<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' xmlns:georss='http://www.georss.org/georss' xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059</id><updated>2011-07-14T17:31:24.184-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Dan and Mike's Political Feedbag</title><subtitle type='html'>"Goring the Other Guy's Ox Since 2003"</subtitle><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default?max-results=100'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/'/><link rel='hub' href='http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/'/><link rel='next' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default?start-index=101&amp;max-results=100'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>117</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>100</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-9067220379759575442</id><published>2007-02-17T21:37:00.001-05:00</published><updated>2007-02-17T21:37:50.401-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Why Climatetologists Shouldn't be Economists (or Political Scientists)</title><summary type='text'>This image was taken from one of the previous issues of The Economist.  Basically the graph compares California and other "blue states" (as defined as supporting John Kerry in the previous election), compared to the "red states" as defined by those that voted for George Bush.  Now, the Economist, as well as the source for this graph (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/9067220379759575442'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/9067220379759575442'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2007/02/why-climatetologists-shouldnt-be.html' title='Why Climatetologists Shouldn&apos;t be Economists (or Political Scientists)'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-116899125532208568</id><published>2007-01-16T18:47:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2007-01-16T18:54:43.190-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Quote of the Year (so far)</title><summary type='text'>"Really, we're happy to be rich now," said Majid al-Mansouri, who heads the environment agency serving Abu Dhabi.That is from this journalistic abortion; article by the Associated Press about the United Arab Emirates and their topping of the world index of global footprints, by the World Wildlife Federation (Sorry, whenever I see WWF, I think wrestling).Al-Mansouri's comment pretty much sums up </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/116899125532208568'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/116899125532208568'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2007/01/quote-of-year-so-far.html' title='Quote of the Year (so far)'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-116303317361476000</id><published>2006-11-08T19:43:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2006-11-08T19:46:13.663-05:00</updated><title type='text'>I'D LIKE TO THANK...</title><summary type='text'>Yes, I know I haven't posted in forever, but I think I'm turning over a new leaf with all of the political shenanigans going on in the past 24 hours.  With that, despite the fact that we now have a Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Kennedy, here's some things I'm thankful for with the passing of the election...The good people of South Carolina, Tennessee, Colorado, Wisconsin, Virginia, South Dakota and</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/116303317361476000'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/116303317361476000'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2006/11/id-like-to-thank.html' title='I&apos;D LIKE TO THANK...'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-114239146930304362</id><published>2006-03-14T21:45:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2006-03-14T21:57:49.346-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Well, the Media is Just Too Easy a Target to Pass Up</title><summary type='text'>I was standing in line at Chic-Fil-A when I saw this headline on the front page of "The State"Family struggles with baby’s deathAunt says nearby relatives had been trying to help couple raise childThen there was this first paragraph:After giving up her first three children, 25-year-old Kellie King wanted to raise her fourth child, Jeffrey, with the help of her family.She won’t get that chance.So </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/114239146930304362'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/114239146930304362'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2006/03/well-media-is-just-too-easy-target-to.html' title='Well, the Media is Just Too Easy a Target to Pass Up'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-114063685646069150</id><published>2006-02-22T14:25:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2006-02-22T14:34:16.530-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Google vs. the US vs. China</title><summary type='text'>Apparently when you face a congressional committee set up to get their pound of flesh, you're not going to look good.  Google and Yahoo! Take a Beating"Yeah, so what?" you ask.  Here's the irony of it all...The Republican chairman of the committee, New Jersey's Chris Smith, then announced his intention to introduce a bill this week which would "formalise the goals of a new State Department task </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/114063685646069150'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/114063685646069150'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2006/02/google-vs-us-vs-china.html' title='Google vs. the US vs. China'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113986398297205126</id><published>2006-02-13T15:42:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2006-02-13T15:53:06.726-05:00</updated><title type='text'>New Link on the Sidebar</title><summary type='text'>Let's try this again...I've added a new link on the sidebar, from Jane Galt (aka Asymmetric Information).  From what I've seen of her front page, she seems like my small (but not stupid) government libertarian (ie she hasn't drunk from the Libertarian Party kool-aid).  So I've added her to the trough and that should be all good.  I really like what she's written about the deficits, and much more </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113986398297205126'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113986398297205126'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2006/02/new-link-on-sidebar.html' title='New Link on the Sidebar'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113953298124636285</id><published>2006-02-09T19:20:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2006-02-14T13:20:20.836-05:00</updated><title type='text'>A Defense of Wal-Mart</title><summary type='text'>This is going to be a response to what someone wrote online.  Here's the original post:http://louishopen.livejournal.com/39450.htmlI'm going to do more of a point-by-point refutation of what he says, but considering that alot of his claims are what the general anti Wal-Mart proponents think, this will probably be a good start to addressing most of the concerns that people have against Wal-Mart.  </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113953298124636285'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113953298124636285'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2006/02/defense-of-wal-mart.html' title='A Defense of Wal-Mart'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113951637673738369</id><published>2006-02-09T15:15:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2006-02-09T17:12:18.626-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Economics at its Finest</title><summary type='text'>If this isn't economics, then I don't know what is:A GAME THEORETIC APPROACH TO THE TOILET SEAT PROBLEMSeriously, if people complain too much about the lack of "serious" theory work, then nobody is going to care about economics.  As it is right now, there's TOO much focus on math and theory and not nearly enough done with applying economics to the world around us.  If you want to be a data </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113951637673738369'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113951637673738369'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2006/02/economics-at-its-finest.html' title='Economics at its Finest'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113943390603892742</id><published>2006-02-08T16:14:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2006-02-08T16:25:06.076-05:00</updated><title type='text'>And They Want Statehood?</title><summary type='text'>Well, the DC council already acts like a shady legislature, but this takes the cake:Dewey Wins!: Council revotes and passes leaseBut the question is whether MLB is going to accept all the codecils that the DC Council has added on.  Here's a list:To pay start up costs for a new youth baseball academy;To give 10,000 free tickets a year to low-income D.C. residents;To make community appearances each</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113943390603892742'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113943390603892742'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2006/02/and-they-want-statehood.html' title='And They Want Statehood?'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113891985383256495</id><published>2006-02-02T17:16:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2006-02-02T17:37:34.043-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Slowly but Surely, the Media Catches On</title><summary type='text'>The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a story written about how college loan payments are eating further into graduates' current income.  Obviously, the government isn't going to do anything about this, they're making way too much money off it and federal student loans are forever, you have to repay them, even if you're disabled and living off Social Security.  Even if you go bankrupt, the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113891985383256495'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113891985383256495'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2006/02/slowly-but-surely-media-catches-on.html' title='Slowly but Surely, the Media Catches On'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113865417447209186</id><published>2006-01-30T23:07:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2006-01-30T23:07:17.393-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Insanely Liberal</title><summary type='text'>Back when I was in high school, my girlfriend's father suggested that I read "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" by Thomas Friedman.  So I read it, or got around to reading it freshman year at Georgetown.  It was a pretty good book and didn't say too much about policy, more like it was a book about observations in the world today.  So Friedman got a Pulitzer for that book and went on to become an </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113865417447209186'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113865417447209186'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2006/01/insanely-liberal.html' title='Insanely Liberal'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113750612157037952</id><published>2006-01-17T08:52:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2006-01-17T08:55:21.586-05:00</updated><title type='text'>First thoughts from "Stupid in America"</title><summary type='text'>I love it how Inez Tenenbaum was made to look like an idiot.  I really love how Democrats in South Carolina were made to look like idiots.Yes, Inez, we know that South Carolina is improving in every category.  It's easy to improve when you're starting from zero.  Now, if you'd just be able to move past those educational juggernauts like Mississippi and Alabama, then you'd be getting somewhere.  </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113750612157037952'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113750612157037952'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2006/01/first-thoughts-from-stupid-in-america.html' title='First thoughts from &quot;Stupid in America&quot;'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113718377977283135</id><published>2006-01-13T15:17:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2006-01-13T15:22:59.786-05:00</updated><title type='text'>TGIF Friday Line Up</title><summary type='text'>No, "Family Matters" and "Full House" aren't coming back to ABC, but John Stossel is.  In case you've never read his work (I have), he's a journalist for ABC News and is probably the most unapologetic libertarian journalists out there.  So tonight, on 20/20, there will be a presentation called "Stupid in America: How we are cheating our kids".  Here's  the blurb from the webpage:There are many </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113718377977283135'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113718377977283135'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2006/01/tgif-friday-line-up.html' title='TGIF Friday Line Up'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113717057304075650</id><published>2006-01-13T11:38:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2006-01-13T11:42:55.220-05:00</updated><title type='text'>While Joe Biden drones on about something</title><summary type='text'>Dan and I (and Luisa) created a religion forum over in LiveJournal called....The Religious FeedbagGet it?  Political Feedbag = Religious Feedbag.  It's some good stuff.  I would've liked to have it held here, but that's alright, the posts are still available for all the public to see, it's just that you can't comment without a LiveJournal account.  But that's alright.But as for here, that means </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113717057304075650'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113717057304075650'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2006/01/while-joe-biden-drones-on-about.html' title='While Joe Biden drones on about something'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113440680258542995</id><published>2005-12-12T11:46:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-12-12T12:00:02.626-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Just in Time for the Holidays</title><summary type='text'>MSN has two articles up on how my generation is in debt to their eyeballs.  Right among an article about gadgets from $10 to $1000.  College Debts and Broken DreamsA couple of tidbits that struck me personally:"This is the first generation who won't necessarily do better than their parents," says Tamara Draut, director of the economic opportunity program at Demos, a research and advocacy </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113440680258542995'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113440680258542995'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/12/just-in-time-for-holidays.html' title='Just in Time for the Holidays'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113376467982109704</id><published>2005-12-05T01:20:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-12-05T01:38:00.313-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Random Items to Leave On</title><summary type='text'>Since I'm leaving SC and my internet connection for a temporary paid position in Connecticut, I leave you these few things to ponder:Given the current political and social culture, what would be a realistic first step to pare back government?  Would it even be possible?  Is this required to be done within the two major parties or another party?  Would a new party need to be born or an exisiting "</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113376467982109704'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113376467982109704'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/12/random-items-to-leave-on.html' title='Random Items to Leave On'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113330372429193180</id><published>2005-11-29T17:34:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-29T17:35:24.356-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Why Make Health Insurance Difficult?</title><summary type='text'>Right Plan, Wrong StateI'm not sure what the right policy for health insurance is, but making things more complicated isn't one of them.  My, admittedly not-so-well thought out plan is simple.Make everyone buy health insurance.  It's no different for using a car, so why should it be any different for using health services.Yes, yes.  I know there are big time difference between a person's health </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113330372429193180'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113330372429193180'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/why-make-health-insurance-difficult.html' title='Why Make Health Insurance Difficult?'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113226720189276061</id><published>2005-11-29T16:55:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-29T16:58:19.336-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Does Restricting Immigration Reduce Freedom?</title><summary type='text'>Restricting Immigration Reduces FreedomDon Boudreaux is a libertarian economics professor at George Mason.  In fact, Cafe Hayek is a libertarian blog that two like-minded professors maintain there.  So I don't get why he doesn't understand how immigration restrictions can go hand in hand with liberty.The explaination is rather simple.  What happens WITHIN the borders of the United States is </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113226720189276061'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113226720189276061'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/does-restricting-immigration-reduce.html' title='Does Restricting Immigration Reduce Freedom?'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113322550092574601</id><published>2005-11-28T19:42:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-28T22:08:14.306-05:00</updated><title type='text'>50 Babies a Year are alive after abortion</title><summary type='text'>50 Babies a Year are alive after abortionSweet merciful crap.  And that's not even the kicker.  Apparently, there's a two year old mentioned in the article who was born after THREE attempted abortions.  Needless to say, he's not in very good condition.  But if there's 50 screwed up abortions in the UK (and very much possibly more), then I wonder what the statistics are here in the US.  But the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113322550092574601'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113322550092574601'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/50-babies-year-are-alive-after.html' title='50 Babies a Year are alive after abortion'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113320553978796986</id><published>2005-11-28T14:18:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-28T14:18:59.860-05:00</updated><title type='text'>The Marginal Product of Sports Columnists is Zero</title><summary type='text'>Pardon the Quite FranklyEven though, I'm a sports fan, I'm not a fan of these shows.  I could just give a ranking of how each show should be in the pecking order of obnoxiousness, but that would be meaningless.For the most part, the author of this article has it right, although he misses on some points.First off, I'd like to see this "study" that the grad student at Missou put out.  Right now, </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113320553978796986'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113320553978796986'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/marginal-product-of-sports-columnists.html' title='The Marginal Product of Sports Columnists is Zero'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113234979330660601</id><published>2005-11-18T16:34:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-18T16:36:33.320-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Email</title><summary type='text'>I've decided that the Feedbag could use an email address.  Thus, the Political Feed(Mail)Bag is born.  Click the link on the sidebar below the archives to send us hate mail.  Or love.  Or porn.  Because that's what the internet is for.</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113234979330660601'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113234979330660601'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/email.html' title='Email'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113167308548021930</id><published>2005-11-17T21:01:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-18T12:05:03.330-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Pro-family Policy</title><summary type='text'>The Party of Sam's ClubI'm only going to touch this briefly and make a general criticism.  You may reply in the comments box if you want me to go futher and deeper into this.The breakdown of the family has been a topic of conversation for more than 20 years now.  Divorce rates are up, numbers of single-parent families are up, the nuclear family has been thrown to the dustbin of history.  Or </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113167308548021930'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113167308548021930'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/pro-family-policy.html' title='Pro-family Policy'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113216819102327076</id><published>2005-11-16T14:07:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-16T14:09:51.040-05:00</updated><title type='text'>The Moral Problems of Dining and Dashing</title><summary type='text'>Briefly, I want to bring a question to everyone who reads this (yes, all nine of you).  I argued last night with Luisa that it was acceptable to not pay for a meal that was of God-awful quality.  Basically, I argued that if you got horrible food with horrible service, it would be ok to not pay your tab and just leave the restaurant.  (With the obvious intention of never coming back again).  Luisa</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113216819102327076'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113216819102327076'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/moral-problems-of-dining-and-dashing.html' title='The Moral Problems of Dining and Dashing'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113157269415834153</id><published>2005-11-09T16:42:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-09T16:44:54.160-05:00</updated><title type='text'>The Troughs</title><summary type='text'>We all know that you can't get enough of the Feedbag.  That is all 11 of you that read this every day.  But there are just some days that we don't write.  Ok, make that most days.  But that doesn't mean that you still can't get enough of your yummy political goodness.  And who better than Dan and I to show you what you should be reading.  Thus was born... The Troughs.  When the Feedbag isn't </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113157269415834153'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113157269415834153'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/troughs.html' title='The Troughs'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113105976725904723</id><published>2005-11-07T23:44:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-07T23:44:55.413-05:00</updated><title type='text'>A litigious society</title><summary type='text'>Doping, Torts, and Monetary Damages(A moment of full disclosure:  I despise lawyers.  Society would be a million times better if we just got rid of the lot of them.  I lose respect for people who want to be lawyers or are lawyers.  I can't stand them.  I think the movie "The Devil's Advocate" was a pretty good representation of lawyers, except they didn't show as much greed or lying as would </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113105976725904723'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113105976725904723'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/litigious-society.html' title='A litigious society'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113131680246044097</id><published>2005-11-07T18:56:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-07T18:57:07.280-05:00</updated><title type='text'>The Ninth Circus</title><summary type='text'>I may not agree with Rush Limbaugh on everything, but this is certainly one characterization that is straight on.The reason is the latest in a series of insane proclaimations from the Ninth Circuit.  Here's a snippet from The Corner.I've already mentioned this to Luisa and her father, but this decision has a couple of interesting facets to it:Conservatives are quite perplexed.  On the one hand, </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113131680246044097'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113131680246044097'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/ninth-circus.html' title='The Ninth Circus'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113133059319000111</id><published>2005-11-06T21:08:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-06T21:29:53.206-05:00</updated><title type='text'>West Wing "Debate"</title><summary type='text'>At first I was very skeptical about the whole concept, especially considering that NBC put the "NBC News" logo in the corner.  It would take a whole lot of stupidity to think that it was a real debate, but I wouldn't put it past the American public to think that Alan Alda is running for President this year.  The question is how many people think that's going to be real.Even so, I think they did a</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113133059319000111'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113133059319000111'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/west-wing-debate.html' title='West Wing &quot;Debate&quot;'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113124670361405609</id><published>2005-11-05T21:44:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-07T23:56:16.110-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Identity Politics and Republicans</title><summary type='text'>Italians for Bush - www.weeklystandard.comI found this article on the Weekly Standard's website and read through it.  The idea is that Italians have shifted voting patterns from Democrats to Republicans.  Luisa sees it as being that Italians have assimilated to the point where they want to be patriotic and American.  I more or less agree, but this leads to the question of the historical </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113124670361405609'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113124670361405609'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/identity-politics-and-republicans.html' title='Identity Politics and Republicans'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113105852139517444</id><published>2005-11-03T17:44:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-03T17:55:21.413-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Unhygenic response to Mike's glazed response</title><summary type='text'>These are obviously no-brainer questions.#1: I've never met anyone that wants government more involved. Statistically, people think that most laws apply to "those other people, not me." When the majority of the people can say that about a law, it's probably bad. I borrowed that from somone I read today, I forgot who.#2: I became a staunch libertarian when I read Lew Rockwell argue about taxation </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113105852139517444'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113105852139517444'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/unhygenic-response-to-mikes-glazed.html' title='Unhygenic response to Mike&apos;s glazed response'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113105929432356882</id><published>2005-11-03T17:24:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-04T00:02:31.480-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Public Indecency?</title><summary type='text'>So Michigan passed a law outlawing "drive-by pornography".  Basically it makes it a crime to watch porn in your car such that anyone else can see it. I learned about this from an article on Catholic Exchange that goes into detail about how upset the author is about indecent public acts, more specifically, watching pornography DVDs in public view. He makes the quote here that's probably talking </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113105929432356882'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113105929432356882'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/public-indecency.html' title='Public Indecency?'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113096953726580664</id><published>2005-11-02T16:59:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-03T17:18:56.193-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Semi-Glazed Response to Dan's Questions</title><summary type='text'>Of course, the questions I refer to are at the end of this post, just for reference.1. Do I want government more or less involved in my life than it is now?Now here's a double-edged sword.  Short answer, yes with an if.  Long answer, no with a but.  The short of it is that I (like about 99.99% of the population), would gladly like government involvement if it turns out to my benefit.  If the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113096953726580664'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113096953726580664'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/semi-glazed-response-to-dans-questions.html' title='Semi-Glazed Response to Dan&apos;s Questions'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113096862913855012</id><published>2005-11-02T16:52:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-02T16:57:09.150-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Pseudo Response to MIke's Quasi-Response</title><summary type='text'>You didn't identify which level of government should have the burden for financing the public education good. Libertarians are whole-heartedly against Federal intrusion into it. Many (including myself) will accept it as a public good financed individually by the states. If the systems in Virginia, Connecticut, and South Carolina are different, that's fine. In fact, could be great, because </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113096862913855012'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113096862913855012'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/pseudo-response-to-mikes-quasi.html' title='Pseudo Response to MIke&apos;s Quasi-Response'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113095451105508604</id><published>2005-11-02T12:56:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-02T13:01:51.070-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Quasi-Response to Dan</title><summary type='text'>Yeah, #3 was a big mistake on that part.  I do agree with libertarians on this one, especially when concerned with the Republican stance of sucking as much money as possible for government uses.As for #4, education is very much a public good, as far as it's much better for a society to have memebers who can read, write, do simeple math, etc.  So I can definitely see where government should </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113095451105508604'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113095451105508604'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/quasi-response-to-dan.html' title='Quasi-Response to Dan'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113090361715483496</id><published>2005-11-01T22:38:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-01T22:53:37.183-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Libertarian/Republican response</title><summary type='text'>Being an actual Libertarian myself, I feel compelled to address Mike's points.1. I fail to see Mike's problem here. Libertarians favor federalism insofar as we favor limited government at all levels, most especially at the national level, far removed from those being governed. Perhaps if you explain more what your problem is, I can address it?2. Libertarians, usually as a rule, believe foremost </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113090361715483496'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113090361715483496'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/libertarianrepublican-response.html' title='Libertarian/Republican response'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113088971945152327</id><published>2005-11-01T19:01:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-01T19:01:59.513-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Because the Senate isn't Doing Anything Else Important</title><summary type='text'>AP: Bunning, McCain reintroducing steroids legislationSo McCain is missing during the vote on the Coburn Amendment redirecting Alaskan pork so he can come up with a bill like this?So how do I react to this?  Part of me (the conservative) says "Good for Congress.  Way to actually enforce the laws on the books."  Steriods are illegal, right?  Then the libertarian part of me says, "Where does </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113088971945152327'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113088971945152327'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/because-senate-isnt-doing-anything.html' title='Because the Senate isn&apos;t Doing Anything Else Important'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113088215459798507</id><published>2005-11-01T16:55:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-11-01T17:02:03.666-05:00</updated><title type='text'>I Like It</title><summary type='text'>Now, here's a funny ad from the Beef Board.  (The government-sanctioned steak monopoly).  Sure, they artificially raise the price of beef, but how can you stay angry at an organization that makes fun of vegetarians.For more delicious information on all things beef, you can go to www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com.  Unfortunately, they don't sell beef related items like you can at the Pork Board's </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113088215459798507'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113088215459798507'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/11/i-like-it.html' title='I Like It'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113080313030599140</id><published>2005-10-31T18:58:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-10-31T18:58:50.343-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Samuel Alito...</title><summary type='text'>is the next contestant for the position of Associate Judge on the Supreme Court.  It seems like President Bush has actually paid lip service to, you know, federalism, strict constructionism, whatever you want to call it.  It's pretty much a victory for conservatives.Of course, liberals are going to hate it.The million dollar question is whether the Democrats are going to filibuster Alito's </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113080313030599140'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113080313030599140'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/10/samuel-alito.html' title='Samuel Alito...'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113080051789012885</id><published>2005-10-31T18:15:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-10-31T18:15:17.936-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Libertarians vs. Republicans</title><summary type='text'>As I look at the past five years of the Bush administration and especially the actions of Republicans over the past two months, I can't help but be driven to the Libertarian camp.  The thing is that there are a couple of things that I would have to reconcile to be a libertarian:I like federalism.  And I like the Consitution, especially the 10th Amendment.  Of course, nobody ever mentions the 10th</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113080051789012885'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113080051789012885'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/10/libertarians-vs-republicans.html' title='Libertarians vs. Republicans'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-113044808743418854</id><published>2005-10-27T17:21:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2005-10-27T17:21:27.470-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Air America</title><summary type='text'>While driving today, I got bored with the music on my XM radio, so I switch over to listening to some political stuff.  First Laura Ingraham, then Air America.Before going on about the obvious news of the day, I'd like to mention why Air America is doing so poorly as a start up.Their radio personalities are horrible.  The woman I listened to at 3 PM was hysterical.  And not in the haha funny that</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113044808743418854'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/113044808743418854'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/10/air-america.html' title='Air America'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-112933898002998781</id><published>2005-10-14T21:17:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2005-10-14T21:16:20.036-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Harriet Miers and the Budget</title><summary type='text'>Now that there's a brewhaha over Harriet Miers' nomination, there hasn't been a peep out of fiscal conservatives over the Bush plan to spend the nation into oblivion.  And there hasn't been any talk of moving the Medicare drug giveaway back a year either.Because that was really going to happen, moving the Medicare drug giveaway.  Nice to see that fiscal conservatives get thrown to the woodchipper</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112933898002998781'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112933898002998781'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/10/harriet-miers-and-budget.html' title='Harriet Miers and the Budget'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-112900251015386547</id><published>2005-10-10T23:35:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2005-10-10T23:48:30.160-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Smoking, New Jersey, and the moral law of age</title><summary type='text'>On CN8 tonight, a Comcast affiliate, some woman interviewed the Director of Public Health of New Jersey, who is proposing, with the Governor, raising the smoking age from 18 to 19. At the moment, there are 3 other states in the union that have it at that age (Alaska, Alabama, Utah), while all others are at 18. His argument is based on the nebulous concept of "public health." He trots out </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112900251015386547'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112900251015386547'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/10/smoking-new-jersey-and-moral-law-of.html' title='Smoking, New Jersey, and the moral law of age'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-112857640576404403</id><published>2005-10-06T01:02:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2005-10-06T01:26:45.780-04:00</updated><title type='text'>My return to political bloggery</title><summary type='text'>Since Mike resurrected Ye Olde Feedbagge, I too have felt the captain's itch to return to our politically-based shenanigans. So much has happened it's hard to know where to start. But I might as well start with the most recent Supreme Court nomination made by Bush.George Will recently saw fight to write this article (courtesy: Townhall.com) criticizing the Miers nomination. Will is an </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112857640576404403'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112857640576404403'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/10/my-return-to-political-bloggery.html' title='My return to political bloggery'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-112837428105041059</id><published>2005-10-03T17:20:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2005-10-03T17:18:01.083-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Harriet Miers</title><summary type='text'>What kind of political blog would this be without my two cents on the recent choice of Harriet Miers for Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court?A unique one.Well, I have about two cents of opinion on her nomination, so we'll see how this turns out.First of all, pretty much most of the conservative, non-Bush hacks have panned this nomination as an opportunity lost, pandering, alienating the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112837428105041059'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112837428105041059'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/10/harriet-miers.html' title='Harriet Miers'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-112802045676227206</id><published>2005-09-29T14:57:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2005-09-29T17:29:52.303-04:00</updated><title type='text'>The Return of the Feedbag</title><summary type='text'>Yes, Ladies and Gents, the Political Feedbag has returned after it's... 7 month hiatus.  Right, now I plan on writing mostly economics related stuff, but if there is stupidity out there, then I'll find it.  And write about it.But for now, I'm going to just put all of my more recent gas pricing related ramblings on here.  I'm going to go ahead and back-date them from when I wrote them, so the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802045676227206'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802045676227206'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/09/return-of-feedbag.html' title='The Return of the Feedbag'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-112802882121554961</id><published>2005-09-23T16:45:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2005-09-29T17:21:21.406-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Allen's "Response"</title><summary type='text'>UGHI'm right on the gas thing... with shortages and higher prices.  Still, some stations have kept their prices around $2.599 or so.  Which means that if someone had actually contacted me and made the bet, I'd be out 500 somethings.  Meanwhile, today has been more or less a waste of a day.  And I did manage to get up at 8:30 this morning.  However, I've had a headache all day and been really </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802882121554961'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802882121554961'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/09/allens-response.html' title='Allen&apos;s &quot;Response&quot;'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-112802874174640199</id><published>2005-09-22T18:47:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2005-09-29T17:21:52.666-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Hurricanes and Economics</title><summary type='text'>HURRICANES AND ECONOMICSThere's two things that I'm wondering about right now.  The first is the fact that economists have been wondering whether Katrina (and I suppose Rita), will have a negative or positive effect on the US economy.  I, being the depressive economist that I am, was more bearish than was orignially thought.  But then I ran across something on www.cafehayek.com that struck me as </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802874174640199'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802874174640199'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/09/hurricanes-and-economics.html' title='Hurricanes and Economics'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-112802863709841301</id><published>2005-09-21T18:23:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2005-09-29T17:17:17.100-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Hurricane Stuff - Part 7</title><summary type='text'>RITA AND GASIf you people haven't learned anything yet, it's that you should always, always beat the trends.  You know what the trend is now...I just came back from filling up Luisa's van.  Price/gallon:  $2.609  Odds it'll stay there this time Sunday:  500-1Yes, I'll give someone 500-1 odds that the gas in the Columbia area will NOT be cheaper than $2.599 at the cheapest station.  And that's </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802863709841301'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802863709841301'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/09/hurricane-stuff-part-7.html' title='Hurricane Stuff - Part 7'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-112802838727039407</id><published>2005-09-01T16:15:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2005-09-29T17:13:07.270-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Hurricane Stuff - Part 6</title><summary type='text'>YET ANOTHER GAS UPDATEWhen I drove back from lunch with Luisa, I saw that the two stations at the corner of Huger and Blossom were operating again.  In fact, the BP was getting refilled even as I went by.  Of course, the price for regular unleaded was $3.20 a gallon.  Thus, there wasn't a run on gas.  Yet.  But most people were at work at that point, so it'd be more interesting to see if everyone</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802838727039407'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802838727039407'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/09/hurricane-stuff-part-6.html' title='Hurricane Stuff - Part 6'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-112802828411555472</id><published>2005-09-01T13:56:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2005-09-29T17:11:24.116-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Hurricane Stuff - Part 4</title><summary type='text'>MORE GAS MUSINGSApparently there hasn't been any gouging going on in the Columbia area like I had possibly thought, but that's mostly because every station is running out of fuel.  They didn't have enough time to jack their prices up to $5 a gallon, like what's going on in Atlanta apparently.  I also read the story in the Miami Herald about how prices are going up and there are fears of there </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802828411555472'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802828411555472'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/09/hurricane-stuff-part-4.html' title='Hurricane Stuff - Part 4'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-112802818779301906</id><published>2005-08-31T19:45:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2005-09-29T17:09:47.796-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Hurricane Stuff - Part 3</title><summary type='text'>WHEN YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE RIGHTWhen I said that I had to go out Monday night to get gas before prices shot up to $2.75, apparently I was wrong.  They were at or above $3.00 as I drove around today.  And there were freaking lines at the gas stations for the $2.90 gas in Columbia.  Boy, did these jokers screw the pooch, but they probably didn't comprehend the fact that gas prices were going to </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802818779301906'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802818779301906'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/08/hurricane-stuff-part-3.html' title='Hurricane Stuff - Part 3'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-112802808986695811</id><published>2005-08-30T17:39:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2005-09-29T17:08:09.866-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Hurricane Stuff - Part 2</title><summary type='text'>LET THE GOUGING BEGINI thought I was being facetious when I said that I was going to get gas last night before gas reached $2.75.  Well, the joke is on everyone else now that prices around here have already began to rise.  At the same station I paid $2.40 a gallon last night, is now up to $2.60.  Other stations (where I would never buy gas anyway) have already put prices up to $2.70.  Still there</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802808986695811'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802808986695811'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/08/hurricane-stuff-part-2.html' title='Hurricane Stuff - Part 2'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-112802793994347532</id><published>2005-08-29T18:41:00.000-04:00</published><updated>2005-09-29T17:05:39.953-04:00</updated><title type='text'>Hurricane Stuff - Part 1</title><summary type='text'>HURRICANE STUFFSomeone, let's call him Jeff, just asked me whether the hurricane is a good thing or a bad thing?  Of course it's a bad thing, but he thinks otherwise because port operators will be able to fire unionized harbormasters and thus save money by going to computerized/mechanized port operations.  Without going into the economics of the situation or politics (I don't see them getting </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802793994347532'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/112802793994347532'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/08/hurricane-stuff-part-1.html' title='Hurricane Stuff - Part 1'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110997743306101810</id><published>2005-03-04T17:14:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-03-04T18:03:53.063-05:00</updated><title type='text'>State of the Union - Part 4</title><summary type='text'>This part deals with President Bush's proposals for his social issues.  You can read part 1, part 2, and part 3 at the links.  Also, you can read the transcript from CNN.com here.President Bush abandoned his compassionate conservative moniker for the 2004 election.  So you can imagine why this section of his speech is much shorter than his other sections.  Plus can you imagine Laura Bush as the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110997743306101810'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110997743306101810'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/03/state-of-union-part-4.html' title='State of the Union - Part 4'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110936047550950734</id><published>2005-02-25T14:31:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-25T14:41:15.510-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Animal Rights and Candy?</title><summary type='text'>Here's a news story from CNN about animal rights people getting their proverbial panties in a bunch over a new roadkill candy.http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/25/roadkill.candy.ap/index.htmlI can see why the animal rights people would get upset.  They're always trying to indoctrinate little children over animal "rights" and having kids eat this kind of candy would probably set back their cause.  The</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110936047550950734'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110936047550950734'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/02/animal-rights-and-candy.html' title='Animal Rights and Candy?'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110928886107225982</id><published>2005-02-24T18:46:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-24T18:47:41.073-05:00</updated><title type='text'>My advice: make the girl swallow</title><summary type='text'>http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm2975_20050224.htmWhen I read that article, the first thing that came to mind was, "Do our courts have nothing better to do with their time?" I especially like the statement "transfer of property title" in reference to blowing your load in the girl's mouth. What the fuck is wrong with people. That's all I can really say about any of this.</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110928886107225982'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110928886107225982'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/02/my-advice-make-girl-swallow.html' title='My advice: make the girl swallow'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110921669260955761</id><published>2005-02-23T20:56:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-23T22:44:52.613-05:00</updated><title type='text'>State of the Union - Part 3</title><summary type='text'>Here are the links for Part 1 and Part 2.  You can also follow the transcript on cnn.com.It looks like President Bush is going to put a large chunk of his political capital in attempting to touch the third rail of American politics.  And the problem is that I really don't see how his plan could work right now.The first thing he starts off with is a reassurance to all 55 and over Americans that he</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110921669260955761'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110921669260955761'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/02/state-of-union-part-3_23.html' title='State of the Union - Part 3'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110910369705119831</id><published>2005-02-22T15:10:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-22T15:21:37.053-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Amtrak</title><summary type='text'>http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/21/amtrak/index.htmlIt's nice to see that the Bush administration is finally weaning the passenger rail industry off the government money that it has grown accustomed to.  The politicization of passenger rail has been known for a long time, with Amtrak running inefficient routes just so that a certain state or community can say that they have train service.</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110910369705119831'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110910369705119831'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/02/amtrak.html' title='Amtrak'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110910249460618950</id><published>2005-02-22T14:48:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-22T15:01:34.606-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Kyoto</title><summary type='text'>Today the Kyoto Protocols went into effect, with the US not being on board at all.  This is an obvious defeat for internationalists and environmentalists alike.  Internationalists because the US soundly rejected an internationally backed plan, and environmentalists for the obvious reasons.  Simply put, this was a nice piece of triangulation by the Clinton administration that had a snowball's </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110910249460618950'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110910249460618950'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/02/kyoto.html' title='Kyoto'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110895815749046331</id><published>2005-02-20T22:07:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-20T22:55:57.493-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Jesse Jackson At It Again</title><summary type='text'>I was flipping through the channels and found this on the local (Greenville, SC) Fox station.http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=2975583The piece de resistance is this quote by Jackson:The killing is a hate crime and that is illegal and unacceptableFirst of all, we don't know what the situation is that the police officers faced.  That's why there is an investigation ongoing.  But the "</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110895815749046331'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110895815749046331'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/02/jesse-jackson-at-it-again.html' title='Jesse Jackson At It Again'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110877857436115654</id><published>2005-02-18T19:11:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-18T21:02:54.366-05:00</updated><title type='text'>State of Union - Part 2</title><summary type='text'>It's been a week so now it's time for the second installment of the series on the State of the Union address.  You can see the first part here.  And you can see the transcript on cnn.comFirst point is the budget.  Pres. Bush writes that he welcomes the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending restraint.  He then goes on to say that he's going to hold discretionary spending below inflation.  Finally he </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110877857436115654'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110877857436115654'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/02/state-of-union-part-2_18.html' title='State of Union - Part 2'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110819569285517149</id><published>2005-02-12T01:07:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-12T03:08:12.860-05:00</updated><title type='text'>University professors and free speech</title><summary type='text'>The issue I am now going to attempt to address is that of Ward Churchill, professor at Colorado-Boulder and his remarks regarding the 9/11 attacks. See the below link to the Denver Post which has a great collection of articles documenting the entire situation.http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E23827%257E2678527,00.htmlThis was a hard issue for me to consider personally. It came down </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110819569285517149'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110819569285517149'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/02/university-professors-and-free-speech.html' title='University professors and free speech'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110791083351614179</id><published>2005-02-08T19:48:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-08T20:00:33.516-05:00</updated><title type='text'>State of the Union - Part 1</title><summary type='text'>Over the past couple of days, I had been putting up my responses to the President's State of the Union address.  Or at least I thought it was his address from this year.  Instead, it was the speech from 2003.  So if you've been following along, I apologize.  Instead I'll be starting tonight with the 2005 speech.  And this time I'm sure that it's the 2005 speech.  Ok, on to the introduction, </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110791083351614179'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110791083351614179'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/02/state-of-union-part-1_08.html' title='State of the Union - Part 1'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110759241788227702</id><published>2005-02-05T03:18:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-05T03:33:37.883-05:00</updated><title type='text'>NY Court strikes down same-sex ban</title><summary type='text'>http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/04/ny.gaymarriage.ap/index.htmlA NY state supreme court judge today declared unconstitutional a ban on same-sex marriage in the state. As I argued persuasively in 2 separate blogs, the issue was equality and the court found that it was simply not equal to treat same-sex couples differently on the issue of marriage then heterosexual couples. The state is quoted as </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110759241788227702'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110759241788227702'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/02/ny-court-strikes-down-same-sex-ban.html' title='NY Court strikes down same-sex ban'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110751636165983717</id><published>2005-02-04T03:46:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-04T06:26:01.660-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Libertarian theory and the free market</title><summary type='text'>I don't honestly know how many times I am going to discuss the government and its abuse of our money. I imagine more than any of you care to know. But this is our blog and we can damn well rant about what we want. I shall return to gov't vs religion in due time. But first I should make it known I have taken 1 economics course, ever. That was Econ 2005, Microeconomics. Mike is in grad school for </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110751636165983717'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110751636165983717'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/02/libertarian-theory-and-free-market.html' title='Libertarian theory and the free market'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110740688170506854</id><published>2005-02-02T23:46:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-03T00:01:21.706-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Gay marriage</title><summary type='text'>I thought I'd be able to avoid this topic, I ventured into it in my last post and my friend put forth some interesting comments which I will now ponder, muse and argue with."Marriage is in fact a religious institution. As such, the state has no cause to recognize ANY marriage."You're right Brian. I said that. And that means the state is obligated to back off of using the word marriage, at all</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110740688170506854'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110740688170506854'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/02/gay-marriage.html' title='Gay marriage'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110733695248566003</id><published>2005-02-02T04:24:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-02T04:35:52.486-05:00</updated><title type='text'>An "apology" for lynching?</title><summary type='text'>I see that one of my genius Senators, George Allen, today proposed an apology for a lack of Senate action in proposing anti-lynching legislation. This apology only lacks a few things to make it at all valid: a) direct culpability at having troubled someone. Allen was by no stretch of the imagination alive during the time when lynchings were prevalant and blacks lacked civil rights.; b) victims to</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110733695248566003'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110733695248566003'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/02/apology-for-lynching.html' title='An &quot;apology&quot; for lynching?'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110728753634663058</id><published>2005-02-01T14:21:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-01T14:52:16.346-05:00</updated><title type='text'>An Open Letter</title><summary type='text'>Dear Peter Beinart, et al.,In response to your letter posted in the Weekly Standard on Jan. 28, 2005, I would like to publicly disagree with your proposal to increase the size of the Army and Marines over the next couple of years.  First of all, and most importantly is the question of where the military will get these new recruits.  While the Army has not met a problem with recruiting since 9</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110728753634663058'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110728753634663058'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/02/open-letter.html' title='An Open Letter'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110723847654874529</id><published>2005-02-01T01:47:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-02-01T01:14:36.550-05:00</updated><title type='text'>College textbooks, the free market and you</title><summary type='text'>http://www.collegiatetimes.com/index.php?ID=4931The Collegiate Times first alerted me to the following bill introduced in the Va House of Delegates, called the Textbook Market Fairness Act which alleges that textbook prices are far too high, and would require college professors to make the required textbook list available immediately upon "decision" so vendors other than college bookstores </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110723847654874529'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110723847654874529'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/02/college-textbooks-free-market-and-you.html' title='College textbooks, the free market and you'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110721248774054392</id><published>2005-01-31T17:40:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-01-31T18:01:27.740-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Dean the Frontrunner</title><summary type='text'>From the Washington Post (registration required)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51686-2005Jan31.htmlThis isn't the first time that Dean's name has been mentioned on this blog (see here and here)I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong in my prognostication skills.  I had thought that Dean's loony leftism would not be a draw to a party that was looking to regain the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110721248774054392'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110721248774054392'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/01/dean-frontrunner.html' title='Dean the Frontrunner'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110696030449367318</id><published>2005-01-28T19:13:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-01-28T19:58:24.493-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Economic Insanity</title><summary type='text'>Here's an article from the Mises Insitute about a new book by Steven Landsburg.http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1725This is the second time that I've come across the name of Steven Landsburg in the past two weeks.  The first time was concerning a question in my Public Finance class.  The question went as follows:In his book The Armchair Economist, Steve Landsburg writes:  "The only sort</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110696030449367318'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110696030449367318'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/01/economic-insanity.html' title='Economic Insanity'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110690879974934983</id><published>2005-01-28T04:43:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-01-28T05:39:59.750-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Legalize it</title><summary type='text'>I'm taking up this cross because it was a recent debate on the lacrosse forum I moderate. It should come as no surprise, I believe marijuana should be decriminalized, if not legalized. I'm going to lay down the basis behind why I believe this. Hopefully, whether you agree or not, I will provide some thought-provoking evidence for you to consider.First, I have never smoked pot in my life. Never.</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110690879974934983'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110690879974934983'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/01/legalize-it.html' title='Legalize it'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110685556005368364</id><published>2005-01-27T14:36:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-01-27T14:52:40.053-05:00</updated><title type='text'>In Search Of</title><summary type='text'>That's the name of an article appearing today on the Daily Standard.  Here's the link:In Search OfTerry Eastland writes that the Democratic Party may finally be starting to moderate their views on the abortion issue.  The major source of this possible moderation is that Hillary Clinton made a statement at a pro-abortion rally saying that the Democratic Party needs to open up to voters "beyond</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110685556005368364'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110685556005368364'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/01/in-search-of.html' title='In Search Of'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110673513921091696</id><published>2005-01-26T04:48:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-01-27T14:08:06.590-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Male and female intelligence variations</title><summary type='text'>The issue at hand is the remarks of one Lawrence Summers, current President of Harvard and former Treasury Secretary for Bill Clinton. The event: an economic conference attended by some of the brightest minds in academia, people that should be considered scientists. What did Summers say? He discussed, in a roundabout fashion, the lack of women in teaching positions in the hard sciences i.e., math</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110673513921091696'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110673513921091696'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/01/male-and-female-intelligence.html' title='Male and female intelligence variations'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110672076587039661</id><published>2005-01-26T01:08:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-01-26T05:28:42.420-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Government waste and pork spending</title><summary type='text'>The following link contains the pork barrel spending in what is called the 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, or what I like to call "Nyah nyah we got your tax money and watch us blow it on unconstitutional bullshit."http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&amp;PageID=53126I'm going to point out just a few of my favorites. Read the whole list, it is </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110672076587039661'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110672076587039661'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/01/government-waste-and-pork-spending.html' title='Government waste and pork spending'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110668085254539476</id><published>2005-01-25T14:00:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-01-25T14:20:52.546-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Hybrid Liberalism</title><summary type='text'>Here's an article from the Weekly Standard on another one of those wonderful tax breaks to the rich.  Being the true economist that I am, then there's really no good that can come from this tax break.  Ignoring (for the moment) of the regressive income redistribution that comes from the data supplied in the article, the article misses the big picture.  The idea that we need to subsidize the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110668085254539476'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110668085254539476'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/01/hybrid-liberalism.html' title='Hybrid Liberalism'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110661489325677410</id><published>2005-01-24T19:27:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-01-24T20:01:33.256-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Affirmative Action</title><summary type='text'>At Mike's direction, I will now take up the axe and direct it toward the issue of affirmative action.I believe in everyone's right to liberty. That is fundamental. I also believe almost as powerfully in private property rights as the cornerstone of a free society. In other words, I believe people have the right to do what they want as long as it does not infringe on either of these principle </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110661489325677410'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110661489325677410'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/01/affirmative-action.html' title='Affirmative Action'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110659647789663555</id><published>2005-01-24T14:34:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-01-24T14:54:37.896-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Mike's New US Government</title><summary type='text'>Dan already gave his version in the previous post, so I figure it's my turn to write on this topic as well.I too would prefer to have a government that is much smaller than the one that is currently in place.  My model government would keep the same basic features that are currently in the Constitution.  That is, I wouldn't make any changes to the constitution except for the ones listed below.</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110659647789663555'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110659647789663555'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/01/mikes-new-us-government.html' title='Mike&apos;s New US Government'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110645111511440257</id><published>2005-01-22T22:09:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-01-22T22:31:55.113-05:00</updated><title type='text'>The new U.S. government</title><summary type='text'>I can't quite get on board with the radical libertarians who would abolish all government, what most people call anarchy. But there are only a few isolated things I want the government doing. And there's a lot of things they're going to not consider doing.Rather than start anew, I'm going to hack and slash my way through the current government. First, every department is history except: </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110645111511440257'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110645111511440257'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/01/new-us-government.html' title='The new U.S. government'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110619503124934783</id><published>2005-01-19T23:21:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-01-20T00:26:22.206-05:00</updated><title type='text'>The Conservative Case for South Park</title><summary type='text'>Tonight's episode of South Park had a meaning behind it.  To summarize shortly, people from the future arrive in South Park looking for jobs because the future is so overpopulated and there are no jobs for these people.  As a result, they'll work for much lower wages, that they hope to save and then have available in the future for their families.  The people from the future take all the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110619503124934783'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110619503124934783'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/01/conservative-case-for-south-park.html' title='The Conservative Case for South Park'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110618151326261595</id><published>2005-01-19T19:28:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-01-19T19:38:33.263-05:00</updated><title type='text'>The Bush inauguration</title><summary type='text'>This blog begins mostly in frustration. I'm sick of seeing people say that "Bush should send the $40 million to the tsunami relief." Let's take a closer look at this.1. The $40 million is not government money. It is money sent in my private donors for a ticket to an inauguration ball where the President would be in attendance. The money paid for an advertised good and failure to provide that </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110618151326261595'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110618151326261595'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/01/bush-inauguration.html' title='The Bush inauguration'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110574453225712454</id><published>2005-01-14T17:37:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-01-14T18:16:40.946-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Bush's Tax Reform Committee</title><summary type='text'>Dan gave me the link below and said that I should be the one to comment on it, since I'm the economist of the duo.  And I'm not one to back down from a challenge.Anyway, here's the article that Dan sent me:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20050112.shtmlI've also come across a post by Larry Kudlow on the same topic.  Here's the address for that as well:http://</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110574453225712454'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110574453225712454'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/01/bushs-tax-reform-committee.html' title='Bush&apos;s Tax Reform Committee'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110564766261124185</id><published>2005-01-13T14:03:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-01-13T15:21:02.610-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Book Review:  State of Fear</title><summary type='text'>For Christmas, I received Michael Crichton's new book, State of Fear.  I am a big fan of his work, but I didn't have any idea of what to expect with this novel.  I didn't know how much of a scientific bent the book would make or that it had to deal with enviromentalism at all.If you want to know about the characters and a basic idea of what the plot of the book is, then here are some links to </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110564766261124185'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110564766261124185'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/01/book-review-state-of-fear.html' title='Book Review:  State of Fear'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110548316103900680</id><published>2005-01-11T17:19:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2005-01-11T17:39:21.040-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Tsunami relief</title><summary type='text'>First, my prayers go out to those who have lost loved ones in the tsunami. The catastrophic loss of human life in a senseless tragedy should be mourned. With that said, I'm going to state something some will find heretical: It is not the government's job to send foreign aid monies for tsunami relief. After prodding, poking, hemming, and hawing, America's contributions by the President stand at </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110548316103900680'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110548316103900680'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2005/01/tsunami-relief.html' title='Tsunami relief'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110369145825011198</id><published>2004-12-21T23:39:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-21T23:57:38.250-05:00</updated><title type='text'>The fetus and the murderer</title><summary type='text'>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20041221.shtmlLisa Montgomery, 36 year old married mother of 2 residing in Missouri, murdered Bobbie Jo Stinnett, 8 months pregnant, and then removed the fetus from the victim, fled to Kansas,  and proceeded to show her off around town as Montgomery's own, including to her church pastor.Those are the facts of the situation. All that's left is the</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110369145825011198'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110369145825011198'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/fetus-and-murderer.html' title='The fetus and the murderer'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110315971232166647</id><published>2004-12-15T19:46:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-15T20:15:12.320-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Bush and a Strong Dollar</title><summary type='text'>Bush Pledges Strong Dollar PolicyThis doesn't come as much of a surprise since we want to maintain the appearance that we keep the dollar at the same strong level that we've had it at during the 1990's.  The problem is that we're now approaching 2005 and we've been running some pretty big fiscal deficits over the past couple of years.  That means that President Bush needs to take a real stab at</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110315971232166647'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110315971232166647'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/bush-and-strong-dollar.html' title='Bush and a Strong Dollar'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110295597698261668</id><published>2004-12-13T11:35:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-13T11:39:36.983-05:00</updated><title type='text'>527's</title><summary type='text'>Dan and I were just watching CNN Headline News (aka news for idiots with 5 second attention spans) and saw a graphic on how much 527's raised in contributions for the 2004 elections.  It said that the Pro-Kerry/Anti-Bush 527s raised more than twice as much money as the Pro-Bush/anti-Kerry groups.  And liberals want to get rid of 527s, just like they wanted to get rid of soft money contributions </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110295597698261668'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110295597698261668'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/527s.html' title='527&apos;s'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110295282005517164</id><published>2004-12-13T10:31:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-13T10:47:00.056-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Dean's December</title><summary type='text'>That's the title of an article on the Weekly Standard website by Jonathan Last.  Basically it goes over in detail what's next for the brash former Vermont governor.  It mentions how Dean fails to mention John Kerry in his speeches and on Dean's website.It remains to be seen what kind of political future Dean has inside the Democratic party.  As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, if Dean </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110295282005517164'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110295282005517164'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/deans-december.html' title='Dean&apos;s December'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110295174980126017</id><published>2004-12-13T10:17:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-13T10:29:09.800-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Give me wine, lots of wine grown under starry skies above</title><summary type='text'>The issue: Some state laws restricting sales of wine by its residents to in-state wineries through prohibition of Internet and phone sales.Why it matters: For once, the Constitution covers the situation without having to slice and dice it.http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/174823_scotuswine25.html?searchpagefrom=1&amp;searchdiff=2Here's the 411.  The following states: Michigan, New York, </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110295174980126017'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110295174980126017'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/give-me-wine-lots-of-wine-grown-under.html' title='Give me wine, lots of wine grown under starry skies above'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110273388428084450</id><published>2004-12-10T21:54:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-10T21:58:04.280-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Holiday Season Giving for Our Troops</title><summary type='text'>I found this on a couple of websites  (Galley Slaves and Hugh Hewitt's website) and thought that this would be a really nice gesture to make during the holiday season.  I've already gone ahead and sent in a phone card that I'm not using.  I hope other people make a similar gesture during this holiday season.Here's the email:Finally, from a naval officer I respect a great deal, an e-mail on how </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110273388428084450'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110273388428084450'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/holiday-season-giving-for-our-troops.html' title='Holiday Season Giving for Our Troops'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110272603592314826</id><published>2004-12-10T19:31:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-10T19:48:55.123-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Ganging up on the BCA</title><summary type='text'>I too was going to write a post about the BCA's call for a boycott of black players and coaches of USC (South Carolina, not Southern Cal).  The problem that I have with the call for a boycott is that this is just a matter of the BCA feeling slighted that they weren't consulted in the process.  The BCA doesn't need to be consulted if the school has one candidate in mind and it just so happens that</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110272603592314826'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110272603592314826'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/ganging-up-on-bca.html' title='Ganging up on the BCA'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110272385686534613</id><published>2004-12-10T19:10:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-10T19:25:47.506-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Marginal Revolution: Mirror, mirror on the wall</title><summary type='text'>Marginal Revolution: Mirror, mirror on the wallMarginal Revolution is a blog by two George Mason economics professors.  I make sure to read it every day if I can.  They come up with some great things on their site.Anyway, this was a great post.  There's the comment by Paul Krugman, who by all means is a marginal economist.  This was the comment that really set me off:For Social Security is a </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110272385686534613'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110272385686534613'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/marginal-revolution-mirror-mirror-on.html' title='Marginal Revolution: Mirror, mirror on the wall'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110254375623574213</id><published>2004-12-08T17:03:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-08T17:09:16.236-05:00</updated><title type='text'>BCA: We're Black and it's YOUR FAULT</title><summary type='text'>http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1941831Not content to erroneously race-bait Notre Dame for its firing of Ty Willingham, the Black Coaches Association have issued a statement for black players and assistant coaches to boycott University of South Carolina. A direct quote: "The group's director, Floyd Keith, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that South Carolina never contacted the </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110254375623574213'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110254375623574213'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/bca-were-black-and-its-your-fault.html' title='BCA: We&apos;re Black and it&apos;s YOUR FAULT'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110245722814702385</id><published>2004-12-07T16:47:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-07T17:07:08.146-05:00</updated><title type='text'>No Big Surprise Here</title><summary type='text'>Dems' pick for DNC leader will draw new map for partyOf course, the new leader will have to draw a new map for the party, it's obvious that the old map didn't work.  I'm not all that surprised that this was all USA Today had on McAuliffe:McAuliffe wins high praise for expanding the Democrats' donor base and raising more money this year than the Republicans.Of course, it doesn't mention the fact</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110245722814702385'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110245722814702385'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/no-big-surprise-here.html' title='No Big Surprise Here'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110231224448662148</id><published>2004-12-06T01:46:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-07T16:14:27.666-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Stevie Wonder blasts Eminem</title><summary type='text'>Stevie Wonder blasts EminemStevie Wonder is apparently disappointed in Eminem for his portrayal of Michael Jackson in his video "Just Lose it" where Eminem mocks the king of pop for his varying race + the pending child molestations charges.  Although when Wonder says that Eminem shouldn't kick him while he's down, he stops short of suggesting the charges are false.  Would the black Michael </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110231224448662148'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110231224448662148'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/stevie-wonder-blasts-eminem.html' title='Stevie Wonder blasts Eminem'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110231017848464834</id><published>2004-12-05T23:56:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-06T00:16:18.483-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Meet the Press</title><summary type='text'>For the first time ever I watched "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert tonight and I think I could actually watch that show on a consistent basis, something I cannot say of any political talk show, even when the guys are coming from the same side of the spectrum as me.  I never watch CNN because it seems, to me, to do nothing but serve as a public fluff forum for any liberal that wants to look </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110231017848464834'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110231017848464834'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/meet-press.html' title='Meet the Press'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110230449712048255</id><published>2004-12-05T22:41:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-05T22:54:32.973-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Testing the Limits of Big Government</title><summary type='text'>Testing the Limits of Big GovernmentThis is an article from the Weekly Standard outlining an upcoming case to the Supreme Court.  For people like me who are federalists, I think the case is obvious that the federal law should be struck down in this case.  Of course, if the case involved interstate commerce, then I can definitely see where the law would have a reason to be upheld.I do agree </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110230449712048255'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110230449712048255'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/testing-limits-of-big-government.html' title='Testing the Limits of Big Government'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110221363015885825</id><published>2004-12-04T21:10:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-04T21:27:10.156-05:00</updated><title type='text'>More on "The Bell Curve" and Race</title><summary type='text'>I found this article on "The Bell Curve" in the Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_CurveThe more that I read about the book, the more I would to actually read the book.  It'll be interesting to see what the authors conclude and what the effect of those conclusions would be on American politics.  It looks to me that many people dismissed the claims as racist.  But then again, if </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110221363015885825'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110221363015885825'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/more-on-bell-curve-and-race.html' title='More on &quot;The Bell Curve&quot; and Race'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110221234386497425</id><published>2004-12-04T21:05:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-04T21:05:43.863-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Yahoo! News - College Board Challenges SAT Data on Web</title><summary type='text'>Yahoo! News - College Board Challenges SAT Data on WebThere's nothing new here that hasn't been said by other people before, especially that of the FairTest group.  The SATs discriminate against minorities, yada, yada, yada, we shouldn't have the SAT or any standardized testing for that matter.  I don't have a problem with standardized testing except for two things:1. There is a very high </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110221234386497425'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110221234386497425'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/yahoo-news-college-board-challenges.html' title='Yahoo! News - College Board Challenges SAT Data on Web'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110196865075336597</id><published>2004-12-02T01:17:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-04T21:33:28.980-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Ty Wilingham fired. News flash: It's his win-loss record, not his skin color</title><summary type='text'>BCA Press Release on Ty WillinghamTy Willingham was fired yesterday by Notre Dame after 1 good season (his first season) and 2 inaugural seasons, all 3 of which saw his Irish get routed by their archrival, So Cal Trojans (USC scored 93 pts in the 3 outings, including 41-10 this past Saturday).  But immediately, it's race race race race race. The BCA stirs from its slumber to point to his firing</summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110196865075336597'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110196865075336597'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/ty-wilingham-fired-news-flash-its-his.html' title='Ty Wilingham fired. News flash: It&apos;s his win-loss record, not his skin color'/><author><name>Dan</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/03538352013521323730</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102059.post-110193845310988839</id><published>2004-12-01T16:48:00.000-05:00</published><updated>2004-12-01T17:00:53.110-05:00</updated><title type='text'>Federalism</title><summary type='text'>Jonah Goldberg just put out an article on the National Review about how the left has returned to liking federalism.  Here's some quotes from the article that I particularly liked:The analogy I always use with college audiences is dorms. Imagine you've got ten dorms on a campus and a student population divided up into the usual coalitions: stoners, partiers, jocks, and so forth on one side, and </summary><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110193845310988839'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/9102059/posts/default/110193845310988839'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://politicalfeedbag.blogspot.com/2004/12/federalism.html' title='Federalism'/><author><name>Mike</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/09474509066017707326</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author></entry></feed>
