I am going to use this blog post to talk about a campus event I attended several days ago.  Knowing what kind of trouble figures as diverse as Paul Shirley and Pat Robertson got into when discussing the sensitive topic of Haiti, it is my goal to be as sober and careful as I can be in laying out my commentary here.
 

As I follow online the glory that is the Jets currently beating the Colts in the second quarter, I decided that there is not many better moments than to comment on world affairs.  So here it goes.

I was reading the New York Times for the day's scoop on world affairs (this is not a joke; I do in fact read the New York Times to get news).  One article caught my eyes.  It was titled "Anti-Chavez Channel is Taken Down."  Given my strong dislike for Mr. Chavez, I felt the need to comment on this event.

Prof Hasnas nails on the head with "What It Feels Like To Be A Libertarian" http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/FeelsLike.htm

It's so true and well worth the read. He's right: everyone thinks "if only we had more regulation to fix this" only not to realize that regulations got us here in the first place. If only Georgetown had more faculty like him.

I remember the Georgetown Federalist interviewing Professor Patrick Deneen in the past before Utraque Unum was founded. Maybe another faculty interview is in order...?

I thought it would be witty to riff off the title of one of John Hughes's many famous movies after his passing a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, real life got in the way of my well-laid plans, which makes this post now either completely tasteless or completely untimely. I hope for the latter.

But the title hints at something that has always nagged at me, and now nags at me more as I read Atlas Shrugged (don't give anything away: taking New Jersey back from statists is taking up my free time right now!) and Taggart Transcontinental.

We've already tackled absentee ballots and how wider availability of them has allowed Democrats to go borough storming and committing election fraud. I heard an interesting conspiracy theory over the phone from someone calling the office here at the Christie HQ.

All the media today seem to be filled with coverage of Obama's "Waterloo": that is, his botched launch and execution of his health-care reform initiative. But what I find most interesting is how vehement the Administration and the Democratic establishment have been in attempting to silence vociferous critics of their plan.

In case you hadn't heard about the recent indictment of 44 politicians and rabbis in connection with an international money laundering scheme, New Jersey is pretty corrupt. And has become yet again the butt of many jokes. Oh and I did I mention between all the state regulations, laws, and leftist ideology, it's practically a quasi-police state?
 

This is the last post I'll put on the Georgetown Federalist blog. From here on, I'll let the youngsters take over blogging duties. I'm sure they'll do as good a job with the blog as they've done with the rest of the paper. I can't promise I won't leave crazy anonymous comments from time to time, but I'll try to keep them to a minimum. If anyone has grown accustomed to my diatribes and wants to read more of them, I'll be posting exclusively on the New Madisonian from now on.

As we all know by now, the Iranian government is in the process of violently suppressing protests against the government in the aftermath of the tainted election. Editorial ink has already been spent with profligate abandon in debating whether Obama should use harsher words in denouncing the violence, so I won't add to that discussion. On a more useful level, we should take a dispassionate view of what the U.S. policy options are in a situation like this. Those options depend in turn on what leverage we have in changing Iran's policy and what cost we are willing to pay to do so.

Over the last couple weeks, the New York Times has, with seemingly increasing frequency, put out opinion pieces that fail to live up to the most basic standards of argumentation. By that accusation, I don't mean that I disagree with their partisan talking points or that there are subtle flaws in their writers' logic. Rather, the articles lack basic cohesion and organization, making them nearly unreadable.