I don't normally put a lot of stock in NewsMax, but here's a story I'm taking seriously, partly because I've been expecting something like this to happen, and partly because I've wanted it to happen. It looks like there is rebellion brewing among social conservatives in the GOP:

Leaders of the Christian right are thinking of bolting the Republican Party in 2004. Such a move would deal a severe blow to President Bush's re-election effort.

Though Christian voters played a pivotal role in electing Bush in his razor-thin victory over Al Gore, NewsMax has learned that major figures in the evangelical movement are talking about withholding support from the Republican Party.

Now Bush could try pandering to the religious right. That's what they want, obviously: this is a surely cry for attention more than a real threat (though that may change in time). But with Bush's approval rating in the vicinity of seventy percent, this is a particularly dumb time for the social conservatives to rebel. He may very well be able to get along without them, He might even gain nearly as much as he would lose: one thing preventing a lot of people from supporting Bush is his connection to the religious right. It scares off a lot of people who would otherwise agree with him on defense policy and taxes.

The social conservative rebels may not be able to maintain discipline within its own ranks: if rank-and-file Republicans feel it's necessary to vote for Bush out of patriotism, are they going to do the Family Research Council's bidding if it tells them otherwise?

Bush will, of course, try to have it both ways: he'll play down the issue, and try to avoid getting any major faction too mad at him. The decision point will come if some candidate emerges as a focus of right-wing rebellion. Pat Buchanan springs to mind, naturally. Such a candidate will probably be a "paleocon": he may have opposed the Battle of Iraq, and may oppose US support for Israel. This would work to Bush's advantage: while this stance may play well in the paleocon "amen corner", it won't provide broader appeal for the paleocons any more than it has for the Democrats: indeed, the popularity of his foreign and defense policy are the whole basis for Bush's sky-high popularity.

If such a candidate emerges, though, it will force Bush to make a choice: attack and alienate the rebels, or embrace the social conservative agenda anew, and try to bring the rebels back into the fold? If Bush basically invites the social conservatives to take a long walk off a short pier, he's got my vote, and probably a cash contribution as well. But if Bush does break to the right on social issues, this will present me with a tough choice on election day: stick with the only right-thinking candidate on the issue of national defense, or go with the Libertarian Party, who are basically right on everything except this one, all-important issue?

Link via Blogdex.

You groove to the Bleat. You hang out at the Backfence. You've studied at the Institute. But, you ask, is that all the Lileks there is in the world?

Why, no, it isn't. There's more screedy Lileks goodness at Newhouse.

Does the man ever sleep?

Q: When will you war-maddened, war-crazed, war-loving war-nuts be satisfied?

A: When Iran has a secular government, Egypt isn't paid $2 billion a year to hate us, Saudi oil revenues plummet and they cease to fund radical mosques, Syrian fascism topples, terrorists have no safe harbor and the Palestinians decide that peace, not death, is the shape of the future.

As John Lennon said: You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.

What Is Your Animal Personality?
brought to you by Quizilla

I don't normally post these Quizilla things, but this one nailed it so well that I had to do it. Except maybe the "hard not to love" part; I'l leave that for others to judge.

"...[N]o one is nearly as lazy as you are." Damn, that's almost spooky.

I leave town for a few days, and they nearly burn the joint down? Sheeze!

If you can read this, congratulations, it seems to be a minor miracle. As Kathy Kinsley reports, Hosting Matters, which hosts this blog among many others, has had a fire. Somehow, my own server was spared, but the Blogfather was not so lucky; his main site is inaccessible, though he has made a few entries on his backup site today.

Instapundit, writing on his GlennReynolds.com column at MSNBC, recommends the Baen Free Library, a collection of science ficiton and fantasy books that Baen's authors have chosen to make available for free online.

First Librarian Eric Flint explains the purpose of the library, and why neither Jim Baen nor any of the participating authors are particularly afraid of losing money on this venture:

One of the things about the online debate over e-piracy that particularly galled me was the blithe assumption by some of my opponents that the human race is a pack of slavering would-be thieves held (barely) in check by the fear of prison sentences.

Oh, hogwash.

Sure, sure — if presented with a real "Devil's bargain," most people will at least be tempted. Eternal life. . . a million dollars found lying in the woods. . .

Heh. Many fine stories have been written on the subject!But how many people, in the real world, are going to be tempted to steal a few bucks?

Some, yes — precious few of whom, I suspect, read much of anything. But the truth is that most people are no more tempted to steal a few dollars than they are to spend their lunch hour panhandling for money on the streets. Partly because they don't need to, but mostly because it's beneath their dignity and self-respect.

The only time that mass scale petty thievery becomes a problem is when the perception spreads, among broad layers of the population, that a given product is priced artificially high due to monopolistic practices and/or draconian legislation designed to protect those practices. But so long as the "gap" between the price of a legal product and a stolen one remains both small and, in the eyes of most people, a legitimate cost rather than gouging, 99% of them will prefer the legal product.

Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen might profit from reading these words. But then again, as Instapundit has pointed out so often, the MPAA and RIAA aren't fighting for profit; they're fighting for control of the means of distribution.