You know, I find it bizarre to read about fascism descending on America, when (as always) it always descends on Europe. Well at least of you consider the UK part of Europe, which the people behind these civil rights monstrosities would like to.

We live in a country where young boys – one was just seven – are taken aside and questioned for trying to knock conkers out of chestnut trees on public ground. Where a grandmother whose neighbour accused her of not returning a ball kicked into her garden was arrested, fingerprinted and required to give her DNA. The police went through every room in her house, even her daughter’s drawers, before letting her go without charge or caution.

Where two sisters can be arrested after a peaceful protest about climate change, held in solitary confinement for 36 hours without being allowed to make a phone call, then told not to talk to each other as a condition of their bail. As this paper reported, their money, keys, computers, discs and phones were confiscated, their homes searched.

There is much more, all of it enabled by Blair’s laws and encouraged by a vindictive and erroneous contention that defendants’ rights must be reduced in the pursuit of more and quicker prosecutions. Our prisons are full, problem teenagers are, by default, exiled to a kind of outlawry and every citizen becomes the subject of an almost hysterical need by the authorities to check up on and chivvy them.

Heh.

Tell the base their votes won’t be counted, then wonder why they won’t vote – I will never be smart enough to be a Dem strategist.

I’ve been a long-time reader (and a rare poster) over there. It’s often a source for interesting news stories, and often quite amusing threads based on them. But Jim Robinson, the site founder and proprietor seems, to put it simply, to have gone nuts.

There have always been three topics that generate a lot of heat (and usually little light) over there: homosexuality, the War on (Some) Drugs, and evolution. It looks as though heretics who don’t believe in creationism will no longer be tolerated over there. Too bad–it was fun while it lasted.

Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians are all facing deep schisms. The Libertarians have been splintered by the war, as have the Dems, but these social issues are breaking down the long-time useful alliance between small-government conservatives and libertarians, and social conservatives within the Republican Party. It’s not clear whose split is worse, or what the long-term political consequences will be. I do think that it opens up room for a new political party of some type, perhaps by the disenchanted libertarians (e.g., me, Glenn Reynolds) who make up much of the blogosphere.

Lileks imitates Andrew Sullivan discussing the weather with Hugh Hewitt. Of course, you have to suffer through Hugh’s actual interview with Andrew to truly appreciate it.

Arnold Kling says that it’s the nature of politicians.

We have to expect mediocrity from political leaders. They are selected by a very unreliable process. In general, I try to avoid contact with narcissists who spend their time pleading for money. Those are hardly the intellectual and emotional characteristics that make someone admirable, yet they are the traits of people who go into politics.

…The libertarian view is that private institutions, both for-profit and non-profit, are better at problem-solving than government institutions. Regardless of whether political leadership is wise or mediocre, our goal should be to limit the damage that public officials can do. Do not demand that they “solve” health care, “fix” education, or launch a “Manhattan project” for energy independence. Even for experts, those are impossible tasks. The harder we press our existing leaders to address these issues, the more trouble they are going to cause.

That’s what it looks like the Australians have been doing with their gun buy-back program:

Although furious licensed gun-owners said the laws would have no impact because criminals would not hand in their guns, Mr Howard and others predicted the removal of so many guns from the community, and new laws making it harder to buy and keep guns, would lead to a reduction in all types of gun-related deaths.

…Politicians had assumed tighter gun laws would cut off the supply of guns to would-be criminals and that homicide rates would fall as a result, the study said. But more than 90 per cent of firearms used to commit homicide were not registered, their users were not licensed and they had been unaffected by the firearms agreement.

Yes, politicians assume all kinds of idiotic things.

As the US gets its 300 millionth resident, is Europe in one?

As the US gets its 300 millionth resident, is Europe in one?

As the US gets its 300 millionth resident, is Europe in one?

Kaus amusingly dissects some particularly stupid arguments against “the fence.”

7. “[E]fforts to protect pronghorn sheep and encourage the jaguar to return to the United States could be seriously affected.” We can patrol the whole border with high-tech cameras and “ground-based radar,” yet we can’t cut some holes for pronghorn sheep and patrol just them with cameras and “ground-based radar”? That would be something for the unionized border guards to do! But I guess we might have to give up the jaguar…. Oh wait, we don’t have jaguars. We might have to give up re-acquiring the jaguar. OK. Which will it be: No new jaguars or no new illegal immigrants. Let’s vote!