Will The MadMan endorse a candidate for president?

Maybe.
I'm not really sure. And since I know my Violent readers are eagerly hanging on, and awaiting the news that a candidate has been given the highly coveted, and strenuously sought after "MadMan Approved" seal of approval, I figured I'd at least give you all a clue as to my thinking. So, rather than actively endorsing a candidate at this time, I will instead list what I see as the pros and con's of each candidate.


Rudy Giuliani -
Pros - Rudy has a history of managerial competence, in fact the turn around he caused in New York was nothing short of astonishing. Cleaning up New York as it was when he was first elected was a task worthy of Heracles 12 labors and, I might add, a job which many said could not be done. Furthermore his handling of the 9/11 attacks was nothing short of legendary and his approach to dealing with terrorism is suitably aggressive. A good law and order and National defense candidate. He also has a very aggressive tax cutting plan, which always scores high marks with The MadMan

Cons - Sadly, as strong as Rudy is on national security concerns, he's equally weak on domestic concerns. His stance on Gun control as mayor was not only illogical and unsupportable, I happen to believe it was unconstitutional as well. His well known support for gay marriage and hate crimes laws is similarly troubling, especially his support for hate crimes legislation, which is simply anti-American. Furthermore although he claims he will nominate "strict constructionist" judges who "revere federalism" his well known Pro-Choice beliefs are very concerning.

Overall - While there is much to Admire about Rudy, and his positions, there is just as much cause for concern. While i would certainly vote for him over any of the Muppet's in the democratic field, I would not do so enthusiastically at this time. Over all Id give the probability of Rudy Earning my support at the 50% level.


Mitt Romney
Pros - Mitt Romney has, without a doubt, the greatest level of economic intelligence in the entire Presidential field. His experience speaks to a vast reservoir of managerial competence and his economic policies are among the most well thought out of any of the candidates. Furthermore his past as a business leader and his work on the Salt Lake City Olympics suggest he would have the right qualities to lead us through any economic recessions that might result from our current economic turbulence.

Cons - While I find Mitt Romney a very appealing candidate on the economic side, his core philosophy seems more problematic. In particular the "Health care Reform" he spearheaded in Massachusetts would seem to suggest a sympathy with liberal sensibilities I find disturbing. Now the case has been made that this particular program was the practical effect of Mitt being a republican governor in a very liberal state, but it could also suggest a core belief in Statism, at least to a degree. In addition Mitt has nor foreign policy expertise or experience as far as I can tell, which is a major problem given the challenges America will face going forward.

Overall - Overall I put Romney in the same boat as Rudy, although there is much about his platform to admire, there is much to be wary of as well. Chances The MadMan will endorse Romney? 50%


Mike Huckabee -
Pros - About the only pro I can list for governor Huckabee, is that he supports the Fair Tax, which is in and of itself, a fairly conflicted point of support. While I appreciate what Fair-taxers" are trying to accomplish, I tend to think they have chosen a very illogical way of going about it. Its true that the "Fair-tax" as envisioned by its supporters would be a huge step in the right direction, if the income tax were repealed. I tend to agree with Fred Thompson that its more likely we would get both a income and consumption tax out of the proposal.

Cons - Where do i begin? First of all the guy strikes me as a republican jimmy carter, which, as you know violent reader, is not a compliment. Most of his economic ideas are more democratic than republican, his populist stances are idiocy, and his desire for a nationwide smoking ban is anti-American. On top of which he doesn't believe in evolution which speaks volumes about his intelligence, or should I say, lack thereof.

Overall - Overall there is almost no way in hell I would vote for Mike Huckabee. I give him a 10% chance, and that's being generous.

Ron Paul
Pros - I cant find any. The crazy midget from Texas is an all around whackadoo. From his stance on Iraq to his endorsement of the Gold Standard, Ron Paul is, to be blunt, a fucking whack job.

Cons - Too many to list, the guy thinks we should pull out of Iraq immediately, recall all our soldiers from all overseas bases, and never ship them out again. He endorses the gold standard which is one of the worst economic ideas of all time, and he is surrounded by tin-foil types, 9/11 truthers, and assorted other conspiracy minded lunatics.

Overall - I would rather shove a glass rod up my penis and hit it with a hammer than vote for this maniacal midget.

John McCain
Pros - John is the "security candidate", a former Vietnam POW and one of the few people in Washington to not only criticise President's Bush's strategy in Iraq, but to actually offer a solution beyond "pull out now" there is no doubt that John McCain has the expertise and understanding necessary to lead America through the long war. Furthermore on pure "electability" concerns his well known ability to pull in independent voters may be necessary to winning the Presidency. When compared to the Democratic presidential field McCain is the only candidate who (at this early point) polls show could beat the democratic front runners.

Cons - His stance on Immigration, in which he and Ted Kennedy were allied, is troublesome, as was his opposition to the "Bush Tax Cuts" in 01 and 03. Furthermore his stances on Campaign Finance reform has caused more trouble that it ended, and as usual shows a sympathy for liberal approaches which I don't really appreciate.

Overall - despite the issues I have with John, overall he would make a pretty good president, so long as he didn't work too closely with the Dem's. Chances the MadMan will endorse John McCain? 65-75%


Fred Thompson -
Pros - Saving the best for last, we finally come to Right said Fred, the true and clear conservative in the race. From his stances on immigration, to federalism, to dealing with the terrorist threat, Mr Thompson is dead on in his stances. I've been reading his policy and position papers, as well as his articles in various papers since before he made the official announcement, and his laconic style speaks to his comfort in his own skin. Fred Thomson is an authoritative, reasoned, learned, intelligent, and centered candidate who would, IMO, be an excellent president.

Cons - Can he get elected? Will his confident, unhurried style resonate with voters outside of the south, or even within it? I don't know, there's been much ado made in media circles as to whether or not Fred has the "fire in his belly" necessary to wage a successful campaign, and while I usually pay no attention to the talking and frequently empty heads the networks allow to pollute the airwaves, on this point they may be right. Then again his performance in the last few debates has been stellar.

Overall - I'm waiting for the results from SC to come in. If Fred can win, or at least make as strong second place showing there, he might yet have a chance to build up some momentum, if not, I suspect he will pull out shortly. Go Fred!
Chances of the MadMan voting for Fred? If he can wage the type of campaign necessary to gain the nomination, 99% or better.

The Dems manage to crush my hopes. As Usual.

Well violent reader, I really, really should have known. I should have known better than to believe the Dem's could get past their usual identity politics, and campaign on issues rather than trying to compete to see who the biggest victim is. After my post talking about how amazing it is that we have a Black man running for president, and yet there's no hint of identity politics in sight, the Dem's go and screw things up, as usual.

Apparently, Mrs Clinton felt that Barak Obama was a bit too popular with the democrats perpetual vote-slaves, and decided to "play the race card" in order to level the field. Whether this worked is not is a matter of debate among pundits and commentators, but early indications seem to suggest that Barak Obama came off smelling like a rose.

Now, its not surprising that Mrs. Clinton played the race card, after all she has been wielding the gender card like a trump heavy spades player from the very beginning of her campaign. From her "join the sisterhood" campaign themes to her weak sister weepy act on ABC, Mrs Clinton has made damn sure everyone knows she has a chance of being the first female president, (so long as we don't count Jimmy Carter) And in truth, Barak's near dismissal of her attempts, as well as his magnanimous offer to let the subject drop only made him appear to be the bigger man.

But its still disappointing to see. Its like I always say, the only people who truly care what race or gender you are are feminists and racists, and liberals are both.

Free Speech in canada? Still not so much

Regular readers will remember my December 11th report on the Canadian "Human Rights Commission's" fascist and oppressive attack on Mark Steyn, due to an excerpt of his book published in MacClean's. While this case has not yet been resolved, it is not the only case the CHRC has taken on in the hopes of squelching free speech that is deemed "offensive" or "inflammatory"

Ezra Levant, former publisher of Western Standards magazine is also being "investigated" by the CHRC, and once again the commission is being used as a "useful idiot" by Islamic fascists who wish to punish those daring enough to speak out against radical Islam. The great crime Mr Levant committed? He dared to publish editorial cartoons which could, in some circumstances, be considered critical of Islam. For my violent readers who have an attention span that stretches beyond the last news cycle you may remember riots breaking out in the Islamic world in response to a series of cartoons that were seen by Muslims as "offensive" a few years back,and may be wondering if this incident is related. In fact, Mr Levant's "great crime" was no more than reprinting these same cartoons (reprinted below) in his own magazine. For this "offense against Islam" Mr Levant has been hauled in for "interrogation" by the CHRC.

Many, when faced with such a government endorsed, funded, and directed witch hunt, would surrender their freedoms rather than take on the forces of evil which have subverted and corrupted Canada's government Not Mr. Levant, rather than backing down, or apologizing, or throwing himself on the mercy of the court, Mr Levant, in true manly fashion, came out swinging. His opening statement to the CHRC was a thing of beauty. A shot across the bow that warned the CHRC, in no uncertain terms, that here stands a man who will not bow, will not break, and will stand firm in defense of his rights. A true hero to all of those who believe in the great traditions of Western Civilisation, Mr. Levant has stood fast before the onslaught of the thought police and deserves the support and admiration of all right thinking men and women.

It is rare that one gets to witness such a simple, beautiful, and manly stand for what is right in the face of crushing opposition, usually these moments are private affairs, unrecorded or memorialised. This time however, cameras were rolling, and the moment was recorded. Presented here for your viewing pleasure violent reader, I give you a man who is brave enough to withstand "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" in defense of what he believes is right. His opening statement, a work of both great courage and great eloquence, is a case study in speaking truth to power.
















For more in depth information on this case, and its progress, please go to Ezra Levant's home page.

God Damn but the sexism is palpable!

Ain't it?

I mean, Mrs. Clinton was on the ropes, defeated by Obamania; then, she squirts a few tears, and lo and behold Mrs. Clinton is the "Comeback Kid".

So Mrs. Clinton came in first, and Obama came in second, in two mostly white states; but this is a sexist, racist, brown people hating and opressing, patriarchal, rape culture.

Uhhuh.

How much is that bridge again?

Iowa, America and the need for a new dynamic, Part 2: Rorshach!

Did you hear about the misogynistic assholes who chanted "Iron my Shirts" at Mrs Bill Clinton's Rally yesterday evening? Just another indication of the old white male patriarchy right? Well that's what a lot of feminus rabidicus thought. The blogosphere had already begun to rumble with the lumbering rage of the gynocerai, its massive yet vicious bulk gaining steam like a freight train with a conducter at the wheel who's got a belly full of fire-water and and a throttle hand that's racing to beat the devil. By the time you read this it may well be at full steam. Only to hit a brick wall.


The culprits? a couple of Boston based Shock Jocks.

No patriarchy, No white male privilege, just a couple of people who are offensive for a living being offensive. For a living.

Bob Krumm, Who broke the story, had this to say,

I guess we all gut sucked in to believing the worst that we suspect about others. Feminists assumed that these were legitimate chauvinists, and I presumed a Clinton plant.

Now me? It sounded like bullshit, but I didn't think Mrs. Bill was behind it. The incident just sounded too convenient.

Its getting really hard for the feminists and minoritist to argue the whole "racist/sexist/classist America" bullshit; between Obama's support across the board, and the complete lack of any sexism, institutionalised or otherwise, in the campaign. Well, complete, unless you count what Mrs Bill herself supplies of course.




What I find really interesting about this election, is how little anyone seems to care about the sex or race of the candidates. Well except for feminists. And Hillary.
If one ever needed proof that the only racists in America are the feminists and minoritists, this election is the smoking gun.


Sometimes, I can manage to believe there really is a God.


Part 1

Iowa, America and the need for a new dynamic.

The old race-sex-class paradigm of looking at the world, and especially America, is no longer valid, if it ever was. Since the "age of Aquarius" we have been told that America is a racist nation, we have been lectured and harangued by academics about the "institutionalised racism of America" and our elite academies indoctrinate our children with the idea that "anyone white is a racist, whether they know it or not".

Those who disagree are labelled racists themselves, told to "check their privilege" and that they are blind to this oppressive and omnipresent sin. When we point out the major success of Blacks over the last thirty years, the stunning popularity of rap and hip-hop, the overwhelming number of white suburban kids who's biggest idol is Biggie, or any other competing argument we are told that "a few isolated success do not represent the whole", and that we are simply to "insensitive" to understand whats its like to be a minority.

And then Iowa. A rural, mostly white farming state. The kind which, in the liberal narrative at least, black men are lynched from apple trees and left to rot in the corn fields; goes and overwhelmingly nominates a Black man over a white woman and several white men. Not just overwhelmingly, but by a margin so large as to be damn near incredible.

Will this, in decades hence, be seen as the end of the politics of victimisation? Will it be seen as the end of the "institutionalised racism" narrative in America? Perhaps not, those who are already too invested into this false narrative to ever be able to understand another. The Sharpton's, and the Jackson's of the world have far too much to lose to recognise the truth. Their followers are too rabid, to unwilling to see to change. But the rest of America, those of us who live, work, and play with men and women of every shade and hue, may finally be able to admit what I have known for years now; Racism in America, is a fading shadow on the wall of history.

I do not know whether Obama will win the Presidency, nor even whether or not he will win the nomination. What I do know, is that this election, which only a few months ago was being called "inevitable" has surprised many already. More importantly, it has illuminated what is, in many ways, America's greatest strength, America's ability to move on from a dark past. "Slavery", "Segregation", "Jim crow", these are words which, rightly, call up dark images of darker days. Yet, in just two short generations, America has moved from a country being torn apart by race relations to become a country in which Obama wins by a landslide in "redneck country"

And People wonder why I am proud to be an American?

The time of the politics of identity is over. Obama understands that, Hillary doesn't. Obama has focused his message on trying to paint a vision of a brighter future. Hillary has tried to stir up the "sisterhood" by appealing to the old "race/sex/class" paradigm, and as a result she even came in behind a rich man trying to play poor mans populism. Obama, the only one not following the old tired paradigm of the flower geriatrics won by a landslide. That gives me hope. When a black man can win a democratic caucus without falling back on racial politics, then maybe, just maybe, the world isn't quite beyond saving.

When even the liberals no longer buy the old RSC paradigm, then maybe there is hope for America after all. Could there be a day in the future, when even the dems no longer trot out the tired RSC cards? Those dog eared, out of date, 45 year old tactics are getting pretty long in the tooth after all. Could this be the beginning of the re-acceptance by the American people that treating people equally means treating people equally? Does this presage a day when Black men and women no longer show their political ignorance and naivete by being dependably voting vassals for the dems? I wish I knew, I wish I had the courage, or foolishness, to hope so.

Is it possible that at least some of those black men and women who live, work and play among us blue eyed devils, will look at this victory, and their pigmentally challenged colleagues, and finally internalise the fact that the only people who care that they are black, is themselves? Is it possible that now, finally, after all these years, they will put aside the assumptions and myths of the civil rights era, and realise that they need to move on, because we already have? I don't know.

What I know is this. Obama won by a larger margin than anyone predicted.Men and Women of all colors are falling all over themselves to support the guy, and even though I would never vote for a tax hiking, entitlement spending, anti-war, soft foreign policy, relatively inexperienced liberal, at least hes a liberal whose candidacy has already done more for America that the last two democratic Presidents combined. Mr. Obama I won't vote for you, I won't donate to your campaign, and I hope you lose to a republican, but I can sure as hell get behind what you represent sir.


Part 2

Wage Gap? Its real!

And its not what you think.

Female directors in corporate America earned median compensation of $120,000, based on the most recently available pay data, compared with $104,375 for male board members, research group The Corporate Library said in its annual
director pay report on Wednesday.

Keep in mind that this study has appeared, as far as I can tell, only once, and has not been commented on by any major news outlets. Also intriguing, is the fact that it stands in direct opposition to the American Association of University Women (AAUW) study that claimed after one year out of college women earned 20 percent less than men and that the gap widened 10 years later to 31 percent. (Although coincidentally it was also never reported that statistical analyses accompanying the press release reduced the two purported gaps to 5 percent and 12 percent respectively) . Now ask yourself this, why did everyone hear about the AAUW study, yet no one has heard about the TCL study? Especially when the TCL study looked at pay data for more than 25,000 directors at more than 3,200 companies.

Also keep in mind that in the AAUW study, as is SOP when "wage gap" research is done, that the "sample" was not controlled for years of experience, time taken off for maternity leave, or a lack of overtime worked which are the primary reasons for the misleading "women only earn 75% of what men do for doing the same work" quote comes from.

So yes, in some isolated cases, the wage gap does exist, and it turns out that at least as far as Corporate Directors go, men only earn 80% of what women do!

"Cure" for Homosexuality found?

I have long argued, and often been pilloried for doing so, that Homosexuality is not "hardwired". In other words one is not born gay, so much as born with a predisposition to homosexuality, which can then be influenced by experiences, environment, and other factors. Mainly this has been because of the lack of a 1-1 correlation between homosexuality among twins. By that I mean that if you have an identical twin who is gay, you are more likely to be gay yourself, though its not guaranteed, despite the fact that the two of you carry the exact same genes. Given the increased incidence of homosexuality among identical twins, coupled with the lack of a 1-1 correlation, it seemed reasonable to me that while there may be a genetic basis for homosexuality, it was certainly not as simple as being born gay.

There is now some evidence that this is in fact the case. Granted, a fruit fly is not a human, and fruit fly sexuality is different in many ways from human sexuality, however given that these are early trials this new research is very interesting. Whats most interesting, at least to me though, is the possibilities inherent in this research. Namely that it is, at least theoretically, possible that researchers could one day create a "cure" for homosexuality. Naturally this would be a huge issue regardless of your own personal views on homosexuality. But it also brings back a point, or at least has the potential to, that many had already felt was settled. Although it took the WHO until 1992 to officially declassify homosexuality as a disease, the APA had done so back in 1973, based on the assumption that homosexuality was an innate trait, and thus did not qualify as a sexual deviancy. But if a "cure" were developed that could, within hours, turn a gay man straight, (and to be fair vice-versa) would that still be the case?

In other words would the very existence of a "cure" imply that homosexuality is in fact a disease? And if so, what would the implications be? Would forcing a patient to take this "treatment" be a violation of their rights? If so would insurance companies be precluded from paying for this "treatment" for those who did want to take it?

Assuming DADT has not been repealed by the time this hypothetical treatment were made available, would the US army begin placing this drug in the food or water of its soldiers in an effort to ensure no one violates the policy? If so, what would happen to those soldiers once they were discharged? Would they be given the option of "returning"? Would a gay man who wishes to enlist be willing to be "made straight" for the duration of his service in exchange for being allowed to serve despite having been openly gay?

What about the possibilities of using this "cure" as a type of date rape drug? For example slipping it into a lesbians drink in the hope that after the "switch" she would find you more to her liking? Or Perhaps a gay man in an area with a low population of homosexuals might be tempted to slip the "drug" into other men's drinks as a way of quickly increasing the gay population?

And what about this drugs utility as a recreational drug? Would there be those who would pay to temporarily "switch" their sexuality in an attempt to "broaden their experiences" as Grant Morrison suggested in "The Invisible's"?

Furthermore if the suppression of glutamatergic synapses can "switch" a man from straight to gay, is it possible there are environmental factors that do the same? Could there be something in the air/food/water in certain areas that suppresses glutamatergic synapses? Is it possible that some given percentage of the current homosexual population has already unknowingly been switched? if so should that be reversed? Would they want it to be? Even if it could be proven and individual had unknowingly imbibed a substance capable of doing such as a child, and as such had grown up gay even though they were not "supposed to be" what would be the right course of action? Should the medical community treat such cases, if they could be established with a high degree of confidence, as diseases? Where does the choice of the individual come in, and in fact, given how fundamental this change is, would someone in this situation even be capable of making a choice?

Then there are questions relating to parenting. If this "treatment" were to exist, would it be proper for parents who suspect their child may be gay to force their child to be "treated" if they so chose? Where would the line between human rights and religious freedom be drawn for example? If your parents are Muslims, or Christians who believe that homosexuality is immoral, should they be allowed to use that as a rationale for changing your preferences?

What if this treatment were to require a regular medical regime such as the management of Bi-polar disorder requires? Would "I forgot my pills" become a new accepted "excuse" for homosexual behavior by politicians and married men? Would the same hold true for men "medicating" themselves into homosexuality who are in long term relationships? If this "treatment" did in fact make sexuality a choice, in that one could choose to be what one has been or make a change, would that then offer those who wish to discriminate against homosexuals the ability to do so, based on he fact that unlike race, homosexuality or heterosexuality would be a choice available to everyone?

What about population control uses? Would say, the Chinese government require unmarried men and women to take this treatment to "develop" homosexuality as a way of reducing pregnancies? Or perhaps require that all those in the armed services take it due to the Male/female imbalance in china?


A lot of questions, and very few answers. But we need to start asking them now, before this "treatment" is brought to market, even before its been verified such a treatment were possible. Because I have a feeling that none of these questions will be easy to answer, and I know that once others start thinking about it, they will come up with many, many more, and probably better ones.

Anti-Christian murderer kills four, stopped by gun-nut fundie on a mission from god.

You know, I always chuckle when people say religion is the root of all evil. Atheists like to talk about how only the religious are motivated to ideological violence, despite all the evidence from Russia during the last century that it isn't the case. Whether this fits into either of the two narratives I do not know, what I do know is that unreasoning hate, no matter who it may be directed at, turns men into monsters.

On Sunday afternoon, shortly after one o' clock in Colorado Springs Colorado, Matthew Murray walked into the New Life Church and began killing. An apparently hate filled man who had never gotten over the perceived rejection of being left off of a missionary mission The New Life Church had sponsored 5 years ago, Murray developed an intense hatred for Christianity and Christians in the interim. Whether this hatred was motivated by sour grapes, or whether Murray was simply a man with hate in his heart looking for a target we may never know. What we do know is that his hatred turned him into a monster who may well have killed hundreds, had he not been stopped by Jeanne Assam.

Jeanne, a former Minneapolis police officer who used her personal firearm to end Murray's murderous spree, was a volunteer member of the New Life Church's security force. A apparently deeply committed christian who had been fasting for three days at the time of the incident, she felt she had been placed there by god to protect her fellow parishioners. A 14 year veteran of the Minneapolis police force, she also credits her savior for a steady hand and the courage to do what needed to be done. Regardless of what your views of her religious affiliation may be, there is no doubt this woman acted coolly, and decisively in the face of a crisis that would have frozen many.

In many ways, I think this story is just beginning, and that it will dominate discussions for a long time to come. There simply so much "grist for the mill" as they say, and this story slots so neatly into the narrative of the culture wars that it couldn't have been written any better in a script. A gunman, filled with anti-christian hate, stopped by a women with a CCP. What major issue in American life doesn't this story touch on? Feminism, the second amendment, the fourth amendment, the place of religion in society, the effect of religion on society. There's enough here that everyone will undoubtedly filter the incident through their own perceptions, and use it to support whatever they supported in the first place.

I am no different. The fact that, once again, a spree killer was stopped by a private citizen with a CCP reinforces, at least for me, why we need the second amendment. Naturally those who are predisposed to an anti-gun narrative will see Murray access to a gun as proof of why we need more gun control. Feminists will see this as further proof women are equally as capable as men in dangerous and violent situations, while Christians will see this as further proof of an ongoing attack on Christianity, and atheists will see this as further proof of the pernicious effect of organised religion. I think, that as coverage of this story unfolds, this incident will become a type of Rorschach blot for people's own preconceived notions, even more so than any other. Some will undoubtedly try to use it to score points for their cause, and given the nature of the events I suspect the debates will be quite heated. And perhaps, that's how we can finally come to terms with, and extract some small amount of good out of this horrid event. Perhaps if we can, just this once, put aside our preconceptions, our talking points, and our stock rebuttals, and really discuss where we are going right, and wrong, as a society, then maybe, just maybe, something good can come from this.

I hope, but I do not expect.

Freedom Of Speech in Canada? Not so much.

Of all the rights that we as Americans have been guaranteed by the Constitution, (or by our creator and recognised by the constitution, depending on your interpretation of the documents wording) the two most basic, most fundamental, are the first and second amendment's. Without the ability to speak ones mind, one can not be free. Without the ability to defend that right, it can not be maintained. The problem is, while most civilised nations pay lip service to free speech, many, if not most, seem to believe that only "approved" speech is protected. We have seen this in Britain, where a news channel was investigated by the police for "insulting Islam:, we have seen it in France, Germany and the rest of Europe where denying the holocaust is a crime punishable by incarceration. And now, we are seeing it in Canada.

Mark Steyn is a prominent conservative writer who recently penned a tome called "America Alone" which is about the challenges America faces in confronting Islamo-fascism, given the unwillingness by most of the west to either confront Islamo-fascism or even stick up for their own ideals in the face of Islamic opposition, or outrage. (think of the dutch cartoon contrivers) One of the themes Mark touches upon in his book, is that many of the people who attempt to discuss or highlight the problems within Islamic society are intimidated into silence, either through threats of violence from radical Islamics, or through threats of litigation from more "moderate" ones.

Its a bit ironic then that as a result of this book, or more specifically, excerpts of his book printed in McLeans, a Canadian weekly magazine, Mark Steyn is now facing a complaint brought against him by the Canadian Islamic Conference in the both the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission as well as in the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, that his book constitutes "hate speech" against Muslims.

As those of you who have read this blog for awhile know, I am a big believer in free speech. I also believe that Freedom of Speech, and Freedom from offense, are mutually exclusive, and one the first is worth protecting. I haven't read Steyn's book yet, although it is on its way to my humble keep via amazon.com, so I cant honestly say whether this book is islamo-phobic or not, but my question to you violent reader is this; should it matter?

Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that America Alone is in fact islamophobic. Lets assume its nothing more than a racist, religonist, occidentalist, screed claiming that all Muslims are secretly worshipping the christian devil and sacrificing dhimmi babies in profane rituals. Even if that were the case, is that a valid reason for tthe Canadian Human rights commission to support the CIC charges by investigating either Mr.Steyn or McLean's? That is to say, should it be illegal to engage in offensive and possibly hateful speech? Keep in mind I am not defending attempts to instigate violence against anybody, merely highly offensive and possible hate motivated speech.

One of the few things that made somewhat proud of the Comics Blogosphere was the overwhelming support retailer Gordon Lee has received since he was charged. In many ways, this support, and the way comics fans and professionals rallied to his cause is a perfect example of why The USA has the most free speech in the world. The reason is that whenever we see our freedom of speech being threatened, whether it actually is or not, we fight to defend it. Well, usually.

The problem is many seem far more willing to support free speech in the name of some things than others. I'm sure some of the same people who have vociferously defended MR. Lee, would probably support the HRC decision to investigate this complaint, as it seems for some its easier to support fights against "morality" laws, than it is to support political speech you may or may not agree with. I suspect this partially because defending someone against morality laws is seen as "cool" "enlightened" and "rebellious" while defending a conservative writer would bee seen by the same as defending a bigot. And yet, doesn't our tradition require us to defend even those we believe are bigots? If we only defend free speech when the cause is "cool" do we truly believe in the principle?

We are all familiar with the quote

"I may not agree with what you say, But I will fight to death to defend your
right to say it"

But how many of us are actually wiling to live it? More to the point, are we truly willing to defend this tradition in the face of assaults from both sides? Its not enough to defend against assaults on free speech from the right if you are on the left, or vice versa. We must, in order to maintain the heritage which made this the most successful nation in history, be willing to defend against speech we do not like, do not agree with, are offended by, and disgusted by. If I am not willing to defend your right to call America a racist, sexist, evil nation, then I am myself betraying the principles by which I live. If you are not willing to defend my right to claim that Islam is nothing more than a barbaric death cult hell bent on world domination then you are betraying the principles we live by.

The problem is, some defenses of speech, seem to cost too much. Its easy to defend speech when all your Friends are doing so, but will you defend it when your friends are howling for the writers head as well? Are you willing to be ostracised, demonised, reviled, and hated in order to defend comments you find repugnant? Most of us it would seem, are not. Especially if that speech is something that goes against everything we believe. Its easy to defend a friend from calls of censorship from your enemy, but are you committed enough to also defend your enemy from calls of censorship from your friend? If you are a gay man are you willing to be ostracised by other gays, because you defended Eminem's right to use fag as a slur? If you are Black are you willing to defend a Grand Kleagle's right to use the word nigger? If you are a christian are you willing to defend a Muslim's right to call Jesus a false prophet? If you are a Buddhist are you willing to defend a Hindu's right to call Buddha a fat pig? These are not idle questions, but questions that are central to our chances of survival as a society.

Sadly, it would seem that for many of us, the answer is no, or at least not all the time. Many of us support "hate speech" laws in order to protect some, at the expense of us all. Others believe that offensive speech should not be covered, as everyone should try to get along and "play nicely"

Well, as I'm sure you have realised by now, I do NOT, play nicely. I actively set out to offend, to annoy, to irritate. I set out to insult and to antagonise. Some find it entertaining, some find it offensive, some don't even care enough to find it, but ask yourself this; if the day comes that I am no longer able to inflame, annoy, or offend, how much longer till you can no longer speak?

First they came for the assholes, and I was not an asshole, so I did
nothing.
Then they came for the neo-cons, and I was not a neo-con, so I did nothing.
When they finally came for me, there was no one left to do anything.

Do not allow them to defile the concept of human rights any mroe than they already have. Supprt Mr Steyn as you would Support Gordon Lee. Because free speech includes offensive speech, even if it offends you.

Glenn Sacks

You might have noticed some new links when you came by the MadMan's Manse. At the top a link to one http://www.glennsacks.com/
This guy is without a doubt, on the ball.

Read through his site, the more you read, the more your eyes open to just how misandrist feminism really is.

This guy should be required reading for every one with a pair.
Nuff said.

Its really sad when former communists understand the American way better than Americans.

A piece today in the opinion Journal reignited my cynicism and pessimism regarding the future of America. It concerns the Stockholm Network, a European based association of free market think tanks modeled after the American Enterprise Institute, such as the Center For Market economics, which was instrumental in passing Bulgaria's 10% flat tax. Whats remarkable about these and other Free Market think tanks, is that they are most popular and taken most seriously in formerly communist countries. For example of the 19 countries wikipedia lists as currently having a flat tax, more than half were once soviet or soviet satellites.

Whereas here in the west, where communism's chief opposition came from, we are moving in the exact opposite direction. This is even more sad when you consider how many "economic miracles" true free market principles have created just in the last few years. Perhaps you've heard someone refer to the "Celtic tiger"? Well that's basically a nick-name that Ireland received after going from one of Europe's poorest countries to one of its richest in just 10 years, by applying solidly free market principles. As further proof that growth and "inequality" are inseparable; during the same time period Ireland also became the second most "unequal" nation, behind only the United States.

Even more inspiring is the massive growth seen in Eastern European nations, whose economies got anally raped by the Soviets, once they began applying free market principles. The growth rate of Romania, which I was fortunate enough to witness first hand when I lived there, was simply astounding.

And yet, despite the tons of evidence that protectionism hurts the very industries being "protected" despite the proven increase in standards of living brought on by globalisation, despite the proof over the last few years here in the States that lowering taxes can and often does increase tax collections, (as well as the reams of evidence form around the world that it does the same) despite the fact that following the principles, even as loosely as we have over the last 30 years or so, has created the single richest, most dynamic, and opportunity laden economy of all time, at least half of the presidential contenders think raising taxes, less free trade, and more government spending will "save" the economy.

I guess its just further proof Einstein was right when he said
"There are only two things I know to be infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe"

Why you should REALLY be Worried about those missing CIA Interrogation tapes.

I'll be honest, when i first heard this story, my bullshit meter started going off. Not because its sounded implausible so much as because this story seemed to be the ultimate "gotcha". A destroyed tape supposedly showing the "torture" of a terrorist subject is really, when you think about it, the perfect charge against the CIA. Since the tape was destroyed, there's no way the CIA can "prove" it didn't show torture, after all. And if the tape is found, then the CIA has to show classified interrogations and put its interrogators (who regularly receive death threats) in additional harm. Its a win/win situation for the defeatists. But it would seem that there really is a legitimate reason to be very, very, concerned by the content that might have been on this tape, and its not because out Interrogators are "torturing" people.

From NRO

Zubaydah, wounded when he was captured in Pakistan, was fooled in a fake flag operation to believe that the Saudis held him. Instead of being afraid of the ‘Saudis,’ he demanded to talk to three Saudi princes (one, the nephew of the King, who happened to be in the U.S. on 9/11). He gave his interrogators the private cell phone numbers of all 3. He did the same regarding the chief of Pakistan's air force.

After the U.S. told the Saudis and Pakistanis of Zubaydah's finger pointing, all four men had tragic 'accidents.' The King's nephew died of complications from liposuction at the age of 43. A day later, the 41 year old Prince named by Zubaydah died in a one-car accident on his way to the funeral of the King’s nephew. The third named prince, age 25, died a week later of "thirst," according to the Saudi Royal Court. And shortly after that, the chief of Pakistan’s air force died when his plane exploded with his wife and 15 of his top aides on board

When my book was published, CIA officials trashed it 'off the record,' but made no public comment. I have always held the same position. There is (or was) firm evidence of what transpired, of whether my reporting was accurate or not. Make the interrogation tapes public and then we'll know whether one of the top al Qaeda operatives accused leading Saudi royals and a top Pakistani military man - now all dead - of being his sponsors. And accused two of them – the King’s nephew and the Pakistani air force chief – of having advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Now, suddenly coincidence of coincidence, the CIA says the Zubaydah interrogation tapes are destroyed. How convenient.

Now I realise I'm just a reactionist, redneck, neoconservative, misogynist, minority hating, ignorant, uneducated, stupid, ugly conservative, but to me, this is pretty damn concerning. Especially when you realise that Saudi Arabia is spending billions to fund mosques, texts, and multimedia content which pushes one of the single most radical forms of Islam.

Now I know that these nuts jobs are supposed to be our Allies, and in truth in some minor ways they are. But one of the things I have consistently disapproved of from the Bush administrations is how cozy our ties to SA are, given that SA is, quite frankly, one of the single most barbaric, primitive, oppressive, and just plain evil cultures on the face of the earth. And yes I know that the record shows that the Bush Administration did recommend for these tapes not to be destroyed, but it still bugs me that our best "ally" in the middle east is a nation whose society is so completely incompatible with our own.

Which is another reason why the ongoing effort in Iraq is so important. We need a real ally in that region, and has history has shown, the best way for the USA to create an ally is to kick the shit out of a country, and then rebuild it in our image. I mean it worked in Japan, and Germany.

Henry Hyde, Superhero?

I was thinking about Representatives Hyde's career, particularly in light of the NRLC's stats of 1,000,000 abortions prevented due to the Hyde ammendment.

If Im not mistaken that means that Hyde, in real life, managed to save more lives than most fictional surperheroes. I find that remarkable. Now obviously the big guns, Batman, Superman etc, by virtue of their storylines, and length of continous publication, have probably passed the 1 billion mark, but I doubt that Green Arrow for example, has even come close to 1 million lives saved. Hell most hospitals in TRW cant even say that.

So you tell me violent readers, what other heroes can you think of whos save-count, is less than Hyde's?

Also since we all know that the uniform makes the hero, what type of Superhero costume would henry Hyde have worn?

I wonder if Hyde would have been a Cape and Face or a Cape and Cowl kinda guy?

Either way, hes earned a heroes reward.

The Republican debate.

Wow.
I finally got a chance to sit down and watch this last night.
Just Wow.
Anyone who, after watching that, says CNN is not liberally biased is an idiot in denial.
No less than 6 of the people chosen to ask questions were democratic activists.
The questions chosen were a fucking perfect example of a liberal caricature of conservative views.
Its becoming harder and harder for the Democrats to hide how truly scared of Conservatives they are and how morally and intellectually bankrupt their ideas are. First they were too big of pussies to do a Fox debate, then they conspire with CNN to stack the deck in the GOP primary debates.
I cant even imagine how fucking terrified Mrs Bill Clinton must be to try this crap. Its not even January and already her hopes of creating a gyno-archy are shattered. The "sisterhood" has broken down and her pathetic attempts to con women into believing shes a feminist are also failing.
Sometimes the world gives me a reason to smile.

Immigration.

One of the major issues discussed in the GOP debate, and one of the big issue facing the nation today is Immigration, both legal and otherwise. How to regulate, deal with, and track it. How to seal the borders from illegal aliens, drug smugglers, and terrorists How to deal with the estimated 12 ,million illegal immigrants currently in the country. Each of these are issue which need to be dealt with, preferably sooner than later. The problem is, as with any touchy political issue, a complete inability among most to disagree without demonising. The Left calls the Right racist, or nationalist, or just plain xenophobic. The Right calls the Left Soft headed, Socialistic, and anti-American. And nothing gets done.

Now personally I love immigrants. In fact most of my friends were not born in this country, nor was my wife. I find I get along with Immigrants easier than I do native Americans, for a number of reasons. My current boss immigrated to the states from Iran (but don't call him Iranian, hes Persian. There's a diff. )a few years prior to my birth, one of my best friends came here in his late teens, and half my in laws are foreign born.

Now I don't get along so well with immigrants because I'm some multi-culti nut job, or because I run a construction company. Its also not because I speak so many foreign languages. cause I only speak English. Its not because I work in immigration, or even because I have travelled so extensively. The reason is I just tend to find more to like, and admire, in immigrants to America, than in our own native sons.

Now don't get me wrong there are plenty of home grown heroes I admire. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Ronald Reagan, and George Patton just to name a few. But I think we can all agree these men were truly singular individuals. But when it comes to interacting with he bulk of the people in their group, I find it far easier to relate to, and be comfortable with, immigrants.

Now knowing the "caliber" of my violent readers, I know many of you are probably already quite surprised, after all I'm a well known ring wing nut job. And we all "know" that right wingers are all xenophobic racist bastards who hate brown people. So they fact that I am not volunteering to waterboard illegals caught by the minute men probably surprises quite a few of you. But then most of you are morons anyway. Those who aren't, and you know who you are without me having to tell you, are probably trying to figure out why I feel more comfortable with immigrants than natives.

Ill give you a hint, How many natives do you know who realise their birth here was a gift from god himself?

Because the thing is Ive met a lot of people who came here from others countries. Some of them came from truly brutal regimes, such as Cuba, others came here from violent and chaotic nations like Haiti, or Iraq. Some came up from South America by Mexico way, and others left eastern Europe and arrived at JFK. No matter how they got here though, the vast majority came here for one reason, to build a better life. They are thankful of the opportunities they have here, as opposed to where they are from, and though they still love their "old country" they are truly grateful for their new one.

When was the last time you met an Native American who felt grateful for being born here? When was the last time you heard someone express that sentiment in a non-ironic or meaningful way? I bet if your honest with yourself, you probably don't even really feel that way yourself. You may think it, but you don't feel it. You may not even be able to, if you have never left this country; because until you understand how the vast majority of the rest of the world lives, you just wont get it. No matter how "cultured" you may think you are. No matter how well you did in cultural studies, or geography, no matter how much you watch the travel channel, you don't really have the imagination or experience to understand how the average citizen of Africa, or China, Or even Russia lives. Most of you can barely understand whats its like in The UK, despite the fact that we have a shared history. You simply don't have the frame of reference.

So understand I'm not accusing you of a failing, I'm just saying you gotta experience something to really understand it. And most of you out there on the idiot-net simply don't understand why you should be so grateful.

But its not just that, there's also a sense of entitlement among Native Americans that immigrants usually don't have, at least not at first. Its almost as if we buy into the American Dream so fully, we forget that we still have to work for it. Growing up in America, the culture imprints us with certain ideas, that anyone can accomplish anything given a little luck and a whole lot of work, that any child could become president, that your opportunities are limited only by your own ability to capitalise on them etc. But somewhere along the line, for most Native Americans, this gets twisted somehow. People stop thinking they can accomplish anything if they work, and start thinking they are owed something. Somehow the Dream gets twisted from "You can be anything you want" to what people hear, which seems to be "You can have anything you want" While Native American families making 60-80K a year a bitching that they cant afford health insurance, Immigrant families I know who make 30-45K a year are riding the bus and brown bagging their lunches to be able to provide coverage for their families.

Its seems to me that Folks born in America somehow get twisted around by popular culture, because instead of feeling obligated to give back because they were lucky enough to live in this country; they seem to think they should be owed more because they were born in this country. How many times have you heard someone refer to their "right" to have someone else support them? The "right" to health care, the "right" to a college education. the "Right" to retire comfortably, the "right" to be free from offense. Since when is having without earning a "right"?

But I'm getting off track, the point was, I usually find it a lot easier to be friends with immigrants than natives. Not always the case, but more often than not. So when I say that our immigration system is broken beyond repair, its not because I'm anti-immigrant. When I tell you I support the Minute Men, understand its not because I hate Mexicans or Canadians. I just think that for any country to abdicate control of its borders and of citizenship, whether de-facto or official, is suicidal. (not that America has done much in the last 30years that wasn't)

Our immigration policy is one of the most perverse, complicated, non-sensical, needlessly complex, self contradictory, and just plain bat-shit crazy messes I have ever had the sorry misfortune to witness. I can tell you, from experience, that our immigration system is totally broken, and needs to be either seriously overhauled or replaced.

The problem is that would require the people outside of Washington to hold those within Washington to standards we haven't help our "statesmen" to in over a century. In order to fix it, The Dem's and the Rep's would have to get out of the pockets of the Labor Unions, Corporations, Special Interests, Lobbyists, etc. and then they would actually have to think before they put pen to paper and created a bill. Of course this all presupposes they aren't too busy passing super sized bacon rolls off as bills, are actually there to serve the people, and are paying attention, which might be too much to hope for.

Now personally I think the best way to go is to put some major funds in to sealing both US borders, and to increase the amount of legal immigration we allow, especially from skilled or educated workers. Of Course we would also have to begin enforcing existing immigration law as well. While we cant exactly round up 12 million people at once, we could get them out over a period of time via attrition, if there were any serious efforts made at enforcement at all.

Of course I'm not in the Senate or the House, so what I think and a tenner will get you a Caramel Frapachino.

But I know we gotta do something. I just figure that, as usual we wont, or even more likely, the geniuses up in Washington will make things worse.

It takes a lot of discipline not to reach for the comfort of false hopes, when you live in a world as bass ackwards as ours y'know?

Reproductive Freedom, Fathers and China. OR, Feminists hate Fathers.

Reproductive Freedom. Its a phrase on the lips, websites, and blogs of every feminist alive. And why not? we all want to be free to reproduce. Of course when feminists use the term, what they really man is the "freedom" to slaughter and unborn child like a pig while its still in the womb and possible the "freedom" to sell the murdered corpse for scientific research. But there are those, millions of them, who are actually fighting for Reproductive Freedom, that is to say the Freedom to reproduce. Here in the states we call them "The Chinese"

As many know, China has an official "One Couple/One Child" rule. What many don't realise, or choose to ignore, is how that policy is enforced. To put it simply, if a woman in China is found to be violating this rule, she will be forced to have an abortion whether the child is "wanted" or not. Furthermore, all women who go to the state hospitals to have their first child, are required to be sterilised afterwards. China also requires all unwed mothers to have abortions, whether they want to or not. Finally there are severe penalties beyond the murder of ones child for violation of said policy including imprisonment and in some cases execution.

As I'm sure you can imagine violent reader, this leads many, many Chinese couples, in an effort to have actual reproductive freedom, to flee China, primarily for the USA. Until recently it was the USA's policy, to accept asylum applications from both parents in these matters, as both are penalised for for their "crime" DHS, which, of all the federal agencies is the one most corrupted by feminist theory, wants to change that policy. You see according to the DHS, fathers don't matter.

Ever since Bill Clinton attempted to end defining forced abortion as a form of persecution, when he deported 13 pregnant Chinese women back to china, (yeah the Clinton's really care about women) and the passing of the Hyde-Smith law, there has been a lot of opposition to it from the left. Apparently somehow, preventing women who want their children from being forced to abort them is not included in "reproductive freedom".

And now the DHS, has decided it might be able to keep at least half of them away. According to (apparently successful) arguments made by DHS counsel before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, The fathers of the unborn children these couples are fleeing to save, are not protected from deportation due to their wives being forcible sterilised or forced to get abortions from the Chinese government. The mothers are, the father's aren't.

Because after all, who needs a father right? As long as you got a mommy your'e good, (if you got two you're even better) but a dad? Pfft, useless as tits on a bull.


Bush, early in his first term refused to fund the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)because it was shown to be assisting the Chinese government in enforcing its policies, And hopefully he will take a stand here as well.

But the fact remains that this type of "policy" would never even be an issue if DHS weren't a cesspool of feminist theory. If it hadn't been hijacked by ideological extremists who believe the average man is little better than a walking sperm bank, no one there would have drank enough Kool-aid to believe this policy makes sense in the first place. I have said before that "family law" would, if we were being accurate, be referred to as feminist legal theory, as its assumptions of female superiority and male guilt are uniquely feminist in nature. Its blatant in domestic violence statues which force cops to assume the male to be the aggressor even when the evidence obviously shows different, its inherent in the practise of automatically awarding custody to mothers unless the father can prove she is unfit, (which is damn near impossible to do)its blindingly apparent in the fact that after a divorce a man is required to pay his ex-wife's living expenses, in the form of alimony, until she remarries, and its immediately noticeable upon even the most cursory of examination of the inequities of abortion/paternity laws.


For a mroe indepth anaylsis of this new policy and the histroy of it, please see David Freddos's excellent article China's Doomed at NRO

BTW one last question, Knowing that Bill had a policy of deporting pregnant women back to China because he didn't consider forced sterilisation and forced abortion to be a form of persecution, and given that Mrs Bill Clinton supported these policies, do any of you feminists out there think that maybe you're backing the wrong horse?
Doesn't the fact that both Mr. and Mrs. Bill Clinton think a government forcibly sterilising women is A-OK even the slightest bit disturbing?

The Wage Gap is a Myth.

Heres the thing. I beleive that if I cant say something better than another already has, is better to quote that person.
So instead of writing a post proving the wage gap is a myth, Im going to link to one that does.
Here in a post entitled "The Wage gap myth is Hazardous to mens health" Mr Stephen Jarosek demolishes the wage gap myth, and shows that as a result of feminist misandry, over 800,000 men have died tragic, and early deaths.

Bad News For Biological Egalitarians.

William Saletan is penning a fantastic series of articles over at Slate.com * on the racial gap in intelligence. So far hes written parts 1 and 2 of a 3 part (perhaps more) series.

What I find truly amazing about it, is that though Slate trends fairly liberal (can't say about William as I don't know, though his "voice" in the articles is liberal.) There's no PC bullshit, no feel good platitudes, no racial epithets, just reasoned analysis and rational thoughts, Just like on this Blog really.

This should be terrifying feminists, minortists, and all biological egalitarians, that rare breed of cuckoo who believes that, despite all evidence tot he contrary, there is no innate physical difference between races, genders, or cultures.
You see the racial Gap is very very real. Now understand just by saying this, I have in fact invited people to hurl racist epithets at me, and label me little more than a bigot. Those of you whose definition of an open mind doesn't include your brains leaking out of your head may read on.
You see the racial gap isn't a function of who's better, but of which genealogies are better adapted to certain activities. Because all race really is, is genealogy, your particular extended family tree. Mine for example branches from Fort Lauderdale where I was born, to Scotland, England, Russia, Irish, Jewish, Germanic, Cherokee and Seminole. (Yeah, I'm a Mutt, its why Americans are Better, between massive racial interbreeding and the competition based economy we are the best "race" deal with it.) Now for some that list might include Bantu, Pygmy, Moor, Egyptian, and Persian, or perhaps Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc.
But no matter who your grammy was, or wasn't, chances are, up till about a few hundred years ago, they had lived in the exact same place, among the exact same people, for centuries. And as such they evolved together.

So you may be asking, well OK, so why is this bad for feminists?

Well put that old noodle to work there son. We know the races show differences based on different evolutionary conditions right? And we know, that women, for the vast majority of human existence, took on different roles than men did. So doesn't it stand to reason that perhaps, just as Asians adapted to have a greater mental skills across the board than say whites do, perhaps women adapted to better carry out the roles they had taken? In fact even if there had been no biological difference between men and women in the first place,would we not expect to see differences arise over time due to women filling the same role consistently? In other words even if there were absolutely no biological basis for sex roles whatsoever, by consistently taking those roles wouldn't women have over time adapted to better fit them?

Now keep in mind this isn't even touching upon the subject of why the innate biological differences between men and women exist in the first place. I'm assuming for arguments sake, that you actually buy into feminist bullshit about there being no "sex" only "gender"

Add to that the facts that the "races" only separated somewhere between 40,000 and 100,000 years ago, and that women and men have been separate sexes since pre-humanity (literally, all primates are sexed as well, and in most males and female have different roles) and it seems even more absurd to assume that "gender is a societal construct"

As always my point, is that the answer lies not in putting men against women, or whites against Asians, but in everyone against everyone else. That's why Capitalism works, a dollar doesn't care if your white black or green, as you long you can get him together with his buddes. Thats why feminists, and minorists are destined to failure for their causes, disappointment, alienation, regret, and irrelevance, to their adherents. Eventually people stop buying the company line and actually think. It doesn't happen often, but when it does?
Its Fucking Glorious.





* Yes I read Slate. I also read NRO, The Huffington post , The American Prospect, Daily Kos, Human Events, The Nation , the WSJ , the NYT, Commentary, the Financial Times ,the CSM , the Economist, the New Republic, RCP, and and many many other publications which cant easily be described as either right/left, or even political such as Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, Space.com.

True Freedom Vs Percieved Freedom or USA V UK

Its amazing how often the British criticise America's Policies, especially considering that they have nowhere near the freedom that we do.
Alan Moore, Warren Ellis, and many other British born authors love to critique America's policies in their works, often with the implication or outright assertion that somehow America is less free.

But lets examine the evidence shall we?

The most Basic freedoms are
1 - The Freedom to speak, also known as freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
Now many libs will try to tell you ours have been silenced, or abridged, that if you speak out here in America you'll be rounded up by those evil neo-cons. The fact that they all express these and far more outrageous claims in Blogs, Newspapers, personal conversation etc. never seems to register. Even when Major American newspapers divulge classified anti-terrorism programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program ( Which BTW had to be disbanded despite solid results once it was "exposed" as its success relied on the terrorists not knowing about it. ) there was never even an official hint that there would be any investigation or charges levelled.
But can the same be said of The UK?
Well not if you investigate Muslims clerics spreading hate. Granted the police ended up being reprimanded, but ask yourself this, if The UK really had freedom of speech in the way we do, would they have investigated the news program in the first place?
Hmm.
Its Also not an isolated event as cane be seen here, IN Britain, Theatres get shut down when Artists offend, IN the US artists who offend get sponsored by the NEA
Finally lets ask the those unfortunate Britishers who don't, as Mr Ellis does, have the luxury of
living in America.

OK So As Far as Freedom of Speech is Concerned USA 1 Britain 0

How about the Second most fundamental right of any Free Nation, The right to bear arms?
Now I know many of you, particularly those living in the barbaric non-American countries, might argue that the Freedom to Bear Arms is not fundamental, which only shows how much of the kool-aid you have drunk. So let me explain why the Second Amendment, which Guarantees the peoples right to bear arms is so important.

Its got nothing to do with hunting, or even with defending your life or your property from criminals. The gentlemen who fought a guerrilla war against the British Army for their freedom (and won) made the right to bear arms second only to the right to speak freely, because they understood that unless the people always had access to the weapons they would need to overthrow their newly formed government, it would never be truly free. All the legalistic posturing about the preamble to the second misses the point that to the founders, the "militia" was every able bodied member of the governed. IE "The People". Furthermore having recently defeated the British empire primarily because of men who had used their own personal rifles to fight, they understood that in a country where men could not bear arms such a thing would be impossible.

Now do I even need to cite evidence as to which of the two nations in question guarantees its citizens the "Right to Bear Arms?

SO Far it USA 2 UK 0

Lets keep going shall we?

The Third Amendment is a wash, since neither the USA nor Britain ejects people from their homes so soldiers can live there, but what about the fourth?

Ahh here's where the Britophiles think they have us violent reader. After all they only have to say two words right?
Patriot Act.
Really?
Granted the Patriot Act made it much easier for the US gov to obtain surveillance on suspected terrorists, the most controversial of the provisions allowed agents to search someones library records, begin surveillance without getting a warrant first (although one is still necessary, eventually) and required banks and other financial institutions to report "suspicious transactions" as well as giving the government far more latitude in subpoenaing your financial records (such as your checking account) and a clause making it illegal to speak about the enforcement of such provisions.
Well in terms of getting surveillance its far easier in Britain, whereas the FBI for example must get a warrant, the British authorities need only "complete a written application, which is considered by a designated individual within the body or agency" under the the "Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000" IN fact this act, passed before 9.11 is where the idea of allowing the FBI to conduct surveillance after submitting a request to a judge came from. Only the British don't even have to apply to a judge, in order for the FBI to have the same latitude, they would only need to ask the Director of the FBI if it was OK.
Profiling? Legal in Britain.
Detention without charge?
48 hours in the US
28 days in Britain.
Separation of Powers? Us Only.
Right to be silent when arrested?
Severely restricted by Section 2 of the 1987 Criminal Justice Act, partially restored by the 1998 human rights act.
US interpretation - You have the right to remain silent.
British version - "The failure of any person charged with an offence … to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by the prosecution”

So to recap, No freedom of speech, only the freedom to engage in non-offensive speech. No Right to bear Arms. Not even the "tattered and frayed" privacy protections of the US. (not to mention more security cameras per-capita, and high tech software to make the cameras smart than anywhere int he world.) No right to remain silent.
But then are we surprised? This is the same country that AFTER WW2 passed a law allowing the government to tell people what job they could have. (in the name of social justice of course)

So as far as the most basic rights necessary for a free society, Britain is, and always has been, far less free. Maybe that's why old Warren lives in the US eh?

So Next time you hear some euro-trash talking about how bad we have it, tell him to shut the fuck up and go back to a "free country" if he can find one.