Wonder how those OWS and Occupy Boston fools will hold up to this.  Hope this is the beginning of a long, cold winter.  If it would only start raining on the west coast... 

Overeducated morons looking to rationalize hedonism possible only in a wealthy civilization.  There are good biological reasons for marriage.  The survival of the species requires that successive generations reach child bearing age.  Marriage promotes this efficiently.  While the male may be biologically driven to spread his seed liberally, the logical extreme condition absent competing biological interests is polygamy where only the strongest males coputlate.  Makes for disharmony and instability not conducive to protection of the young and helpless.  Furthermore, until the last hundred years or so, it was damn near impossible for single women to, particularly in large numbers, to support both themselves and their children by their own efforts.  Still would be absent state subsidies.  Pairing a man with a woman was and remains an efficent solution to numerous survival problems.  

 Clinton, who was more interested in making dubious history by appointing the first female secretary of state rather than an effective secretary of state, failed to deal with North Korea decisively and effectively 15 years ago.  The cancer he ignored has now metastasized.  This is not to say that the handling of DPKR by the Bush administration was stellar.  DPKR has now become the nuclear armorer to anyone willing to pay them it for its hardware and services - the only exports it has.  When will the free world learn that coddling despots never solves the problem and only makes it progressively more difficult to deal with over time?  A fully nuke equipped middle east appears now to be only a matter of time, and not much time at that.  Sooner or later, and probably sooner rather than later, one of these unstable regimes is going to use its nukes.

While Palin is a little too socially conservative to fit with my libertarian leanings, I respect her intelligence and admire her integrity, gumption, and general grace in the face of the ridicule heaped on her by the left.  Nonetheless, she would not be in my top 5 choices for President of the United States and I hope she does not run anytime soon.

Mr. Warwick is correct in that it appears that McGinnis and his publisher have violated the "malice" standard set by the Supremes in NY Times v. Sullivan.  If the evidence pans out to more than a colorable claim, Ms. Palin would do the country a great service by suing McGinnis for everything he has and ever will earn and (hopefully) saddling his publisher with a huge punitive damages award.  While I am not overly optimistic that such an outcome would cause the left to focus on the issues rather than character asassination, it would at least cause them to pause before spreading outrageous fantasies that are unsupported by evidence. 

What seems to be lost in this conversation is the Kurds as a people who inhabit a contiguous region that happens to be divided among four different countries.  I don't know much about the Kurds, and have no first hand experience in the Middle East.  But I have read the Kurds have been successful in building a stable and peaceful society in Iraq, where they have had some form of autonomy for almost 20 years.  Why not support an independent Kurdistan?  If the Iraqi model were to spread, it would seem that they would be able to build a stable, peaceable, and productive country.  What claims do Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey have to Kurdistan, what is their validity?  Why are the Kurds willing to embrace a Maoist organization like the PKK?  Perhaps because they yearn to have their own country, free from ethnic oppression, and they are willing embrace anything that appears to offer a possibility of it to the point that they are blinded to such organizations' totalitarian ethos?  If supporting an independent Bosnia was justified, why isn't support for an independent Kurdistan?   

Holy Cow.  Less than a week into his campaign and it is starting to look like this guy habitually talks before he thinks.  Either he is not getting any advice, not getting good advice, or ignores his advisors and spouts off the first thing that comes to mind.  Given the scrutiny he will have to endure throughout the campaign, and what the left has done to Palin and Bachmann, the man either has to be blind or arrogant.  Anybody but Obama, but this guy may get himself marginalized and lose the so-called "independent" vote before he has a chance to make a play for it.  He may not be a good choice.

Not a big fan of cruising, generally.  I prefer smaller boats - anything from 8 to 85 feet.  But I must disagree with Ms. Berlinski and a Ricochet Cruise in the Med in April or October, not December, sounds fabulous.  See the sights by day, partake of interesting conversations, mayhaps some lectures and such, by night.  And, of course, the partying and camaraderie that will naturally arise.  The Ricochet get-togethers that are springing up around the country bode well for such a thing.  

By the way - I see this thread was prompted by a "tweet" from Jake Tapper.  Is Tapper a budding conservative or libertarian who is slowly, or maybe not so slowly, wandering off the legacy media reservation?

So, being well informed in Obama's version of Oceania means swallowing his, and The Party's, propaganda, hook, line, and sinker. 

Reminds me of my teenage utopian fantasies, and I would join in one of these "floating cities" in a heartbeat if I thought it would work for me.  However, I don't think they will need my skill set (law), and my age (60) works against me.  As Obamacare and its successor programs proceed, I can see a real market for offshore healthcare catering to people who can afford it and want free choice.  But making such a floating citystate succeed would require, at least at first, meaningful contributions - more than capital - from all of its adult citizens, given its small size.  Where this could go intrigues me.

Anecdotally, a Wisconsin now former liberal I have occasional business contacts with was thoroughly disgusted by the union antics at their state capitol this spring, and appears to finally be "getting it".  Don't know if he is located in any of the targeted districts, but if he is, I am reasonably certain he did or will vote for the Republican - unthinkable for him as recently as a year ago.

Does anybody know what the prospects are in the two remaining recall elections set for next week?  If one or both are close enough that there is a reasonable possibility for a GOP victory I would be willing to contribute a few bucks. 

We need to prepare for world war.  Eventually Iran's strength and our preceived weakness will make either war or our capitulation inevitable.  If Obama loses next year's election, particularly if a strong-on-defense candidate wins, look for Iran to strike in a big way either during the transition or shortly thereafter.  That, I think, is why they are in a hurry to arm with nukes - they perceive their opportunity to fulfill their dreams of first regional then world dominance is at hand, and will pass if we wake up. 

Lord Palmerston and George Freidman of Stratfor are in agreement - over time nations will always act in their own preceived interests.  Friedman goes further and posits that interests and opportunities are in large part dictated by geography.  Freidman has written extensively about Turkey and predicts that it will be a major world player over the next hundred years, as much because of geography as for any other reason. 

From what I pick up from Ms. Berlinski, it appears that Turkey's rise to prominence, as predicted by Freidman, will have more to do with the natural consequences of the hand they have been dealt than their playing of it.  Iran, on the other hand, is much less advantageously situated geographically and its attempt to rise to dominance may be thwarted for that reason alone, despite its regime's apparent superior strategic abilities.