Hail to You presents an interesting theory about Watergate. I’ve read enough about Watergate to believe almost anything at this point.
The piece on Watergate goes nicely with John Derbyshire’s musings on the mythical Kennedys.
Random thought: Lots of men’s rights advocates believe that feminism has sought to destroy marriage. It’s odd that the advocates respond by refusing to get married.
About 30 minutes after I wrote the above thought, I read this great piece from Ferdinand [Update: it’s not by Ferdinand, it’s by Maximus]. He’s calling for patriarchy 2.0. "If men agree that we need to unite to defeat feminism, they are also simultaneously agreeing to defend the institution of marriage and family, for that is precisely what feminism was born to destroy in the first place. Therefore, the destruction of feminism is the rise and reinstatement of the institution of patriarchal marriage and family (albeit not in the same way as it was in the 1950s, obviously) as the primary locus and focus of societal organization." I couldn’t agree more.
Proponents of unfettered free trade have long claimed that lowering trade barriers will allow America to import more and more goods, eventually leading to greater economic prosperity. Period.
Proponents of unfettered free trade – at least those who understand economics – don’t give a damn about trade ‘deficits’ or ‘surpluses.’
I wonder how far one could take this. Assume there are only two parties in the economy – A and B. Is it really super awesome for A to borrow money from B to buy goods produced by B? I guess the answer is "yes" . . . until the answer is "no".