Google Adsense “censorship” Update

This ad from appeared on my website today:

Want Better Than Pelosi
Help Conservatives Stand Up To Nancy Pelosi – Donate Today!

This is the outfit that emailed me on the 3rd complaining that Google was “censoring” them. I have yet to receive an email update/correction. Regardless, Google doesn’t appear to be “censoring” them. (Not that it’s even possible for Google, a private enterprise, to do so.)

Free gift that can make someone’s day

In case you’re not familiar with him (her?), check out the Complimenting Commenter:

The Complimenting Commenter: Give the gift of a compliment.
When you give a compliment you make people smile. So go out and compliment someone today.

I’ll make the challenge even better – find someone you disagree with who has written a well written, well reasoned post and compliment them. Less pies in Ann Coulter’s face and more rational argument.

Theocracy is coming!

Those Christians are at it again, trying to pull one over on us and turn the USA into a theocracy. This is horrible. People letting their faith influence their politics.

San Bernardino County Sun – News reports

“We are appalled that Governor Schwarzenegger, who as our state’s chief magistrate is pledged to maintain the rule of law, has chosen instead to praise a group of vigilantes who operate outside the law, saying they’ve done a terrific job in patrolling the border with Mexico,’ the California Council of Churches and Pomona-based Progressive Christians Uniting wrote in a strongly worded letter to the governor.

(FWIW, I think Ahnuld the Austrian went overboard with his ‘seal the border’ crap, but the Minutemen weren’t “vigilantes” any more than any Neighborhood Watch. There wasn’t a single case of them acting as vigilantes. OTOH, the idea of vigilantism, that citizens band together for protection when police aren’t immediately available, isn’t bad in itself, it’s just easily abused.)

Heard about this briefly on Rush Limbaugh’s show.

Beyond Red & Blue: Where do you fit?

NPR’s All Things Considered had a report on the Pew Research Center’s “political topography” research.

Political observers divided America into red and blue states for the 2004 election. But a new study fine-tunes political groups into more specific categories, including “pro-government conservatives,” “disadvantaged Democrats” and “bystanders.”

You can find out where you fit at by taking their quiz.

Turns out I’m an “Enterpriser.” This was not a shock. Here’s the description:

Assertive on foreign policy and patriotic; anti-regulation and pro-business; very little support for government help to the poor; strong belief that individuals are responsible for their own well being. Conservative on social issues such as gay marriage, but not much more religious than the nation as a whole. Very satisfied with personal financial situation.

I’d quibble with a couple of points there, but overall it’s where I expected the know-nothing liberals who never heard the word “libertarian” or the phrase “classical liberal” to place me.

Enterprisers are the only group that a majority opposed this idea “The U.S. government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes…”

Another interesting item, Social Conservatives are split 45 to 40 on this question “All in all, which is more important, conducting stem cell research that might result in new medical cures or not destroying the potential life of human embryos?”

Making sense of RealID

Kevin at Rant Me A River has this to say about the ‘privacy’ complaints against Real ID”

We’re in a war against people who purchase fake ID’s, some issued by corrupt county and state employees who sell bogus birth certificates and drivers’ licenses. The national standards will make it more difficult for them to do so. That’s a good enough reason for me. But then, I don’t lay awake at night listening for the tap-tap of jack boots coming down the hall or the whir of the rotors of “black ops” helicopters hovering over my home.

It strikes me that the only difference that reliable IDs could possibly make to law abiding citizens would be to reduce the likelihood of being mistaken for a criminal with a similar name. (As in this post from Jay Tea at Wizbang.)

As near as I can understand it, the privacy purists want to create a new right, “the right to lie about your identity and forge state issued IDs,” from the penumbra of the right, itself penumbral in origin, to privacy. Where are all these penumbras going to end? “The right of foreign terrorists to kill Americans in public in the presence of witnesses while using false identification and raping goats”?

I’m not a big fan of any national system for tracking citizens, but you’d think from the response to this that it required federal registration, checkpoints at county borders and registering with the local police department when you arrive in town. As I understand it, this law basically requires that state IDs be reliable and verifiable. That doesn’t seem particularly threatening.

Of course, there is a simple method for those libertarian purists who don’t want a Real ID to avoid the issue and one that should not conflict at all with their lifestyle if they are true to their beliefs – don’t go to government offices looking for services!

Words matter to scholars but not the AP

Ted Frank gives us this bit of Lagniappe:

It’s far from clear to me that the University of Minnesota got it wrong in titling a pathway “Scholars Walk” rather than “Scholars’ Walk.” But I am sure that the AP got it wrong by suggesting “Scholar’s Walk” as an option.

I thought the same thing. This [the AP's error, not Ted Frank's writing], apparently, is what professional writing with its editorial controls and filters churns out these days. What a shame.

I’m going to visit…

next time I’m in Springfield.


Cross Street: South Avenue
Address: 323 S Avenue
Springfield, MO 65806
Phone: 417-832-1720
Posted by T E Williams
Comments: Great coffee, free wifi, downtown, locally owned.
Click here for map directions!

I can’t stand Starbucks. It’s not an anti-corporate thing (obviously). It’s just the fact that I like coffee unadulterated and Starbuck’s coffee sans the “double-half-twisted-half-caff-mochachino with whipped cream and sprinkles” tastes like crap. And it costs three times as much as the very decent cupajoe that can be had at any Mickey Ds (a big corporation I like). I suspect that a lot of people have more political reasons for wanting a Starbucks alternative, but whatever the reason a consumer wants information about Starbucks alternatives, they can now have it. The market can only work better with more information, which I suspect can’t be a good thing for a company with an overpriced, lower quality product.

%d bloggers like this: