Thag You Very Buch

Bilbo Baggins' cold-distorted words spring to mind, as I enjoy the company of what appears to be a rhinovirus. So I'll just make a few comments today, and do what the boggies do in Bored of the Rings, which is to say, lapse back into a coma, or at least a delirium, or uneasy drowsiness.

Where was I? Oh, yes, thank you very much for sticking with the Swamp in its vicissitudes. In a week or two, I plan to migrate this peripatetic blog to the new digs at WordPress, which I haven't yet finished. So . . . here's your chance to help out with some suggestions.

Mosey on over to the link and then give me your advice.

Links? What more should be added? I've got a fair amount, but I will miss some.

Design? Any thoughts on what's there? Ways to make it better? Things you like?

Commenting? Shall we use Haloscan? Mike LaRoche is using it over at SouthTexian. Nancy Catmull Matocha and cassandra may have some input as well. Mike K., too. And check out his post on how tax-loving Democrats ruin the fiscal structure of the states they move to.

Now here is an unplanned political rant goaded by what Mike K. wrote:

I emphatically agree that the most active Democrats, such as those who control the California Legislature, look on rich people and companies as suckers to be fleeced. They just assume this wealth will always be there, and don't know what to do when it leaves. They believe that social services are a natural right. And as Ayn Rand pointed out, this means those with the wealth and skills to provide these services are treated as slaves by those who don't have the skills.

It is one thing to say that it is a good deed for the wealthy to support the poor; quite another to make it an obligation to be enforced at the point of a gun. If you penalize wealth and success and reward poverty, guess what you're going to get?

Arnold showed some promise of being able to stem this tide. But he failed, and went along with the Democrats in supporting huge spending plans that have wrecked the state's budget again. Sadly, from my point of view, the Republicans who get it economically most often bring on a social conservative agenda I don't support. Moreover, social conservatives are motivated and energetic by their religious beliefs, while those who wish for economic and social freedom aren't similarly motivated.

Or to put it another way, libertarians (small-l and big-L) don't seem to have much support in either major party, the way Ronald Reagan managed to do with his grand coalition. So as someone of that libertarian persuasion, which rights do I vote to give up? My answer now is neither. I'd rather vote for a losing candidate, who stands for what I believe, than vote for a winner who doesn't stand for what I believe.

California doesn't even offer that bad choice now. California is sliding into a sea of Democratic welfare statism that if unchecked, will ruin its economy. I'm a native Californian, but Mike K. has lived here two years longer than I have. And what he sees of the Golden State's future should frighten all the state's citizens. It sure does me.

Don't laugh at our plight, Texas. You'll get your experience with Democratic nanny-staters before too long.

Click Here To Comment!