Entries from March 2010 ↓
March 25th, 2010 — Barry Goldwater
March 18th, 2010 — Music
March 16th, 2010 — T.V.
I’ll be taping a segment of Stossel for Fox Business News this Wednesday. If you’re interested in attending this, or another taping, here is the information:
Join our live New York studio audience! To reserve your seats, please call us at 1-877-369-8587 or send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org!
Please be sure to include the date you wish to attend (see below for details on dates and show topics), the number of seats you need, and a phone number where we can reach you.
WHEN: Wednesday, March 17th
TIME: 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM
TOPIC: Science & Politics
March 11th, 2010 — Stupid names
My recent column, “Peculiar be thy name”, opened with this sentence:
Perhaps no finer Christian name has ever been bestowed upon a child than the one Jermaine Jackson, of Jackson 5 fame, came up with for his son: Jermajesty.
I may be proven wrong.
The name of Mike Affinito’s Facebook page says it all: “MY SISTER SAID IF I GET ONE MILLION FANS SHE WILL NAME HER BABY MEGATRON.”
Launching the page on February 27, Affinito had more than five months to rally the million followers before the baby is due.
It took only 13 days.
Tickled by the idea of naming the child after the leader of the Decepticons in “The Transformers,” 10 Facebook users joined in the first hour. Now, each hour brings thousands of new fans. The official count, as of this writing, reads 1,097,139. Not bad for a wager that no doubt sounded absurd in the beginning.
March 10th, 2010 — Battlestar Galactica
As I noted earlier, the Ron Paul cultists have been out in full force. But I found this rant — which makes the typical unsubstantiated claims about my views — to have the most telling line I’ve yet read regarding criticism of Paul’s anti-Semitic and racist newsletters.
Even if he did (write them), it is clear that Harsanyi’s message is that the state should be allowed to intervene in social and private matters, but an individual does not have the right to state an opinion.
Huh? How is that clear? I wrote an entire book making the case that the state should not “be allowed to intervene in social and private matters” — though, I expect it isn’t radical enough for many.
But it appears many Paul’s fans are so blinded by their of devotion to a professional politician that they view any criticism of Paul’s writings or organization as tantamount to a state-sponsored intrusion into his right to say crazy things.
March 6th, 2010 — Music
I really look forward to this.
March 4th, 2010 — Music
Steve Waksman’s academic history, This Ain’t the Summer of Love: Conflict and Crossover in Heavy Metal and Punk, “reconsiders the roles of two genres, heavy metal and punk.” It’s an entertaining read if, like me, you’re into that sort of thing.
March 2nd, 2010 — Ron Paul
After writing a column critical of Ron Paul’s presidential straw poll win at CPAC, I was smacked with barrage of colorful emails from his supporters. A few of those complaints turned up in the comments section of this blog (though I rarely use this space for politics) so I thought I’d bring it to a post.
This comment is typical of many:
What kind of libertarian argues for a “robust and proactive” national defense?
That means perpetual war.
I’m no sort of libertarian, actually — especially if being libertarian means passing a purity test. I’m a conservative with strong libertarian impulses. I imagine I’m not alone. And though I often advocate for strong national defense (and God knows that can mean a million things), the column made no argument on the subject. Here’s what the piece stated:
Patrick Buchanan recently claimed that the GOP was showing signs of turning away from its recent foreign policy positions. The focus of policy may have changed, and perhaps more reluctance in nation-building, but polls pretty clearly illustrate Republicans still believe in a robust and pro-active national defense.
Pointing out that “polls illustrate” Republicans generally believe in a robust and pro-active national defense is a fact, not an argument.
Others have a problem with my calling out Ron Paul “unserious.” I probably should have used the word “irrelevant.” Paul is significantly irrelevant — or no more relevant than fellow conspiracy theorist Dennis Kucinich, even if I happen to be sympathetic to many of his views.