Charles T.

Well, I voted for Bush once so, yeah, I guess I would. Nucular. Need I say more?

I am confident that Obama will lose in a landslide. If I had money to put into the market, I would do so in the days preceding the election, because it will skyrocket as soon as Obama loses. (I am not a professional investor, that's just my opinion.)

Thanks for mentioning this, Bill. I can't help but wonder: why isn't the first Sparrowhawk book available for the Kindle, while all the rest are?

I also have the Kindle 3. Love it. Being able to take dozens (eventually hundreds) of books with me wherever I go is wonderful. Biggest drawback for me: illustrations are pretty poorly rendered, and it's only black and white. I imagine a color Kindle is in the works. If I could do it over, I might get the Nook Color from Barnes and Noble. It's almost more of a tablet than merely an ereader, having a very functional web browser. Kindle has a web browser but it's almost unusable it's so slow. I never use it. I'm reading more than ever before because it's so convenient and accessible.

Thanks for posting that link. It's great to see Dr. Binswanger enlightening the world.

Wish I could say I was looking forward to this. Atlas Shrugged Is Filming CT

I think a column like that is very valuable. How many people ever take the time to attend such meetings of their local government? And I would think you could catch them in the act of trying to get away with many a boondoggle, which, one would hope, they would be discouraged from if they knew YOU were there to report it to the public. Great work.

I heard a lawyer on the radio (how's that for researching the issue?) say that the strongest point against the bill is that while they are trying to say it's permitted under the "commerce clause" of the Constitution, if someone refrains from buying insurance, there is no "commerce" to regulate. The non-purchase of something is not an act of commerce, so how can they regulate it? Which of course is absolutely correct, but which also will be completely ignored by the Communists who have taken over this country.

Well said. I completely agree with and support your resolution, and your plan of civil disobedience.

Great column, as usual, Brad. Thanks for it. Am forwarding it to everyone I know.

I heard something recently, might have been on Limbaugh, that a lot of schools have altered the grading scale so that an A is no longer a score of 90-100%, but is instead 85-100%, and a B is 70-85%, etc. Has anyone else heard of this, or know how common it is? I forget what they called it, "adjusted grading" or something like that.

I'm not doing that. Nor do I "look forward to" acts of violence that harm innocent people (which is why I left off the part of your sentence about involving innocent people), nor did I imply that you advocate such acts. Apparently I left too much unspoken and assumed no one would think such a thing. My point is the right of an individual to decide when he's had enough and refuses to continue living as a slave to others. This, of course, after he has exhausted non-violent means of protecting his rights. I say he has a right to make that determination, and whether it effects any "practical improvements" in a larger societal context is irrelevant to that issue. Do you not think there is such a point, where an individual has a moral right to decide to fight back against those who violate his rights, whether it's futile or not?

I would sincerely hope so, if the statism continues to increase. If "the system" does not work and these next elections do not result in substantive changes to our gov't's policies, what else is there but revolution or rebellion? That is, assuming you are not willing to live out the rest of your life as a sheep on a constantly shortening leash. As Mr. Harrington pointed out in what I believe was the first article he posted here, there really are still some Americans who would rather die than live that way.

How is it satire when you take the same thing you are supposedly mocking and use it as the standard by which to make your own product look good? They mock the "Green Police" as Nazi-like and horrible (I hope that's what they were doing) and then they try and flatter their own product by saying, "Look, these horrible people think our product is good by their horrible, wrong, evil, corrupt standards. So buy our product!" Explain to me the brilliance of that. Either they are completely illogical fools (which is entirely possible) or they are actually *extolling* the standards of the Green Police. Not that either of those is exclusive of the other, but I do not see any "brilliance" involved. Quite the opposite. It's really stupid and insulting. I spoke to a non-O'ist friend of mine and he was stunned that no one else with whom he saw the commercial reacted to it as he did, with disgust. He failed to see *any* satire in it at all, but interpreted it simply as a depiction of what the future holds, and it angered him. Do you think it's possible the makers of that commercial were NOT mocking the idea of a Green Police? The anteater still throws me for a loop. But if it was mockery and satire, why would they use those Green Police to try and make their product look good? This is straight out of the twilight zone. It simply makes no sense.

And why does one of the police officers have what looks to be an anteater on a leash, apparently sniffing the vehicles stopped in line? That reinforces my suspicion that the writers of the commercial are just being irrational, not really trying to make any sense, just shooting for stupid "humor."