I had high hopes for the previous version of this screed, but in the end, all it got me was a Pattericolanche, an Unclelanche, an Instalanche, a some-other-guy-at-Pajamas-Media-lanche, a Flakealanche, a mention in the Washington Times and the prospect of a brief radio interview. Some have suggested that the reason for its limited appeal may have been the admittedly intemperate tone I took in that piece. Accordingly, I’m going to take a mulligan on the original post and try a more temperate version now. If you made it 1/4 of the way through my original post and got put off because I was too obnoxious, this post is for you. On the other hand, if you actually enjoyed reading the original version, this one will most likely put you to sleep. You’ve been warned.

(more…)

Rachel Lucas recently threw the principle fetishists a bone with an identically-titled blog entry, conceding that it is sometimes appropriate to cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face stand on principle. She describes some goofy cable TV show she recently saw in which some parents state that if their kids are going to smoke pot anyway, they (the parents, who I’ll dub the Idiot Parents ) should go out and buy it for them, so at least the kids won’t have to deal with drug dealers and the parents will supposedly have more control over the quality and/or quantity of the drug. Rachel writes:

The moment of my epiphany was when one parent said something that was almost verbatim what I’ve said about voting for McCain and the fact that you are getting a new president whether you like it or not so you may as well do what you can to get the less shitty one. It was something like, “Well, Billy IS going to smoke pot. There’s nothing I can do about that, he’s GONNA smoke it no matter what I say. So I may as well at least try to keep him as safe as I can, and if that means I have to buy it for him, I will.”

Quickly I ran it through my brain: what if I had kids and was in this situation? Would I get drugs for them just because that was better than them getting drugs from strangers and scumbags? Especially if I knew for a fact that my kids were just dumb enough to get busted and would almost certainly end up in jail if I didn’t choose the lesser evil by getting the drugs for them?

(more…)

Patterico calls Glenn Greenwald a douchebag for writing yet another dishonest blog entry about conservatives. I disagree. While the health benefits of douching are in dispute, the same cannot be said of reading Glenn Greenwald’s prattle. That stuff can’t be good for you in any way, shape or form.

UPDATE: Need proof? I gotcher proof here.

All Kenneth Lay’s life, he has contributed to something. In the 1970s, he contributed to society by serving as a regulator for the Department of the Interior. In 1985, he contributed to the creation of Enron by merging Houston Natural Gas Co. and Inter-North. Since then, he has contributed to too many charities to count, and has also made substantial contributions to political campaigns on both sides of the aisle. He contributed to California’s energy crunch in the early 00s, and then proceeded to contribute to the demise of the company he had helped to create, along with a major accounting firm he did not. He contributed to investors’ losses by urging them to buy Enron stock while he sold. When the company folded, he simultaneously contributed to both the unemployment and overemployment rates, laying off younger workers who wanted to work while forcing older workers to delay retirement when their 401(k)s became worthless. As a result, he contributed to the headaches of legitimate businessmen across the country, who must now comply with that dreadful Sarbanes-Oxley law that treats every CEO as if he were Ken Lay.

Now, he’s contributing to global warming.

California, the quaint little republic in which I resided until I moved to the United States for political asylum, is one of only eight^* “capricious issue” states, where every citizen’s right - or lack thereof - to carry a weapon for personal defense is up to the whim of law enforcement. Gun rights supporters frequenlty complain of the arbitrariness of this system, and the possibility that concealed carry rights may be doled out as political favors, while gun-grabbers lamely argue that the police should be trusted to use their “discretion.” Now, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca has removed all doubt by revoking retired Capt. Ken Masse’s concealed carry permit for running against Baca.

The good news is that the Sheriff’s office has a sense of humor. While delivering the news of Masse’s loss of his self-defense privileges, Baca undersecretary Larry Waldie alleged that Masse’s campaign against Baca “may have damaged the public’s confidence in this agency.” Seeing Masse’s permit yanked for such a transparently political reason should do wonders to restore it, though. ‘Hat tip: Uncle.

^*Eleven states - Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island - have discretionary issue concealed carry laws. However, according to Dave Kopel, three of those states - Alabama, Connecticut and Iowa, which Kopel dubs “do issue” states - generally issue permits on terms similar to those of shall-issue states.

I’d like to call Democrat activist Kathleen Ensz a nasty name like “liberal moron,” or possibly even “scum,” for stuffing dog feces through Marilyn Musgrave’s mail slot. I’d like to, but that would constitute the unpardonable sin of … spit … name-calling, so I’m not going to do that. Besides, the poor woman may not have known what she was doing anyway. She probably thought the bag was filled with Shinola. It happens.

Michelle Malkin and Dafydd ab Hugh have more.