish the pro-life folk would make it even easier.

I also think the Silver Ring Thing (abstinence in teens) could be cool, and that would be very good, too.

The Dems have LONG had a litmus test: pro-Roe, pro-Abortion, or else no chance. In their judges, and in their candidates. The Catholic Church, increasingly dominated by John Paul II bishops, is likely to state, more and more publically, that politicians supporting abortion are OUT of communion with the Catholic Church.

Sorry Michael, your support for Bush for the good wolf against terror, is also minimal support for the wolf (me good, you bad) against gay-marriage, and against abortion on demand. But not as the top issue. The culture is moving back towards remembering, through experience, why too much promiscuity and irresponsibility is not so great for society (though individually FUN!)
(especially when the RICH have to pay for it).

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at November 8, 2004 04:14 AM

Well, the very blue states who voted Kerry all voted to ban gay marriage. So much for a Party that stands behind its own platforms.

No wonder the abortion platform is still debated, the people were never allowed to vote the issue.

Posted by: syn at November 8, 2004 04:52 AM

"If they believe the entire country is the religious right, the backlash could begin very soon."

Actually it is the Left and MSM that touts this meme...

Posted by: Tim at November 8, 2004 06:15 AM

Engineer-poet, free speech and guns are mentioned in uncertain terms in the Constitution.

Reproduction is not.

If the Left truly wants reproductive rights enshrined in the Constitution, the Constitution itself tells you how to do so.

So work on passing an Amendment, and then you can tell Antonin Scalia to go screw from legally unassailable ground. Or keep defending your sand castle. Your choice.

Posted by: Mark Poling at November 8, 2004 06:18 AM

Mark, they do NOT want "reproductive rights" -- they want abortion on demand (preferably paid for by taxpayers). Chinese women were surprised in 1995, at the big UN Women's Conference in Beijeng, when reproductive rights were being discussed.

The Chinese women my wife talked to thought it meant they would have the right to reproduce, to have children -- to get rid of China's "one child policy" (and thinly veiled forced abortions). Of course, there was no official translation of that phrase, nor was one allowed.

Those honest Leftists -- where killing a human fetus is called a "reproduction right".

And that one child policy is creating the most massively unbalanced too many young men for available women in history (though India is not far behind). There is already No. Korea women smuggling into China.

The pressure of unhappy, women-less men could easily erupt in a very non-peaceful way. Taiwan should be very very worried.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at November 8, 2004 06:31 AM

There should be no Roe v Wade, for the same reason that there should be no federal ban on drugs, no federal ban on gay marriage and no federal ban on guns of any sort.

The federal government is responsible for Interstate Commerce and National Defence. It is truly reaching beyond their power to legislate anything dealing with strictly internal State matters.

Its what I always talk about "50 flavors of freedom" and this 'experiment' of democracy. The states must be free to govern themselves.

As an aside, I find it truly funny to see the people who are backing the constitutional amendment to 'define' marriage for all states, are against Roe v Wade because it infringes on States Rights.

Hypocrites, or dogmaticly fed Christian zombies? You decide.

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 8, 2004 06:43 AM

"(BTW - David - re your first post - do you consider Bush v Gore as a judgment that reflects "strict constructionism"?)"

It corrected the liberal Florida Supreme Court's political decision, something liberals never talk about.

Posted by: Val at November 8, 2004 07:06 AM

There is nothing better in America than seeing the Anti-war bumper sticker next to the pro-abortion bumper sticker. Or the PETA sticker next to the pro-abortion sticker while driving a car with fine corinthian leather seats.

If there is no moral basis in our laws, why is murder and stealing etc. illegal?

I love it when men argue for women's reproductive rights when what they are really saying is when I get the ho pregnant I want a way to get out of it.
You are full of sh*t if you think you are pulling for women's rights. Women have reproductive rights, How come men don't? If a woman wants to kill a baby, its ok, but the man who helped produce it wants to keep it where are his rights?

I suppose it won't be long before we decide who lives and who dies? Right now I would be worried if I was a Lib.

I also hope the Reps drown the liberals in their agenda. The beauty of this country is if you don't like them drowning the libs you can vote the libs in next election.

Governing from the middle just means you have no conviction, you are a fence sitter going where the winds blow. This doesn't mean you vote party lines, you vote with your ideology, Liberal or Conservative, they are in both parties.

Posted by: Barney at November 8, 2004 07:23 AM

Barney,

Governing from the middle, can mean that you are a fence sitter with no convictions. It can also mean that you're trying to govern in the most fair way possible, since (as our last election showed) the country is nearly split down the middle.

'Fence Sitting' is often better than a headlong dive into a far-right or far-left dogmatic ideology.

Ratatosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 8, 2004 07:36 AM

Tosk is getting pretty darn dogmatic in his constant "anti-dogamtic posts."

Snore.

Posted by: Tim at November 8, 2004 07:50 AM

Mike,
Belive it or not this country is much more red than you imagine. This election, more than anything else was a rejection of the middle of the road, in favor of a lean to the right. The people that voted as they did rejected all of Hollywod's instructions, judges that make law from the bench, and a whole plethora of othere matters large and small. Like it or not, America is much more like the vote told than some mythological "centrist" nation.
And the "right to abortion is a clever legal construct that has no basic in fact. If you read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you woun't find the word "abortion" in there anywhere. To say it's based on the First Amendment right of free speech is a specious construct at best, but Liberals will wail on at length about it's inviolability. Odd that they don't have the same respect of the 2nd amendment, which actually say in B&W that I have a unfettered right to keep and bear arms. Their hypocricy is legion.

Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2004 07:57 AM

Tim,

Care to actually make a comment of value, or do you just like pretending that you know what you're talking about?

Come on, I'm just a squirrel, I don't bite...

Well, maybe I do.

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 8, 2004 07:59 AM

It's odd how the "Immoderate Republicans" are bringing up Bork (one of the arguments I've heard to keep Specter away from the Judiciary Committee) when one of his more interesting and hard-won victories against, Democrat Lynn "who?" Yeakel who tried to win on Clarence Thomas Derangement Syndrome to punish Specter on his grilling of Anita Hill.

Posted by: Bill at November 8, 2004 08:18 AM

WHy, all the worry about the supremes. Remeber who put the most liberal judge on, Souder, it was W's dad. The person I hope leaves and is the most scary is Sandra Day O'Connor who has taken to the idea that we should look to ther countries verdicts when reviewing cases, she should be impeached for trying to get rid of our sovereignty in law.

Posted by: Barney at November 8, 2004 08:39 AM

It must have been of value to you, since you replied. It isn't my fault you are so attached to your Illuminatus Discordian fantasy D&D character. Wake me up when you say something of substance.

Posted by: Tim at November 8, 2004 08:44 AM

Alas, my metaphors and fictions are once mistaken for fact... how I dream of the day when mankind comprehends when they read ideas, instead of simply memorizing text.

"Wake me up when you say something of substance."

Nope, won't do it. If you can't wake your own damn self up, I sure can't help you.

So, one wonders why a nonposter, posts such sad cries for attention... I don't know... but perhpas I have an idea.

Maybe it's because I enjoy pretending to be a vampire in Live Action Role Playing Games, or an elf in D&D. Maybe because, I dress in tights and a houpalande and persure the Art of Fence (rapier) in the Society for Creative Anachronism. Maybe it’s based on the books I read or the position I take in politics. Maybe it’s because I espouse a non-Christian belief, or because I’ve been known to use psychedelic herbs in my spiritual quests.

Or maybe it’s because you and most people I see in daily life, don’t know what my reality is. You connect reality with a single order, with a single accepted society, with gas, electric, water and the latest lawyer/cop/doctor drama on television. Do you actually believe that reality is the Average and Mundane mess that the greatest protion of our citizens call life?

I am not upset with those who think that I evade reality. I pity them. They have been completely fooled; they’re imprisoned by politically correct homeowners associations. They’re trapped in a 5:00 rush hour of the soul, from which I fervently hope they someday will find a way to escape.

Until then I will continue to invoke chaos, like every other individual who has seen the true face of reality. We know that Cthulhu sleeps in R’lyeh and that Eris is laughing at the frustrations of those who feel that the control of their life is slipping away, not realizing they never had any control to begin with. We know that experiencing life is different than living life. And that life has little to do with the cubicle dwelling, suit-wearing, 9 to 5 working, greyfaced hunchbrains.

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Muncher of The ChaoAcorn
Chatterer of the Words of Eris

POEE of the Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal

If you believe what you just read, you're a fool. If you think that what I wrote, is what you just read, then you're a fool twice over.

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 8, 2004 09:26 AM

Ratatosk,

"There should be no Roe v Wade, for the same reason that there should be no federal ban on drugs, no federal ban on gay marriage and no federal ban on guns of any sort."

EXACTLY !

Posted by: freeguy at November 8, 2004 09:50 AM

freeguy,

Now if we could find one damn party that actually wanted to follow the constitution instead of the money trail through the special interests groups and power-hungry corporations and political organizations.

Yeah, I know, I'm living in fantasyland again.

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 8, 2004 09:51 AM

Mason: Take comfort in the fact that if the GOP abuses one-party rule, we'll likely see a resurgence of Democrats in 2006. I'm much farther to the right than you, and I hope the Dems can come back as a strong opposition in order to serve as a check.

I agree 100%. And don't forget that Billary is waiting to pounce in 2008. If the GOP decides to go the way of Jerry Fallwell just so they can enjoy some kind of sick, twisted, 4-year-long, right-wing orgasm- they will certainly pay the piper in the next election cycle. I seriously doubt that it will happen...

Tosk: Now if we could find one damn party that actually wanted to follow the constitution instead of the money trail through the special interests groups and power-hungry corporations and political organizations.

How about the Libertarians? They're at least close to what you seem to seak. Unfortunately, they're not serious about national defense, and are therefore a long way from becoming a viable 3rd party force...

Posted by: 2Slick at November 8, 2004 10:05 AM

2Slik,

The Libretarians have their own set of issues. ;-)

I don't think that a third party has a snowball's chance in hell of getting anyone into thew Whitehouse. George HW Bush gave an interview to NPR a couple weeks ago where he basically said the same thing. The two party system in in place, its entrenched and its stable... people just aren't willing to throw things into chaos, even if it means that something better might emerge.

The only hope I have, is for a centrist republican party to come to the fore. One that isn't torn between what is correct in the eyes of the Constitution and what is correct in the eyes of the Christian.

If it weren't for that extreme right dogma, I'd be a Republican.

Tosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 8, 2004 10:16 AM

Mike: Belive it or not this country is much more red than you imagine.

No, it's purple. See the map below on the main page.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at November 8, 2004 10:19 AM

The only hope I have, is for a centrist republican party to come to the fore.

I'm with you on that one.

Rudy in 2008!!!!!

-2Slick

AKA- The Artist Formerly Known as $lick

Posted by: 2Slick at November 8, 2004 10:20 AM

No, it's purple. See the map below on the main page.

it's not a very dark purple though. It's a light reddish purple. That map's no good.

Posted by: David at November 8, 2004 10:23 AM

2slick,

As I sad a few days back... if you're ever in central Ohio, the first round is on me!

Tosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 8, 2004 10:31 AM

"No, it's purple. See the map below on the main page."

I've seen maps and sons of maps. Fact is, the Republicans will own the vote for the forseeable future. As log as the Demms keep the tone as shrill as they have, they will continue to enjoy their current minority status.

Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2004 10:47 AM

Mike,

and it's getting better than shrill. Now there's a growing conspiracy theory in the Democratic Underground about Bush winning through fraud. According to the DU, Kerry and Edwards are quite now because they're gathering their evidence before they make it public. Susan Sarandon was on Bill Mahr saying the same thing.

And that suits me fine. As long as Dems keep blaming "evangelicals" and "voter fraud", they'll keep losing.

--David in Jesusland.

Posted by: David at November 8, 2004 10:52 AM

"And don't forget that Billary is waiting to pounce in 2008." ---

I sincerely don't understand why Hillary is considered a serious candidate for President in 2008.She has NO CHANCE of being elected although it would drive another nail into the Democratic Party coffin should she be their candidate.
Points to consider:
A.Women don't usually become el supremo ANYWHERE in the world.Forget the PC angle.History speaks volumes.
B.She is COLD AS ICE and displays it constantly.
C.She is a Clinton.Too polarizing.
D.She is LIBERAL.
E.She is a SENATOR
F.She represents NY.Just another North-Eastern loser in a long long long line of NE losers.
I am just confused as to why she would even be considered a front-runner for 2008.Any ideas anyone?Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: dougf at November 8, 2004 11:04 AM

Tosk,

I'll take it- and just because you're from my now-favorite state of Ohio (even though you may not have had anything to do with the fact that they saved us from the flip-flopping traitor), I'll be happy to buy you a cold one as well!!

Posted by: 2Slick at November 8, 2004 11:59 AM

Look, when talking about Arlen Specter you've got to think beyond Roe. This man favors kneeling before the International Criminal Court. Is that a responsible position to take as a Judiciary Chairman? Not for me. Also, recall your history, Specter invented the "Magic Bullet". For his role in the Warren Commission he ought to have been living in ignominy for decades already.

Posted by: SM at November 8, 2004 12:10 PM

2Slick,

Very Funny

I did my best to save the US from the Flip Flopper. Unfortunately, no other parties put up a canidate worth voting for... ;-)

Damn, I think I owe you another for that rib.

Tosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 8, 2004 01:26 PM
According to the DU...

Uh... If the Democratic Underground made policy for the mainstream Democratic Party, the net drain of Aluminum Foil from the supermarket shelves would be high enough to throw the world metals market into biggest upoar since some joker tried to mix copper, tin and zinc.

Posted by: Bill at November 8, 2004 01:44 PM

"feminazis?"

Look, it is a litmus test. If you sincerely think Roe v. Wade is wrong & out of step with the constitution--and I agree, though I think Griswold is right and abortion should be legal as a policy matter--it's a justifiable litmus test, but let's not play semantic games. I have a litmus test about Brown v. Board of Education. see? It's easy.

It will not necessarily be left to the states if Roe is overturn. The federal government has authority to decide under the Commerce Clause if it wants to. My guess is they punt, though.

Michael, you get points in my book from splitting your ticket, but it was very clear before the election that only a Kerry presidency would realistically result in divided government. If socially conservative voters vote on those issues, and socially liberal voters don't, they're going to win. That's the way this works. I appreciate the support, and hope you'll work actively against the federal marriage amendment in Oregon if it comes to that, but you shouldn't be even a tiny bit surprised.

Posted by: someguy at November 8, 2004 02:06 PM

"Well, the very blue states who voted Kerry all voted to ban gay marriage. So much for a Party that stands behind its own platforms."

Uh, gay marriage is not in the Democratic platform. I say this as a strong supporter, but really.

Posted by: someguy at November 8, 2004 02:11 PM

Does every who think the right to privacy is just an absolutely hilarious idea dreamed up by liberal activists think that it would be constitutional for a state government to legally require sterilization of the mentally retarded, or of criminals, or after a couple had two children, or anyone else? If not, why not?

Remember, no substantive due process, emanations or penumbras, or invocations of the ninth amendment!

(You can distinguish this case from Roe easily enough; I'm talking about privacy rights and substantive due process in general.)

Posted by: someguy at November 8, 2004 02:19 PM

someguy,

I'm not sure I understand your question... but I'll take a stab at it and if my answer doesn't make sense, then we can clarify exactly what you're asking.

Anything that does not negatively impact the individual's right to Life, Liberty and The Persuit of Happiness (and does not conflict with US laws involving Interstate Commerce or National Defense), should, I think (and I'm pretty sure that the Constitution supports) be left up to the electorate of the State.

Sterilization, I think, could be considered a negative impact to an individuals right to the Persuit of Happiness.

However, the State (through the electorate) could pass laws that made it very difficult for a retarded person or a criminal to keep any children that they may have. A state could pass laws that increase the tax on a 'third' child to the point that no citizen in their right mind would want to have a third kid.

Of course, these sort of laws are unpopular and unlikely to pass any State's electorate. If they did, there would surely be states that refused to pass such laws. People who disagreed with their State's view, could MOVE.

The constitution says nothing that would prevent the formation of a Theocratic State. It also says nothing that would prevent the formation of a gay state.

America is Free, no one seems to have figured out how to fully exploit this freedom yet though.

The Experiment in Democracy trudges on.....

Ratatosk

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 8, 2004 02:42 PM

Arlen Specter is to blame for the attack from the right. His comments on the same day that Bush declared victory were inappropriate.

Having said that, my fellow anti-abortion allies need to chill out. Specter, like McCain, is loyal to the Party. He will allow a vote on the nominees. But there is no requirement that he vote for a nominee.

The problem we have had is the failure to even allow a vote. Let's trust the democratic process. After all, it is the practice of ramming leftist ideology down our throats via an unaccountable judiciary that is really the root of the problem, not any particular issue. The last thing we need to do is try to ram our ideology down someone else's throat.

Let's try to get a majority vote. If we succeed in implementing our viewpoint without first gaining the support of the majority, then our "victory" will be just as illegitimate as our defeats have been.

And even if Roe v. Wade is eventually overturned, that is not the same thing as outlawing abortion. Although I am 98% anti-abortion, there is still 2% that says some situations need a closer look. Absolutism in democracy is not a good solution.

Posted by: Scott Harris at November 8, 2004 03:39 PM

IIRC "The pursuit of happiness" is in the declaration of independence, not the Constitution, so it's not so much a part of constitutional law. And an unwanted child (remember, I am talking about Griswold as much as Roe here) also interferes a whole lot.

Posted by: someguy at November 8, 2004 03:45 PM

I read Specter's comments. I think they were misrepresented in the press. He was responding to a question, and gave his opinion that it would be unwise for the President to send up a blatantly Anti-Roe nomination. His comments were more along the lines of advice, as in how to nominate a successful candidate. And the Constitutional duty of the Senate is to offer advice, as well as provide consent. An unbiased reading of Specter's comments makes me believe his comments were not meant as a threat. It was just his opinion on who the most likely successful candidates would be. And he is absolutely entitled to that opinion.

Posted by: Scott Harris at November 8, 2004 03:45 PM

I've already written to my senators in opposition to Specter's ascendency. But not because of his views pro or anti. I do not want any nominee to be subjected to a litmus test of any kind. They need to be the best Constitutional scholars available, and carry no agenda into the position at all.

"What-if" questions are out of line in my less than perfect, but solid, opinion.

Posted by: Mike at November 8, 2004 03:47 PM

"The constitution says nothing that would prevent the formation of a Theocratic State. It also says nothing that would prevent the formation of a gay state."

That is a small minority view. Only 1-2 of the current 9 justices believe that the Establishment clause does not apply to the states, and even they would probably conclude that certain aspects of a theocracy violates others' free exercise of religion, free speech, or equal protection.

I'm not even sure what you mean by a "gay state", so I can't get into that one.

Posted by: someguy at November 8, 2004 03:48 PM

Since when is being pro-choice a "centrist" position? If the feminists of the '60s hadn't seized the issue, being pro-life could have very well been the liberal position, along with economic justice for the poor and elderly - basically protecting the powerless. I can understand why a lot of people are irritated by self-appointed religious leaders, who happen to be pro-life, but how about separating the issue into its essential core, which is: Should all humans enjoy legal protection, or should we create conditions by which humans do not deserve legal protection? That's essentially what Roe did, minus the philosophical framework. They said, "We don't know when life begins" and courts have been ignoring the progress of medical science since then. I think the real centrist position is limiting abortion's legality to the truly difficult cases where medical, not social, risks are dominant.

Posted by: Greg at November 8, 2004 06:02 PM

Someguy,

Which justices don't believe that the first amendment applies to the States? That would be a radical position since the 14th amendment applies the entire bill of rights to the states. I suspect you are wrong but would be VERY interested in some quotes from said justices. Such a belief would clearly be beyond the pale and such a judge would be unfit to serve. If for some crazy reason, Bush nominated a justice with such a pronounced view, Congress would have no choice but to reject the nomination and if necessary, Democrats would be within their rights to fillibuster. This is why the fillibustering of Miguel Estrada was so wrong. In many ways it is like the boy who cried wolf. He is surely no more to the right than Scalia or Renquist both of whom were unanimously confirmed by Democratic Congresses. But liberal groups created another LITMUS TEST. And Democrats were forced to go along because that's the base of their money and support. Also, I don't think Congress has the power to regulate abortion under the commerce clause. Although for fifty years or so, no law was struck down on the grounds that the commerce clause didn't grant the power. In the past decade, the Court has, properly, begun to step back from absolute COngressional power and forced Congress to find a legitimate COnstitutional basis for some of its legislation. It seems to me that if COngress banned abortion in a future without Roe, the COurt would probably strike it down as a usurpation of State authority.

Posted by: Doug at November 8, 2004 06:18 PM

Ratatosk: As an aside, I find it truly funny to see the people who are backing the constitutional amendment to 'define' marriage for all states, are against Roe v Wade because it infringes on States Rights. Hypocrites, or dogmaticly fed Christian zombies? You decide.

I object to Roe v. Wade because it amounted to a constitutional amendment enacted by the Supreme Court. If the FMA gets ratified, it will at least be a lawful expansion of federal power.

Ratatosk: There should be no Roe v Wade, for the same reason that there should be no federal ban on drugs, no federal ban on gay marriage and no federal ban on guns of any sort. The federal government is responsible for Interstate Commerce and National Defence. It is truly reaching beyond their power to legislate anything dealing with strictly internal State matters.

You do agree that the federal government can ban the import and interstate transport of drugs and guns?

The federal government's scope is defined by the Constitution. If Congress and the states ratify the FMA, then same-sex marriage will no longer be a "strictly internal State matter". By definition.

Btw, I am not a Christian and I do not support the FMA.

Posted by: MDP at November 8, 2004 07:01 PM

I object to Roe v. Wade because it amounted to a constitutional amendment enacted by the Supreme Court. If the FMA gets ratified, it will at least be a lawful expansion of federal power.

Yes. Roe v Wade is essentially a constitutional amendment without having to go through the process of getting one, and its legal basis is pure fiction. It illustrates perfectly the activist nature of Liberal judges. They don't interpret the Law, they make new laws. They have a desired outcome in mind, and they make it happen. Disgraceful.

Posted by: David in Jesusland at November 8, 2004 08:09 PM

someguy,

I should have been a bit more clear, when I mentioned gay states, or theocratic states etc. I am talking about states that could lean heavily in one direction or another.

There is no reason for the federal courts to decide if a State can allow prayer in school (as long as the school lives without federal funding). If the people in the state want Prayer in School enough, they can pay the higher taxes, tell the federal government to get the feck out of their school system and do as they wish.

By the same token, there is no reason that a single State cannot pass laws that are very supportive of gays. Marriage/Civil Unions, adoption, etc. as long as the federal government is not expected to help foot the bill in any way.

Thats the freedom of the States, the power that the federal government holds over them is the distribution of tax dollars (most of which they likely got from the citizens of that very state). If the state can provide for itself and take full responsibility for itself, it can have much more freedom to act independantly of the federal government.

YOu are absolutely right about 'Life, Liberty and The Persuit of Happiness' being in the Declaration , not the Constitution. I use those three words, when talking about States rights for one simple reason. They are a touchstone.

State Rights have been tarred with Jim Crow for decades, and often any discussion of states rights boils down to "But we don 't want to let the south decide to segregate..." and the entire notion gets dismissed. "Life, Liberty and The Persuit of Happiness", is, I think, a perfect meme to compare any States Rights with. If a state wants to pass a law that would hinder a citizens right to "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness", then the federal government would need to step in. If a law did not impact an individuals right to L,L,PoH then the State should have the right to put the issue on a ballot and ask the electorate.

MDP,

You do agree that the federal government can ban the import and interstate transport of drugs and guns?

Absolutely!

The federal government is the mediator between the states. If Colorado sells AK-47's at WallMart, New Mexico should have the protection of the federal government concerning the interstate importation of those guns (not to mention the taxes).

The federal government has been waging THE WAR ON SOME DRUGS for decades. Not only has it failed to stop drug use, but drug use is at a higher percentage now than ever before. Studies released this year show that The Netehrlands (where Pot is legal) have lower statistics in users, amount of use and graduation into harder drugs. Come to find out, the old wisdom of "People do harder drugs because they are exposed to them when buying POT on the black market" is probably correct. We know that the Federal Governments ill-advised 'war' was bad policy.

Nonetheless, if pot grown in South Eastern Ohio (it's damn fine, some of the best in the country) is sold in Ohio, it should be entirely under the jurisdiction of Ohio law. If that same pot is sold in West Virgina, then it should fall under Ohio, West Virgina and Federal Laws (even though those laws may be poorly designed).

RANT

I find it terribly ironic that we dance and shout and sing about being in the Land of The Free, we shout about how the terrorists hate us for our freedom... but what constitutes freedom?

Try doing something that has been done since man first crawled from the dregs.

Buy a cow, take it home, milk it, sell the milk to you neighbors, without asking the government for permission.

You can't do it. Under monarchies, theocracies, dictatorships and democracies, people have been allowed to milk cows and sell the milk.

And that's just the tip of this Free Country's little problems. Try going out and collecting your own natural herbs to medicate yourself. Don't pick the stuff by the roads though, that's illegal. Don't pick the herbs in the park, that's illegal. Don't pick the herbs in the natrual wildlife perserve... that's illegal.

Even in the Middle Ages, under the staunch monarchies, you couldn't shoot a deer in the Kings Woods, but you could still pick comfery for your poultice.

Try doing something that the indigenous people of this country have done, well since they came to this place. Go into the western desert, find and eat peyote. Go into the Ohio woods and pick and eat psilocybin. You might get away with it... but if a law enforcement officer sees you, you'll go to jail. It's illegal.

Think about everything you do in your daily life, ask yourself how it was done 1000 years ago, ask youself if you have the freedom to do it that way today, in our great, free country.

One cannot even walk along the roads of this country and get picked up by a friendly passerby, for we aren't even free to hitchhike.

;-)

Sorry for the rant.

Posted by: Ratatosk at November 9, 2004 07:28 AM

Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege. Unknown

Posted by: cash loan online at November 22, 2004 11:29 AM

It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
Loan http://www.epaycash.com

Posted by: Loan at December 16, 2004 04:39 AM

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.
Payday Loans http://www.paylesspaydayloans.com

Posted by: Payday Loans at December 17, 2004 06:45 AM

thnx

Posted by: noni at December 19, 2004 11:50 AM

rape stories

Posted by: Violent at February 24, 2005 11:43 AM

Internetowa oferta telewizorów odtwarzaczy i nagrywarek DVD Kamer i aparatów cyfrowych wież kolumn i amplitunerów HiFi pralek lodówek kuchnii piekarników zmywarek okapów kuchennych odkurzaczy i kuchenek mikrofalowych sony panasonic philips minolta olympus jvc canon thomson yamaha pioneer whirlpool bosch siemens amica electrolux aeh aged gorenje falmec faber liebherr lg samsung. Strefa Niskich Cen.
Kamery Cyfrowe CanonKamery Cyfrowe JvcKamery Cyfrowe PanasonicKamery Cyfrowe SamsungKamery Cyfrowe SonyAparaty Cyfrowe CanonAparaty Cyfrowe FujiAparaty Cyfrowe HpAparaty Cyfrowe KodakAparaty Cyfrowe MinoltaAparaty Cyfrowe NikonAparaty Cyfrowe OlympusAparaty Cyfrowe PanasonicAparaty Cyfrowe Sony

Posted by: Kamery cyfrowe at March 6, 2005 01:19 AM

Hi,your homepage looks really good and gives great information!
Thank you very much!
Greetings from me!!

Posted by: Kamery cyfrowe at March 6, 2005 01:28 AM

Ładna i ciekawa strona www.

Posted by: Kamery cyfrowe at March 6, 2005 10:26 AM

Hi,your homepage looks really good and gives great information!
Thank you very much!
Greetings from me!!

Posted by: Aparaty Cyfrowe at March 6, 2005 10:27 AM

Ładna strona i ciekawe informacje.

Posted by: Ubooty at March 7, 2005 09:38 AM

Excellent site. Good design , greetings Julia .

Posted by: Kuchnia at March 9, 2005 02:17 PM

Hello nice page and it downloads very fast, enjoyed it very much, take care. The internet is a great place to showcase art and increase awareness in the variety of excellent work available.
U-booty okręty podwodne ubooty Katalog stron camcoo katalog on-line Website Directory katalogi stron internetowo www Przepisy Kulinarne mniam smaczego Camcoo on linie 24 hTelewizory plazmoe lcd Aparaty ofertaopinie serwis Aparaty cyfrowe canon minolta nikon sklep dvd odtwarzacze mp3 Kamery minidv cena Aparaty cyfrowe cennik i ceny Dvd sklep Kamery cyfrowe promocje Camcoo.de promocja Maximedia polecane E-shop

Posted by: Kamery cyfrowe at April 23, 2005 10:27 AM

Thanks, for the useful site. Thanks again and again.

Posted by: Sar-Webdesign at April 25, 2005 12:54 AM

bdsm bondage free picturebdsm bondage free storybdsm bondage free video waterbdsm bondage galleriesbdsm bondage in slavebdsm bondage moviebdsm bondage notcom online personals matchmaking uk datingdate online single personalsdating directory online personals resource singledating internet online personals servicedating internet online personals service sitedating online personalsdating online personals service singledating online personals singledating personals onlinedating personals widating personals yahoodating romance personalsdating search personalsdating service andorra personalsdating service armenia personalsdating service free personalsdating service yahoo personalsdating services online personalsdating services personalsdating sex lesbian personalsdating single personals australian sitesgay latin personalsgay latino personalsgay leather personalsgay lesbian personalsgay london personalsgay malaysia personalsgay male bdsm personalsgay male personalsgay male personals chicagogay male personals for sexgay male truck driver personalsgay man married personalscalgary swingers clubcalifornia club sex swingercalifornia swinger clubcalifornia swingers clubcanada swinger clubchicago club in swingerchicago club sex swingerchicago swinger clubadvice dating mother singleadvice dating parent singleafghanistan dating service singleafghanistan foreign dating service singleafrican american christian dating singleamerican chat nudist dating people singleamerican dating online personals singleamerican nudist dating online personals singleamerican single datingadult chat xxxadult chat zoneadult check gold chatadult clean chatadult cyber chatadult dating chatadult dating chat ukadult diaper chatadult digichat chat avenueasian center datingasian chicago datingasian chinese dating services womanasian christian datingasian club datingasian compatible datingasian dallas datingasian datingasian dating adsadult e group finderadult egroup finderadult fantasy finderadult fiend finderadult find finderadult finder australiaadult finder comads dating free sexads dating sexarab dating manasian black dating man online womanasian black dating man womanasian dating girl man whiteasian dating interracial manasian dating manasian dating man white womanasian man dating black womandating services rateddating services reviewdating services reviewsdating services san diegodating services san franciscodating services seattledating services sexanal slut moviesanal sucking moviesanal tits moviesanal woman movies

Posted by: fd at May 5, 2005 08:21 AM
cool blog - thanks for the service

online casino

Posted by: casino at June 28, 2005 03:00 AM

http://www.medical-6.biz/

Posted by: bob at June 30, 2005 02:59 AM

hello

Posted by: casino at June 30, 2005 09:33 AM

18 latki wyrywanie podrywacze @ 18 latki wyrywanie podwiazki @ 18 latki wyrywanie podwojnie @ 18 latki wyrywanie przerosniete @ 18 latki wyrywanie przystojne @ 18 latki wyrywanie przystojny @ 18 latki wyrywanie rajstopy @ 18 latki wyrywanie rozjebane @ 18 latki wyrywanie siksy @ 18 latki wyrywanie szybko @ 18 latki wyrywanie w 2 osoby @ 18 latki wyrywanie w cipe @ 18 latki wyrywanie w cipke @ 18 latki wyrywanie w dupe @ 18 latki wyrywanie w dziurke @ 18 latki wyrywanie w kakao @ 18 latki wyrywanie w pupe @ 18 latki wyrywanie w szparke @ 18 latki wyrywanie we dwoje @ 18 latki wyrywanie wyrosniete @ 18 latki wyrywanie za forse @ 18 latki wyrywanie za kase @ 18 latki wyrywanie za pieniadze @ 18 latki wyrywanie zgabnie @ 18 latki wyrywanie zgrabne @ 18 latki za forse @ 18 latki za kase @ 18 latki za pieniadze @ 18 latki zaspokajanie @ 18 latki zaspokajanie 2 pary @ 18 latki zaspokajanie 2pary @ 18 latki zaspokajanie brutalnie @ 18 latki zaspokajanie cycate @ 18 latki zaspokajanie darmo @ 18 latki zaspokajanie doswiadczone @ 18 latki zaspokajanie fetysz @ 18 latki zaspokajanie fetyszystki @ 18 latki zaspokajanie forsa @ 18 latki zaspokajanie free @ 18 latki zaspokajanie grupowo @ 18 latki zaspokajanie latwo @ 18 latki zaspokajanie lesbijki @ 18 latki zaspokajanie lesby @ 18 latki zaspokajanie lezbijki @ 18 latki zaspokajanie lezby @ 18 latki zaspokajanie na zywo @ 18 latki zaspokajanie nietrzezwe @ 18 latki zaspokajanie niewolnice sexualne @ 18 latki zaspokajanie od tylu @ 18 latki zaspokajanie odurzone

Posted by: Matti at July 4, 2005 07:58 AM

Greetings From NY !

Posted by: casinos at July 7, 2005 12:58 AM

buy viagra online
cialis
levitra
meridia
xenical
propecia

Posted by: online casinos at October 7, 2005 03:57 PM

very nice site, ok.

Posted by: Kancelaria Prawna at October 16, 2005 03:21 AM

kosmetyki naturalne
kosmetyki
mieszkania w Warszawie
agencja reklamowa

Posted by: ap at December 1, 2005 09:12 AM

Stress can take the shape of anxiety any time if it is not checked. Anxiety can also arise out of the fear of traveling. There are many people who develop traveling anxiety to such an extent that they may need anti anxiety medicines like xanax. In case if you have anxiety regarding air travel you can buy xanax, either from your pharmacist or xanax online. You can get cheap xanax from the online drugstores. Hence buy xanax online to fight your anxiety related to air travel or to treat any kind of travel anxiety.

Posted by: xanax at December 22, 2005 02:44 AM

Najlepsze notebooki Notebooki , wspaniałe tv plasma Telewizory Plazmowe , największa oferta lcd Telewizory Lcd , odtwarzacze dvd samsung dvd , zestawy kina domowego kino domowe , recorder digital sony Kamery Cyfrowe , zabudowa kuchenna amica whirlpool kuchnie , wow jura the best ekspresy do kawy , lge electro super promocje lg , sony spoki doki , acer laptopy acer , samsung lodówki samsung , siemens group siemens , panasonic albo panasonik panasonic , toshiba notebooki sklep toshiba , amica piekarniki amica , chłodziarki Lodówki . MaxiMedia group .

Posted by: Aparaty cyfrowe at January 19, 2006 06:06 AM
Post a comment













Remember personal info?






Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member



Testimonials

"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

"Terrific"
Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere


Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com


News Feeds




toysforiraq.gif



Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button

totten_button.jpg


Tip Jar





Essays

Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn