Thought for the Day

Dumbasses make smartasses.

Ingredients & Preparations Mixer

You may edit the lists. Simply separate your desired items with a comma. A preparation style will be paired up with an ingredient. The "Many" button will generate a list of 7 combinations in a popup window, suitable for printing. (You may, of course, need to tell your browser to allow the popup. Or not.)

Ingredients	Preparations
chicken, beef, pork, fish, tofu and veggies	fried, grilled, baked, boiled

Guilt by Association

Just because you agree with someone about one particular issue does not mean you agree with them about all issues, or even, necessarily, the manner in which they argue for the position with which you agree. I would hope this goes without saying, but I feel the need to remind people frequently. All too often, I find myself in agreement with something that someone says, only to be appalled at the next thing that comes out of their mouth. Like the little pinhead I recently encountered who started off by briefly making a valid point about "hate crimes" legislation (of which I applaud the spirit, but ultimately believe is misguided) but then immediately went off the rails with bizarre, irrelevant, and unjustified homophobic ravings, and claims of "persecution" for his straightness. Sigh.

And then there is the matter of the Randians. Yes, I really do have a problem with the Rand thing. Even though I end up agreeing with those people on a great many issues, there is still something distinctly off-putting, both stylistically AND philosophically, about so many of them. Let it not be lost on anyone that Rand herself rejected the "libertarians," as she found them insufficiently... well, something or other. (I also direct the interested reader to a concise, well-stated critique of Rand over at Reason.)

A quick thought on one of the obvious responses to my dilemma. You might say, "Well, if this often happens to you, don't you think you might be on the wrong side?" My answer is that it is certainly true that someone is being inconsistent, or not adhering to a coherent world view. If I thought it was me, I'd change my position, but I don't, so I haven't. One of the main reasons I have become an advocate for limited government is that, in fact, it is a fundamentally consistent philosophy. Why so many people agree that it is wise to keep the government out of your bedroom, for example, but simultaneously believe it's OK to let it meddle in your economic decisions, or vice versa, is an ongoing source of frustration, but I will keep making the case for individual freedom as long as I am able.

At any rate, I am prompted to write because I recently subscribed to the print edition of Reason. I have been an avid reader for some years now, and the website is one of my favorites. I endorse it heartily. I find the writing intelligent, cogent, and relevant. The philosophy is solidly and consistently pro freedom (That is to say, classically liberal, and I will fight you for that word. No "conservative" here, dammit.), but not prone to raving, foaming at the mouth rants. Rather, the arguments tend to be well-supported and well... reasoned. Pretty much everything from the magazine gets published on the website, so a subscription isn't really necessary, but with my son's recent school fundraiser, I decided to go ahead and show them a little monetary love, seeing as how I really like what they have to say. So, naturally, my first print edition arrives and...


Any random string of letters emerging from this quarter will likely be due to my head banging repeatedly against my keyboard. Peace.