Via InstaPundit, Mr. Patterico has a couple of excellent posts (here and here) that eloquently reflect my own feelings on FEC regulation of political speech on the Internet. Essentially: allegedly "reassuring" remarks by politicians and bureaucrats aren't really that reassuring at all if you check what they're actually saying. And we shouldn't need to be "reassured" that our particular ox won't be gored by the FEC. We shouldn't need or even want to beg for an exception to the FEC's regulations. Instead every person who cares about liberty should welcome the opportunity to be the test case.
Deep breath … we move on …
- Via Hiawatha Bray, I note an article with the provocative headline Desktop Anti-Spyware Not Up to Snuff, IT Pros Say. But (as near as I can tell), the "pros" quoted seem to be marketers for non-desktop anti-spyware approaches, which may mean that it's to be taken with more than one grain of salt.
- Pejman Yousefzadeh (which I just like saying) has a good article at Tech Central Station on the proper relationship between conservatism and libertarianism.
I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't read Lileks' Bleat
every day, but I can't resist quoting this paragraph from
Note: somewhere right now there is a big controversy about something said on a blog about another blog about blogging. Whoopty whoop.
Good thing to tack up on your wall in case you feel you ever might get too much into blog navel-gazery. He's also right about Star Wars, so check it out.
- Matt Welch is still super-pissed about Congressional investigation of steroid use in baseball (as should be all right-thinkers), and unloads here. Matt knows his libertarian arguments and his baseball, so he's outraged on multiple fronts.
- Virginia Postrel does a quick takedown of a Swarthmore psych prof who tries to use psychological research findings to back up his anti-choice public policy prescriptions. Virginia says: not so fast.
- And I know I've mentioned this before, but Aieee! We're all gonna die!