About Me

Name:John Ostrowski
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

It's been a while...

Posted by John Ostrowski on Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:34:50 PM
Apologies to all who have been checking the blog as of late. I realize that my posting has been rather sparse. This is not for lack of ideas, as I've had quite a few that I wanted to blog about, but simply for lack of time. I give you these three reasons:

1) I'm finishing up applications to grad school (Ph.D political science programs). They're due soon, and I'm putting the finishing touches on soon. 

2) It's finals time, and I've got quite a few papers to write.

3) Here's the big one: I scored a Nintendo Wii last Friday (been anticipating that for a while) and have been playing it quite a bit. Perhaps my next post will touch on the Wii (a decidedly unusual topic for this blog). I've been an avid Nintendo fan for quite some time (since the original NES) and so have been looking forward to the Wii for quite some time. It's been eating up a lot of my free time.

So, hopefully I can squeeze some good posts in sometime soon. If not, I'll try and post a good video every now and then to keep people amused until after this busy time is through (around Dec. 15).

Thanks for your patience.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bad suggestion, Newt

Posted by John Ostrowski on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:54:41 PM
Gingrich suggested that a "different set of rules" for freedom of speech may be necessary to combat terrorism.

Is Gingrich really dumb enough to propose limiting freedom of speech? The whole idea behind the natural rights in the Declaration and the rights enumerated in the First Amendment is that individuals posess them regardless of anything else. Not only should government not be allowed to limit them, they morally can't limit them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Watch the recycling myth deconstructed

Posted by John Ostrowski on Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:21:52 AM
H/t to Mises and Geeks Are Sexy:


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Consensus. So what?

Posted by John Ostrowski on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 9:48:04 PM
One of Townhall's partner groups, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii has a new article up that raises some interesting points. Global warming advocates have been running around flouting the fact that the consensus on the issue lies on their side. Skeptics have spent time questioning this assertion. Dr. Fox asks, what does consensus prove anyway? He quotes Michael Crichton, who is actually an MD:

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics ... In addition, let me remind you that the track record of consensus is nothing to be proud of.


This is a point I hadn't really contemplated, but it's true. Science is not about the beliefs of the majority, but about what empirical evidence points to. Claiming consensus on an issue is a cheap way to shut down debate on an issue. Why would global warming advocates be so keen to shut up the other side if they didn't feel threatened?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Update: Brownback is cool too

Posted by John Ostrowski on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:57:10 PM
Sam Brownback:

Oops, technical difficulties

Seeing as Brownback is a convert to Catholicism and very pro-life, I wouldn't mind seeing him nominated either. If it came down to Hagel and Brownback, I don't know who I'd pick. Brownback's got the Catholic points, but Hagel is more critical of the war in Iraq. It'd basically be a toss up. Either one, however, is better than McCain, Giuliani and Romney put together.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Romney: I'm the conservative

Posted by John Ostrowski on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 3:49:41 PM
Mitt Romeny is already working hard to paint himself as the conservative candidate in the fight for the GOP's nomination:

In an interview with The Examiner, Romney described himself as more conservative than Republican rivals McCain, R-Ariz., and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on a variety of issues. “We’re in a different place on immigration; we’re in a different place on campaign reform; we’re in a different place on same–sex marriage; we’re in a different place on the president’s policy on interrogation of detainees,” Romney said.

On one point I'll agree with him: just about anyone in the GOP is more conservative than Giuliani. I don't see anyway that Rudy can win once the GOP base starts to discover where he stands on the issues.

But when it comes to McCain, he's just dead wrong. McCain is a reliable vote against NARAL, has been a strong supporter of our troops, and is a budget hawk. Sure, there are issues on which McCain does horribly, such as the campaign finance reform. But his bad issues are heavily outweighed by his good issues. The GOP needs to nominate a pro-life candidate, and we can't trust Romney to be reliably pro-life. His change in stance on this issues reeks of political opportunism.

Of course, if I had my way, I'd see someone more pro-life than McCain or Romney nominated. But if it came down to a fight between those two candidates, I'd pick McCain all the way.

I'm going to post some collective issues stances from other Web sites for the four candidates listed in the story above (Giuliani, McCain, Romeny, and Gingrich).

Republican Liberty Caucus only has Gingrich and McCain:

Gingrich: LIFE | Republican | GA 06 p: 60 e: 78 c: 68.8 = Enterpriser

McCain: LIFE | Republican | AZ  p: 62 e: 79 c: 70.4 = Enterpriser

(Enterpriser is akin to be Libertarian-lite)

And here's OnTheIssues.org:

Romney:

Oops, technical difficulties

McCain:

Oops, techincal difficulties

Gingrich:

Oops, technical difficulties


Giuliani:

Oops, technical difficulties

Unfortunately, all the candidates are listed as moderates by OnTheIssues. Giuliani is clearly the least conservative, as he lies closer to Left-Liberal than Right-Conservative. Romeny is equally close to Populist and Right-Conservative. We don't want a Populist, though, as that is OnTheIssues sugar-coated name for Authoritarian. McCain and Gingrich are virtually indistinguishable on this spectrum, both leaning close to Right-Conservative and equidistant from Populist and Libertarian.

If I had my way, I'd like to see Chuck Hagel nominated. Unfortunately, to many Republicans today, the only issue that matters is the Iraq war. To them, if you're not a neoconservative, you're not a Republican/conservative. It's refreshing to see, however, that there are still Republicans out there that reject neocon nonsense (Hagel is also pro-life).

Here's RLC's rating on Hagel: LIFE | Republican | NE  p: 72 e: 86 c: 79.1 = Libertarian

And OnTheIssues:

Hagel:

Oops, technical difficulties

Nice. That's what we should be seeing in GOP nominations: right-leaning Libertarians.

**P.S.

I just took a VoteMatch political quiz to find out where I scored on the same spectrum (click the political philosophy circle at the top of the page to get the spectrum as a result):

John Ostrowski:

Oops, technical difficulties

Yeah, I'd say Hagel is my favorite candidate. I invite everyone to take the results and post their results on their blogs. If you do post your own political philosophy, let me know in the comments and I'll add a link to your blog in this post.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You don't need to be a musician...

Posted by John Ostrowski on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 2:17:25 AM
...to make music.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

To smoke or not to smoke?

Posted by John Ostrowski on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 12:22:08 AM
Dennis Prager answers that question in his latest column. I agree with his answer, as I myself love smoking cigars (and the occasional pipe) -- I enjoyed a Punch cigar earlier today with some Sam Adams Winter Lager.

Be cautioned, Prager relies heavily on anecdotal fallacies to bolster his case. Even though his conclusions are correct, the logic he uses to reach them doesn't work.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama: America's first dictator?

Posted by John Ostrowski on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 12:10:53 AM
First, let me say, I highly doubt that this republican democracy will, somehow, transition to a dictatorship anytime in the near future. However, if by some long shot we did become an autocratic state, there is no doubt in my mind that Obama would be the dictator of this nation.

Why? Why would I say that Obama, if anyone, would be the next dictator of our country. What do people know about the man? He's certainly very intelligent, very collected, an excellent public speaker, he oozes charisma, fairly good-looking, young, likable -- in other words, he has all the qualities necessary to be a populist dictator.

If I thought this country was going to be taken over by its own military, I certainly wouldn't pin Obama as the leader. It would definitely be some general who takes control. To be quite honest, I don't think that a populist movement is going to overturn the government either, but indulge my idea here. Obama is the perfect candidate to lead a populist movement. He's extremely liberal, but viewed as a moderate, and people love him because they see not a bleeding heart but an intelligent man. Living in Illinois, I was a witness to the terrible slaughter that was the 2004 Senate race, in which Obama wiped the floor with Keyes (I obviously voted for Keyes).

Yet, the people I talk to in Illinois have no reason for liking Obama other than he is attractive or smart or a good public speaker, or etc. No one says, "I agree with his stance on gun control." Most people don't know his stance on anything. He's an image. This pathetic state senator, who wouldn't have won his party's primary were it not for a scandal that rocked his opponent's campaign, took 75% of the vote in the general election. He has captivated this state and much of this nation. If there were to be a liberal populist movement, he would head it, and he would be dictator.

We have a duty, as citizens, to vote this man out of power. Delusions of grandeur have already infected his mind, as even though he is an inexperienced legislator with no executive experience, he is considering a presidential run. He must be stopped before this goes further.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservatives give more than liberals

Posted by John Ostrowski on Friday, November 17, 2006 3:03:09 PM
No real surprise here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More media bias with some big government on the side

Posted by John Ostrowski on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:33:05 PM
Want to see a biased story? The San Mateo Daily Journal is reporting that Belmont may soon ban all smoking in the city except for that which occurs in single residence homes.

Why do I say it is biased? There is not a single quote or piece of information in the story that was obtained from someone opposed to the ban. Not a single one. Every person this reporter talked to had nothing but glowing praise for the ban. The closest the story comes to criticism is citing a challenge that the law will be hard to enforce, but there is nothing about any opposition to the ban. Is it conceivable that everyone in the damn town is for it? I suppose. However, if that were the case, the ban would be unnecessary, because no one would be smoking anyway.

And yes, it's a disgusting example of big government. I'm not making a big deal about it because everyone else who writes about the story will. Of course we should be afforded the freedom to make personal choices, and because the evidence saying that second-hand smoke is deadly is so flimsy, there is no reason to punish people for actions that don't harm others.

But seriously, this is how to craft a biased story. I can't tell exactly who runs this news organization. It sounds like it might actually be run by San Mateo county, in which case it might be understandable that it's simply pro-government propaganda. However, the Web site also states that it strives to be "to be the most accurate, fair and relevant local news source for those who live, work or play on the MidPeninsula." It's not doing a very good job.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Down with traffic lights!

Posted by John Ostrowski on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:06:20 PM
Libertarian paradise LewRockwell.com linked to a story in the Telegraph detailing an experiment in a town in the Netherlends whereby traffic lights have been removed from intersections (well 80% have been removed, with rest to be gone soon):

The project is the brainchild of Mr Monderman, and the town has seen some remarkable results. There used to be a road death every three years but there have been none since the traffic light removal started seven years ago.

...

"It works well because it is dangerous, which is exactly what we want. But it shifts the emphasis away from the Government taking the risk, to the driver being responsible for his or her own risk.

"We only want traffic lights where they are useful and I haven't found anywhere where they are useful yet."

Mr Monderman, 61, compared his philosophy of motoring to an ice rink. "Skaters work out things for themselves and it works wonderfully well. I am not an anarchist, but I don't like rules which are ineffective and street furniture tells people how to behave."

I wouldn't call the results "remarkable" as the story does, given that it's simply one town and the change in death rate is probably within the margin of error. I also have a hard time conceptualizing a world without traffic lights. However, that is probably only because I've never experienced a world without traffic lights. The skating rink analogy is certainly an interesting one, though I'm not sure how well it holds up given that all traffic in a skating rink is circular (no one has to turn in front of other people in quite the same way cars do at intersections).

I'd certainly be willing to give it a shot if it's shown that it is either less dangerous/no more dangerous than the current system, especially given this line from the story:

Thus far, Drachten's drivers and pedestrians have voted the experiment a success.

"I am used to it now," said Helena Spaanstra, 24. "You drive more slowly and carefully, but somehow you seem to get around town quicker."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rudy begins his campaign

Posted by John Ostrowski on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:25:16 AM
Rudy Giuliani has filed papers to create an exploratory committee, allowing him to travel the country and gauge support for a presidential run without subjecting himself to federal spending rules for candidates. And so it begins.

Along with Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy is probably the biggest moderate Republican in the country. Both of these two men were elected in places where only moderate/liberal Republicans had a chance. Both also gave speeches at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

The conventional, but wrong, wisdom is that following the loss the GOP was just served in the 2006 election, they will have to nominate moderate candidates in 2008 to have any chance at winning back seats and maintaining the presidency. The media will undoubtedly cast the recent election as a repudiation of conservatism, whereas it should be cast as a repudiation of certain elements of the GOP (I would argue neoconservatism).

The AP article makes the point that Rudy is a moderate very clear:

The former mayor is a moderate who supports gun control, same-sex civil unions, embryonic stem-cell research and abortion rights - stands that would put him at odds with the majority of the GOP conservative base.

This is the main problem that Rudy faces. It seems to me that while Rudy may be undeniably popular with Republicans (indeed, with the nation as a whole), a good number of Republicans aren't terribly familiar with his stance on the issues outlined above. Instead, he is known as a close ally and supporter of President Bush, and vice versa, and thus is to be trusted by the Republican base. Unfortunately, President Bush has supported Arlen Specter in the past, so this isn't exactly the best standard to judge a candidate on.

Let me blunt about this: I would never consider voting for Rudy in 2008. Yes, he was a strong force in the events right after 9/11. I've read that he was a good mayor as well. However, a person with his views cannot be afforded the power to sign bills and appoint judges. If, for some reason, Justice Stevens does not retire in the next two years, he certainly will during the next president's term. Ginsburg is the next oldest, and then it is Scalia and Kennedy who are tied in age. Either way, the next president might play a big role in shaping the direction of the court.

At the same time, Giuliani would be a disaster legislatively. With Democratic majorities, the Brady Bill might rear its ugly head again. More importantly, Bush vetoed embryonic stem cell bills that passed with a large amount of support, while simultaneously signing bills that restricted abortion in certain ways. With Rudy as the executive, the opposite will happen.

I don't care what he says about taxes, about foreign policy, about the environment -- the right to life is the fundamental issue facing our society today. Rudy Giuliani will not protect life. If he somehow becomes the 2008 GOP nomination for president, I will not think twice about voting Constitution or Libertarian.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Will audiences forgive Mel?

Posted by John Ostrowski on Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:09:04 PM
That's the question that Peter Bart on Variety.com is asking. He says Gibson's new movie, Apocalypto, is being called "brilliant," but questions whether moviegoers will forgive Mel's comments about Jews.

To which I say, if movie goers and the Academy can forgive Roman Polanski, who drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl and then fled the country, I bet they can forgive a few drunken comments from Mel. Unless, of course, they're all hypocrites (oooh, my money for the Academy is on the latter).




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

This is why I won't become a journalist

Posted by John Ostrowski on Wednesday, November 08, 2006 7:31:50 PM
Yes, I'm a journalism student, but I'm not going into journalism as a profession (I'm currently applying to Poli Sci graduate programs). Here's why not.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »