Slumming it at National Review

Does it get more conservative than the National Review Online? Sometimes reading them makes me feel like I need to shower. That having been said, at least the majority of the writers are genuine intellectuals. Sometimes they write posts that resonate with me, it's almost a perverse attraction. Here's one: They seem genuinely appalled that the government is using emminent domain to take over land for commercial development. Moreover they even seem to care about poor people and the fact that it isn't right! (Wow)

For those of you who haven't followed the case it's in New London CT. I grew up about 15 minutes away, and yes it's repressed. Bridge street is the only area in 50 miles with "streetwalkers". In terms of being a ghetto though, my home is in a worse neighborhood, and I live in one of the nicer parts of Philadelphia. I'm sorry to say it was the liberal judges that carried the day. I'll keep it in mind as nominees show...neither party believes government should leave people alone...conservatives want into your personal life and liberals want into your business.

Also in the news. NRO is pretty uniformly opposed to the flag-burning ammendment. Hello conservative think-tank types...put your money where your mouth is and tell your Republican Senators to quit it. While you're at it, can we do something about the House too? Everyone seems confident this would pass the States if it gets through the Senate, if so, it must be good right? Democracy right? Up or down vote, etc... I'm sensing the real deal is it's a populist issue, and intellectuals on both sides oppose it. The Senate is supposed to be a body of intellectuals who protect the State from populist sentiments. They've obstructed 6 times. Me and the NRO hope they pull it off again. Does the NRO feel bad rooting for Democratic Senators? As bad as I do siding with Scalia? (sorry for jumping backwards...let me reiterate...the Liberal judges sided with business over the people. Damn, that pisses me off).

Finally the majority of people who have read John Derbyshire find him a scary fucker. Who does he think is a scary fucker? Hillary Clinton.

She is icy mean and ruthless. As a shark lives only to swim and eat, Hillary lives to move through the political waters accumulating power. She is s-c-a-r-y.

Admit it, there's a case for cold-blooded ruthlessness in the White House. There are times you might want that -- really want it, more than you want strict-constructionist judges, more than you want federalism, more than you want to preserve marriage or restrain spending or keep women out of combat. Right after we lose our first city to a nuke, perhaps.

I'm reading between the lines but I think Derbyshire is actually getting sexually aroused. He fires mostly back-handed compliments, but underneith there is genuine respect...and admiration. Spank me Hillary, spank me, I've been bad!

I've long claimed that Clinton will wait to run until she's sure she will win. And I find she's not wrong often. I agree with the shark analogy, and I believe she'd do a great job.