A blog by a friend of mine, who is very thoughtful on matters of culture/philosophy, politics: "The Likeness of an Appearance of a Blog". He just started, but he's committed to keep going with it.

(To be clear: his view points are probably quite different from many of ours - oftentimes, orthogonal? - but I relish the challenge. As I said, he's a friend, so feel free to go and comment, but be good. Seriously. Feel free to comment here as well.)

Yesterday, he posted "Hegemony", an article arguing in favor of a hegemonic global government.

My initial comment was that, while I am reasonably suspect of a single centralized global governing body, there are virtues to global governance, in a holistic (rather than piecemeal) way. At the very least: corporations should not be the *only* kind of organization exerting transnational power. (Neither does government, clearly.)

Two great tastes that go great together. Incidentally, this year's MLS season has some interesting examples of more liberalized markets, etc. The salary cap has remained largely the same, but the number of foreign players on a team has gone up, resulting in the acquisition of a number of very talented young players from Latin America and elsewhere.

I was inspired by an exchange with Paige (welcome!) to briefly mention my take on Romney, having had him as a Massachusetts governor. Not that most Democrats would be voting for him, but he may well be a contender.

My honest, gut reaction to him is firstly a question of loyalty: he simply has none. This is aside from him flip-flopping on guns/abortion/everything in order to score points with far-right special interests. (Though that's plenty.) What I've seen is a consistent willingness to sell people out.

Case in point: he's governor of Massachusetts; he's supposed to represent and help those people. However, his behavior has been one of publically mocking our state and trying to distance himself from it, while nonetheless trying to stand on his record of governor (which in fact would not have gotten him re-elected). He repeatedly used his policy pulpit not to pursue policies in the interest of the commonwealth, but instead to grand-stand for the national GOP audience. Hell, he's barely been in the state for the better part of the last two years.

The "gay marriage" issue was a key example, in fact. It's not that all of Massachusetts is 100% behind gay marriage, but I strongly get the idea is that very few people really care to make it much of a crusade, even if they are opposed. The degree to which Romney tried to drag out and crash gay marriage in the state was largely a result of the national GOP anti-marriage project, rather than reflecting the desires of Mass. natives. So, gays and lesbians: another group he's happy to throw under the bus for electability. (And indeed, this issue is the one I'm taking personally.)

So hey, if you're looking for a candidate free of integrity, he is your guy.

That said, I feel that (aside from Ron Paul) he's one of the less dangerous GOP candidates. He's is basically a conservative suit of the sort that the GOP has a history of nominating. He lacks of the cult-of-personality, militarism, and fascistic tendencies that more deeply concern me about McCain or Giuliani administrations. He's unfortunately pro-torture, but I guess that just puts him in there with the majority of the GOP candidates.

In conclusion: what a bloody mess.

I'm planning to check out Drinking Freely Boston metro tonight to see what's going on. Worth checking out - Flat Top Johnny's is a nice place in Kendall.

I was shocked by this report of police misconduct in Atlanta [found via Reason]. The short version is that a non-uniformed cop asked a visiting professsor for ID, and when he didn't comply, prompty tackled him to the ground.

For a charge of jaywalking.

That was dropped.

Poor police conduct isn't new, but here's what gets me: there are plenty of people in this country who will take the cops side. Good people, friends of mine - but people who would argue that you need to respect the cop's authority, and that treatment like that is just par for the course. Complaining about it is - unmanly? Irresponsible? Whining? Suspicious? Something like that.

On the other hand, here's how I see it: my (hypothetically) child who comes to me with a bruise on his forehead. "Dad," he says, "the cops stopped my the middle of the street and demanded that I give my ID. He said he wanted to search my bag because I was walking suspiciously."

Then, I ask her, "What did you do?"

I never want to hear an answer of "I did whatever he ordered, Dad. Like you taught me." I don't want my culture to instill those kinds of values in the next generation.

I just noticed this: a "Drinking Freely" meetup in the Boston area, inspired by the popular Drinking Liberally events. Sounds like a good idea.

No, of course not. Foley blames the Catholic church, alcohol, his own shame and being a closeted gay man. But he tries his damn hardest to deflect blame directed at himself, and even tries to defending himself with this: at least he didn't attempt physical contact.

The line that sickens me most: "Mark Foley wants you to know he is a gay man." That has jack-nothing to do with the situation. Going after young boys when you're in a position of significant authority over them doesn't mean you're gay. It means you're messed in the head and enjoy using people. It means you're willing to use your power for your own wants. It means you're corrupt to the core, and anyone trying to cynically shield you is just as corrupt.

And speaking of sickening, here's some twisted spin: why is Fox News "accidentally" referring to Foley as a Democrat? See for yourself. (Via John Wick.)

Cory Maye looks to be no longer on Death Row for now.

As Jim Henley says, "It's a start."

Jim C. Perry, formerly of the Libertarian Party, currently working with the Democrats and a friend of the Democratic Freedom Caucus. News from the Concord Monitor:

Perry said he was motivated to run for the Legislature - and to do so as a Democrat - after watching Senate Republicans defeat a bill to prevent New Hampshire from accepting "Real ID," the federal act mandating that states comply with national identification standards and share resident information with other states.

"The Republicans in the Senate basically shafted the people of the state of New Hampshire," Perry said.

Perry said he wants to extend privacy rights and civil liberties, not abolish government. He said he has outgrown some of his adolescent and teenage views, and he believes the state must ensure public safety and extend certain social services that the private sector can't adequately provide. He insists that he is a Democrat - one influenced by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. "Government is best which governs least," he said.

Like Democratic Gov. John Lynch, Perry said, he opposes a sales or income tax.

It's intriguing to see the continued shift from the Libertarian Party to a bigger-tent Democratic Party.

From Chicago, "Boxed out: Target says forget it". The ordinance targets large (big-box) stores, such as Walmart and Target, requiring that those business have higher wages and benefits than others. The outcome: Target is going to cut and run.

Target's decision to follow through on its threat to avoid Chicago comes just one week after a bitterly divided City Council defied Daley by requiring retailing giants to pay their employees a "living wage" of at least $10 an hour and $3 in benefits by 2010.

To be clear, this is a lesson worth remembering for Democrats. You can't simply mandate a cost-free increase in wages without some effect happening, and the additional cost might be enough to surpress some job creation. Even if you still want to puruse min-wage increases - and that may well be a good thing - politicians need to be aware of the whole economic impact of their choices.

But nonetheless, I'm shedding not a tear for Target and it's bull argument. You see...

At 119th and Marshfield, Ald. Carrie Austin (34th) was counting on Target to anchor a development that has already nailed down a $23 million city subsidy.

This is the real story of how the biggest of big-businesses work: bullying municaplities into fat subsidies and eminent domain deals. Target claimed that the additional wage claims could add up to $1 million in costs per year; how does that compare to the $23 million in free cash they score from the city?

If you want to figure out why our economy is so distorted, look first at where the government subsidies are going.