Op-eds worth checking out
Why the Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous
JB Williams, The New Media Journal...
Paul supporters have worked diligently to convince voters that their candidate is the “real deal” constitutionalist conservative in the ’08 presidential race and that he has a real chance of winning. But the facts simply don’t support either of these claims and pointing this reality out seems to drive Paul supporters into a fit of unbridled rage.
The fact is, though Ron Paul himself is no threat to anyone or anything, his campaign is on a track that is very dangerous for America and the conservative movement in particular. Although he is highly unlikely to win anything, his campaign is increasingly likely to cause real trouble for the legitimate Republican nomination process....
In an interview with [former Ron Paul aide and founder of the Libertarian Republican Caucus, Eric] Dondero[, who also founded MainstreamLibertarian.com and hosts blogtalk radio show Libertarian Politics Live], he emphatically complained; “Please refrain in the future from using the label "Libertarian Republican" in describing Ron Paul. Call him what he is: Some sort of populist leftwinger.”
Dondero continued, “Since 9/11 Paul has become a complete nutcase conspiratorialist quasi-Anti-Semitic leftwing American-hating nutball.”
These were strong words from a former aide to Mr. Paul (from 1997 – 2003) and words worthy of investigation in my mind. So I decided to investigate, which in politics always means, follow the money.
How to limit home ownership for the poor
Star Parker, Townhall.com...
The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007 has passed out of Chairman Barney Frank's House Financial Services Committee. It's now headed to the full House for a vote. In the name of protecting the poor from market predators it will in actuality protect the poor from wealth.
This is yet a new chapter in the grand liberal tradition that advances the illusion that government micromanagement of private lives and markets will make us better off. We already have laws against fraud and theft. But for liberals, government isn't there to enforce the law. It's there to run our lives. ...
In a recently published article in the Cato Supreme Court Review, Professor Marcus Cole of the Stanford University Law School discusses the fallout of lending laws in Illinois....
Cole reports the following: "Instead of protecting hardworking would-be homeowners from predatory lending, the new law protected them from credit. Within just a few months more than 30 mortgage lenders refused to lend on homes purchased in the targeted zip codes. Those lenders determined to service these communities saw a rise in their costs, which translated into higher interest rates on their loans."
The purported cure was worse than the disease. Cole goes on to note that, "home sales in the designated zip codes dropped an average of 45 percent in just one month after the bill took effect. Home prices plummeted, draining relatively poor but hardworking people of what little equity they had in their homes."
Will Success, or All That Money From Google, Spoil Firefox?
By Noam Cohen, New York Times...
Part of Firefox’s appeal was its origins as a nonprofit venture, a people-powered revolution involving the most basic Internet technology, the Web browser. Also, because the core code was open, Firefox could tap into developers’ creativity; they are encouraged to soup up the browser, whether by blocking ads from commercial Web sites, a popular add-on, or by creating “skins” to customize the browser’s appearance.
But in trying to build on this success, the Mozilla Foundation has come to resemble an investor-backed Silicon Valley start-up more than a scrappy collaborative underdog. Siobhan O’Mahony, an assistant professor at the School of Management of the University of California, Davis, calls Mozilla “the first corporate open-source project.”...
“The Mozilla community has been a bit hybrid in terms of integrating public and private investment all along — its history is fairly unique in this respect,” Professor O’Mahony said....
Yet lately, the concern among Firefox users and developers about the Mozilla-Google relationship focuses more on what would happen if Google were to walk away, create its own browser or back another, like Safari. This discussion of life after Google represents an unexpected twist: the fear is that instead of being a proxy for Google, Mozilla may have become dangerously reliant on it.
The piece points out that while Mozilla has amassed over $74 million in assets, it's spends little, except for the fairly opulent salaries of it's top echelon. However It think the following statement in the piece was way, way understated...
The browser’s other, unstated advantage, shared with other open-source projects, was A.B.M: Anybody but Microsoft.
I contend that ABM is Firefox's main lure, not a secondary one.
Posted by Danny Carlton at November 12, 2007 7:01 AM
Haha, you are quoting Dondero? Haha. Ask him why he got fired.
It's amazing to me that five days ago, you were accusing Rebecca Jones of having no shame for having her picture taken with "the child she had just attempted to murder", but you have no issues with promoting the writings of Star Parker, a woman who has successfully "murdered" children four times. I guess that's OK in your book as long as she's saying something bad about those dastardly liberals. It's obvious you know no shame.
No, I know forgiveness. Star Parker has repented of what she did, and therefore we have no right to continue to judge her. I have yet to hear that the mother in England who tried to have her baby killed has expressed any repentance at all.
Oh, well, then I guess murdering children is alright. As long as she said that she was sorry.
If she or I thought it was alright, why then would we think she needed to repent? You are practicing exactly what the Bible condemns in the vers, "Judge not lest ye be judged."
So are you, you're just judging Rebecca Jones, not Star Parker. If you say that Star Parker has repented, maybe Rebecca Jones has as well. It doesn't need to appear in the news. That is between her and God. It isn't your place to judge her.
If and when I hear that Rebecca Jones has expressed repentance over the horrible thing she attempted to do, then I'd be more than willing to accept that. But to ignore evil and calling it "being non-judgemental" is simply stupid.
So, what you're saying is that if Rebecca Jones went to church, straight into a confessional, and begged for forgiveness from God, you're still going to hold her to her sins. I'm sure right after she leaves church, her only thoughts are going to be, "I better run home to call Danny Carlton to make sure that I've really had my sins forgiven!". Holding her to sins that the Lord has forgiven her for is placing yourself above God, which is the peak of arrogance. Assuming that she hasn't repented or even NEEDS to repent is assuming you know the mind of God, which is not only stupid, but bordering on suicidally stupid. It's a slippery slope when you put yourself above God Danny, and there's a very long drop at the bottom of that slope.
Do you even know how to read? Stop wasting people's time writing nonsense just to start an argument.
Of course I know how to read. A fact that you're well aware of.
I'm not trying to start an argument. I've done nothing but treat you with respect, yet you attack me. I'll turn the other cheek Danny, and not return in kind. If I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong, and why you think that is. Please don't resort to meaningless insults.