Thinking about Libertarian strategy in the General Election

It started with the whimsical post in Third Party Watch by Steve Gordon of a three-party split in the electoral college [Libertarians in the sick yellow-green, ugh]:



This led to an extremely interesting thread in Independent Political Report entitled Could Barr/Root win electoral votes?

While the Gordon map was quickly (and accurately) dismissed as fantasy, the resulting conversation then evolved into what strategy should the LP presidential nominee pursue in this election?

Commenter G. E. Smith summarized the argument:

Okay, so we have about four strategies identified here:

1. Swing State (try to be a “spoiler”)

2. Safe State (try to maximize votes by campaigning where it doesn’t matter)

3. “Winnable” Sate (focus resources in a few small or otherwise winnable states to get electoral votes)

4. Status Quo: Do what Libertarians have done thus far but, hopefully, better.

The problem is that most Libertarians, in their concentration on message and philosophical principle, forget that after somebody has been nominated, you have to work with the pragmatics of the numbers in crafting an election strategy.

Let's think about this for a moment. Here are the vote totals for the LP since 1972:

Libertarian Presidential Tickets

1972: John Hospers and Theodora Nathan
2,691 popular votes (0.003%); 1 electoral vote;

1976: Roger MacBride and David Bergland
173,011 popular votes (0.21%)

1980: Ed Clark and David Koch
921,299 popular votes (1.1%)

1984: David Bergland and James A. Lewis
228,705 popular votes (0.25%)

1988: Ron Paul and Andre Marrou
432,179 popular votes (0.47%)

1992: Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord
291,627 popular votes (0.28%)

1996: Harry Browne and Jo Jorgensen
485,798 popular votes (0.50%)

2000: Harry Browne and Art Olivier
384,431 popular votes (0.36%)

2004: Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna
397,265 popular votes (0.34%)

The question would be, where did the Libertarian Party (especially in 2004 and 2000) pick up those not-quite 400,000 votes?

Libertarian vote (2000/2004)
Alabama 5,893/3,495
Alaska 2,626/1,675
Arkansas 2,781/2,352
Arizona 5,775 [for L. Neil Smith]/11,856
California 45,520/50,165
Colorado 12,799/7,664
Connecticut 3,484/3,367
Delaware 774/586
DC 669/502
Florida 16,415/11,996
Georgia 36,332/18,387
Hawaii 1,477/1,377
Idaho 3,488/3,844
Illinois 11,623/32,452
Indiana 15,530/18,058
Iowa 3,209/2,992
Kansas 4,525/4,013
Kentucky 2,896/2,619
Louisiana 2,951/2,781
Maine 3,074/1,965
Maryland 5,310/6,094
Massachusetts 16,366/15,022
Michigan 16,711/10,552
Minnesota 5,282/4,639
Mississippi 2,009/1,793
Missouri 7,436/9,831
Montana 7,436/1,733
Nebraska 2,245/2,041
Nevada 3,311/3,176
New Hampshire 2,757/372
New Jersey 6,312/4,514
New Mexico 2,058/2,382
New York 7,649/11,607
North Carolina 12,307/11,731
North Dakota 660/851
Ohio 13,475/14,695
Oklahoma 6,602/nr
Oregon 7,447/7,260
Pennsylvania 11,248/21,185
Rhode Island 742/907
South Carolina 4,876/3,608
South Dakota 1,662/964
Tennessee 4,284/4,866
Texas 23,160/38,787
Utah 3,616/3,375
Vermont 784/1,102
Virginia 15,198/11,032
Washington 13,135/11,995
West Virginia 1,912/1,405
Wisconsin 6,640/6,464
Wyoming 1,443/1,171
Grant Totals 384,431/397,265

I break these down state-by-state to make an important point: there are three types of States as far as the LP is concerned, which come in two flavors.

The types: Tiny (under 3,500 votes); Medium (3,501-9,999 votes); Large (10,000+).
The flavors: Consistent (vote totals in 2000/2004 similar); Fluctuating (significant changes in votes 2000/2004).

This gives us the following

Tiny (consistent): Arkansas, DC, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming
Tiny (fluctuating): Alaska, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Vermont

Medium (consistent): Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Oregon, Tennessee, Wisconsin
Medium (fluctuating): Alabama, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina

Large (consistent): California, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, Washington
Large (fluctuating): Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia

Those large states are particularly important, because an analysis of the voting patterns indicates that the 15 largest Libertarian states account for an overwhelming percentage of our party's vote: 271,405 of 384,431 in 2000 (71%) and 275,527 of 397,265 (69%).

However, that's not the critical point. The critical point is that the fluctuations in nine of these states are so large that they indicate a significant reservoir of voters with a proven record of having chosen a Libertarian candidate in at least one of the two past presidential elections.

If we take the largest Libertarian vote total of either 2000/2004 in the large states we arrive at an important ballpark figure: the number of strong potential Libertarian voters available without having to sway a single voter who has never voted for a third party before.

Here's what you get:

Arizona 11,856
California 50,165
Colorado 12,799
Florida 16,415
Georgia 36,332
Illinois 32,452
Indiana 18,058
Massachusetts 16,366
Michigan 16,711
North Carolina 12,307
Ohio 14,695
Pennsylvania 21,185
Texas 38,787
Virginia 15,198
Washington 13,135

Grand Total: 326,421

In other words, there are over 50,000 voters in those 15 large states who sometimes vote Libertarian and sometimes don't.

When you have not broken 400,000 total votes in the last two general elections, these are the first voters you have to go after.

As a second priority, you have to look for large states in which you might significantly increase your voter turnout above previous LP totals. While I have not done a state-by-state analysis, I can suggest two states right off the bat which show potential for huge growth: Georgia and North Carolina.

Case One: Georgia. Aside from the fact that this is Bob Barr's home state, there is strong evidence that a Libertarian candidate can do extremely well in Georgia. In his 2006 campaign for Lieutenant Governor, Libertarian Allen Buckley scored 3.6% of the vote (over 75,000 votes--or twice the number of votes that any Libertarian presidential candidate received in 2000/2004). Georgia cast 3.3 million votes in 2004; 3.6% of that would total 119,000 votes. I have doubts about achieving that total, but let's assume for the sake of argument that Barr/Root along with Buckley as a strong Senatorial candidate could potentially rack up 75,000 votes. That's an increase of over 35,000 votes. Of course, this does presume that Bob Barr stops supporting Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss and starts supporting the Libertarian candidate.

Case Two: North Carolina. Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Michael Munger is currently polling around 4%. The LP Presidential candidate normally does less than .5% in the Tarheel State. Let's assume that Barr/Root campaigns hard for Munger, and that Munger reciprocates (as he has indicated he will). Then let's cut the poll number in half, and give the LP Presidential ticket 2% of the vote. That's 70,000 votes--roughly 58,000 more votes than any Libertarian Presidential ticket has gotten in NC over the past two elections.

Here's my point: There are potential Libertarian votes out there, but we have to know where to look for them. Between maximizing the large fluctuating states (50,000 votes), Georgia (35,000 votes), and North Carolina (58,000 votes), we've just identified strong prospects that 143,000 new votes are within our grasp if we just target them.

It is also evident that strong Libertarian support for same-sex marriage in California and Massachusetts could attract at least another 5,000 new voters, while between them in Montana (2,000), New Jersey (2,000) New York (3,000), Oklahoma (if we get on the ballot, 6,000 votes) potentially pick up at total of 13,000 more voters from fluctuation; that's an additional 18,000 votes before we've even begun to talk about the possible strength of our foreign policy arguments, and a target total of over 550,000 votes.

None of this takes into account the increased media attention that the ticket is getting this year, or the potential McCain spoiler vote.

The question is whether the Barr campaign and Libertarians throughout the country will take a realistic, data-driven approach to winning votes.

There are least disquieting indications that they won't: for example, Wayne Root's convention statement that the campaign should concentrate significant resources in Nevada. No more than 3,300 citizens have voted Libertarian in the past two elections.

Likewise the idea that we could end up with some electoral votes is, frankly, wishful thinking at this stage of our development.

Take the list of states G. E. Smith suggested for concentration:

My strategy would be to raise cash, open offices and work hard in Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. Do a lot of polling, and wherever it’s not working, get out and concentrate resources where it is working.

How many votes would we have to rack up to win any of these states? Based on 2004 vote totals, achieving over 50% in these states would require the following number of votes (with the highest vote total achieved in 2000/2004 following):

Georgia 1,654,240 votes (36,332) deficit to overcome: 1,617,908
Idaho 302,216 votes (3,844) deficit to overcome: 298,372
Nevada 418,941 votes (3,311) deficit to overcome: 415,630
New Hampshire 342,258 votes (2,757) deficit to overcome: 339,501
Maine 374,080 votes (3,074) deficit to overcome: 371,006
Montana 227,475 votes (7,436) deficit to overcome: 220,039
Wyoming 122,931 votes (1,441) deficit to overcome: 121,490

Seems a bit of a tall order.

For what it's worth (and maybe that's not much), here's the best technical strategy for the LP Presidential ticket this year:

1) Focus on the large LP states--especially the fluctuating states to turn out the maximum number of voters who have chosen the LP at least once in the past two general elections. This means turning strongly to the State Libertarian parties to help them bring out their supporters.

2) Do the crash research to identify states like Georgia and North Carolina where there is hard data to suggest a potential for tying the top of the ticket to local LP candidates with good potential.

3) Hit the messages in the Libertarian agenda that will truly resonate with significant numbers of potentially disaffected Demopublican votes in 2008. My list would be foreign policy/terrorism/Iraq (emphasizing a non-interventionist foreign policy); same-sex marriage; medical and decriminalized marijuana; and reducing taxes.

4) Study the net-based strategies used by both Howard Dean and Ron Paul to organize and fund-raise.

The objective: break 1,000,000 votes.

The only real impediment: our candidates and their Perot-era campaign manager plus Mr Direct Mail, none of whom have shown the slightest understanding of what it will take to do this.

Let's help them out, huh?

The Government's action was illegitimate in the first place, but I'm still going to place restrictions on you as a result of it

This is how you advance the idea of a State that is above the laws.

You find a group of people toward which the media and many Americans are unsympathetic, like, say, those polygamist families in Texas with the weird hair.

Now that the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the State acted inappropriately in seizing all their children, you'd think--rule of law and all--that what happens next is that those 400 children are returned to their families, right?

No, not according to Texas District Judge Barbara Walther:

A Texas judge refused on Friday to sign an agreement that would have paved the way for the first large batch of children taken from a polygamist sect's ranch to return to their parents, dashing hopes raised by a Supreme Court ruling in the case.

Texas District Judge Barbara Walther wanted to add restrictions to the parents' movement and broaden the authority of Child Protective Services to monitor the more than 400 children in foster care before signing an agreement by CPS and the parents that would have reunited the families.

When several parents' attorneys objected and argued that Walther didn't have the authority to expand the agreement, she said she would only sign the initial document after all 38 parents whose case was considered by the Supreme Court signed off — a provision attorneys said would ensure the children stayed in custody at least through the weekend.

So let's trace it down:

1. Child Protective Services removes 400 children from their families in a blatantly illegal fashion, based on no valid complaint or any certifiable evidence of abuse.

2. The Texas Third Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court both smack the wrist of CPS and says the State's kidnapping of 400 children crossed the line. Quoth the Third Court of Appeals:

The Third Court of Appeals said that the local authorities had acted too hastily by not going to court first. “Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse . . . there is no evidence that this danger is ‘immediate’,” the court said in its ruling.

“Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may some day have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal.”

3. Judge Walther says, I refuse to let your children come home until you agree to sign a provision allowing CPS to monitor your treatment of your children.

And what we hear from the Demopublican presidential candidates is--predictably--silence.

Again, another opportunity exists for the Barr/Root ticket to stand up on an issue that makes sense to Americans (at least half of whom, many polls suggest, agree completely that the local CPS authorities acted inappropriately). In my fantasy campaign, I visualize this statement:

One of the reasons that Libertarians oppose the power of the State, is that the State far too often refuses to adhere even to its own laws and regulations. Recently, Texas appellate courts ruled that the seizure of 440 children from a polygamist sect was inappropriate, and that the children should be returned to their families. Now, however, Texas District Judge Barbara Walther has ignored not only the law, but the ruling by superior courts, to impose an additional set of conditions before she will execute the decision of the Texas Supreme Court.

This amounts to blackmail and judicial kidnapping.

It is simply wrong when the State decides not only to target people because their private relationships are based on different values than the majority, but also to ignore the rule of law and the force of judicial decision to coerce American citizens who have not been convicted of any crime into signing an agreement to allow the government to monitor the manner in which they have chosen to raise their children.

Without doubt, the polygamist beliefs of this fundamentalist sect of the Church of Latter Day Saints run counter to those of many--possibly most--Americans, but as the Libertarian Party platform declares:

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no discriminatory impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

I challenge the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to join me in issuing definitive statements condemning the actions of this rogue judge.

Bob? Wayne? Where the hell are you guys?

The problem with Libertarians is that they take themselves entirely too seriously. . . .

. . . . which is even more amazing in a movement that features people who adopt names like Starchild and Ann R. Key.

So it's worth it to enjoy this bit of anti-Bob Barr humor no matter what you happen to think of radicals, reformers, anarchists, and minarchists:



(h/t Libertarian Republican which, predictably, takes it too seriously)

My Dad cuts me no slack

His childhood occurred during the Great Depression.

Summers he would spend at his grandmother's farm. He slept in the loft. At wake-up time, which was around 4:30 am, she would call him once, then a second time. Then he would hear her cane tap as she put her foot on the bottom step.

One time when he was five years old she (and--most importantly--the cane!) got all the way up to the loft with him still not moving. Suffice it to say that he was careful, for the rest of his childhood and adolescence, never to let her get beyond that first step again.

I don't recall him every hitting us as children. He never had to.

We sometimes talk politics or economics when I call home now.

I got to tell him about two weeks ago that he could stop lecturing me that a gallon of milk cost more than a gallon of gas when I whined about prices at the pump. After all, I pointed out, the two now stood pretty much at the same level.

He gave me that one, but I could tell he was just biding his time.

Last night I mentioned the fact that this year we didn't go away on the Memorial Day weekend, and that the price of gas was a factor in that decision. (In all fairness, it was a smaller factor than my wife's post-op recovery.) I told him we'd stayed home, worked on our yard, and had cook-outs with the neighbors.

I told him about somebody on the net coining the term stay-cation.

You could almost hear Dad spit on the other end of the phone.

"In other words," he said, "you're back to doing what we had to do when you were growing up. Staying home and having a good time in the neighborhood. Didn't seem to stunt your growth or anything, not being able to run off to Disney World at the drop of a hat."

Dad was a public school teacher back when public school teachers only got paid during the months they worked. During the summers he joined the custodians on the district paint crew, and spent 8-hour days slapping paint on gyms and classrooms all over Augusta County, Virginia. If he thought it was unfair that he had to take a second job every summer to keep food on the table, he never mentioned it.

My Dad's definitely not a Libertarian. He grouses a lot about the poor quality of the government services to which he believes he should be entitled.

But he comes from a generation that exhibited a certain toughness of character, a willingness to defer gratification, and an insistence on standing on his own two feet that sometimes seems to me to be dying out along with the greatest generation, especially in the whining American middle class.

I think I drifted initially into Libertarianism because my Dad provided (and continues to provide) an example for me of some essential quality that we will lose when the government controls our lives from the cradle to the grave.

Thanks to my Dad I don't fear the coming upheavals as the era of cheap oil ends, even as I realize that my children are going to spend their adult lives in a completely different world.

What I fear is that the whiners (as he would call them) will become progressively more willing to turn over bits and pieces of their birthright freedom and hard-bought (if only by their ancestors) civil liberties to an increasingly omnipotent State.

More Power than George III & Oliver Cromwell....

Where is the Senate and Congress?

This is a teaser:

"No executive in the history of the Anglo-American world since the Civil War in England in the 17th century has laid claim to such broad power,” said David Adler, a prolific author of articles on the U.S. Constitution. “George Bush has exceeded the claims of Oliver Cromwell who anointed himself Lord Protector of England.”

It only gets worse from there, you can read the rest of the story here.

In the Interest of Consistency (mine): Bob Barr and abortion

One of the stupider criticisms of Bob Barr as Libertarian presidential nominee has revolved around comments that his evolution into a Libertarian cannot be trusted because he's a hypocrite on abortion.

Far be it from me to quail at criticizing Barr for intellectual or moral consistency, as regular readers know, but this one's really not fair game.

The whole issue arose during the Clinton impeachment, when Hustler publisher Larry Flynt cast his net far and wide to document the sexual indiscretions of Republicans. Given that Barr was then a prime mover and shaker in the House team that tried Bubba in the Senate, Flynt was thrilled to find this dirt:

Barr was one of 13 House Republicans chosen to act as prosecutors in Clinton's Senate trial. Barr, Flynt's investigators found, was guilty of king-size hypocrisy: An outspoken foe of abortion, the Georgia lawmaker had acquiesced to his then-wife having an abortion in 1983. And he had invoked a legal privilege during his 1985 divorce proceeding so he could refuse to answer questions on whether he'd cheated on his second wife with the woman who is now his third.

Barr, in Flynt's mind, was guilty of far more heinous moral crimes than Clinton. ``Bob Barr stood on the House floor and said abortion was the equivalent to murder,'' Flynt told the assembled press. ``To me, that represents the ultimate form of hypocrisy, and in many ways it's worse than failing to tell the truth under oath.''

In his 1986 divorce hearing, Barr testified that he had objected to the abortion, but Gail Barr's affidavit for Flynt claimed otherwise:

8. In March of 1963, 1 became pregnant for the third time. When I became pregnant the third time, our two sons were three years old and a year-and-a-half. I was 38 years old, concerned with health complications the pregnancy might present, and Bob's practice was slow, and he was not home much. We did not have any health insurance. I asked Bob what we should do; whether I should have an abortion. He said it was entirely my decision and that I should do whatever I wanted to do. This was an extremely difficult choice, but Bob did not want to help in making the decision, even though he was the father. If Bob had said, "No, don't have an abortion," I never would have had it done.

9. Bob never told me not to have the abortion, or that he was in any way against my having the abortion. Any statement he made that he expressed his opposition to the abortion is simply not true.

10. On the Saturday of the Memorial Day weekend in 1983, Bob drove me to the clinic to have an abortion. He watched our boys at home while the procedure was done. He then came to the clinic to to get me. He paid for the procedure.

Three things can be safely deduced from this statement, even allowing for the bias of the witness:

1. Bob and Gail Barr discussed the possibility of abortion when she became pregnant the third time.

2. Bob insisted that the decision to have an abortion was purely her choice.

3. Barr drove her to the clinic and paid for the abortion.

What's intriguing here is that Barr's attitude and conduct is actually Libertarian.

Remember, there are both pro-abortion and anti-abortion Libertarians; the LP Platform actually says,

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

If actions speak louder than words, consider this. Barr obviously has personal objections to abortion, and in his worst moments he has participated in efforts to reduce women's reproductive freedom.

But faced with the situation in his own family, what did he do? He refused to cajole or coerce, insisting that abortion was his wife's decision alone. Then he drove her to the clinic, watched the boys, and paid the bill.

(And, yes, he probably lied about it in divorce court. Show me somebody who hasn't lied when they were in divorce court.)

In other words, even his ex-wife acting as a hostile witness couldn't come up with anything more damning than "He said it was entirely my decision and that I should do whatever I wanted to do."

Which is--oh shit!--pretty much the entire Libertarian philosophy in a nutshell.

I've got a lot of problems with Barr as Libertarian presidential nominee--everything from the Patriot Act to DOMA to his own little war on drugs.

But this isn't one of them.

An Open Question for all Delaware gubernatorial candidates. . .

Do you have as much integrity as New York Governor David Paterson?

From the New York Times (via Waldo):

On May 14, Mr. Paterson’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, wrote a memo to all state agency heads that directed them to evaluate their policies and begin rewriting them so they comply with a state appeals court decision that said New York must recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions like Canada and California.

At a news conference on Thursday afternoon, Mr. Paterson repeated the directive and said that although he supports gay marriage and will continue to push for it in the future, this was not an “end run around the Legislature” but merely his interpretation of current laws on the books.

“I’m following the law as it always has existed,” he said.

Asked to respond to critics of the directive, he said, “I would suggest that if they went back and read the law, that they would come to a different interpretation themselves, even if they disagree with the concept of marriage equality.

“If I didn’t take this action,” he added, “I would leave this state open to law suits. I would leave the state treasury open to monetary damages.”

Here's the choice for Jack Markell, John Carney, Bill Lee, Mike Protack, and even Rob Foraker:

Prove that you support the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, or. . . .

. . . . just get it over with and endorse the Still and Venables proposed Delaware Constitutional amendment (Senate Bill 156) to keep those damn queers in their place (which is somewhere else but not here) (except during the summer when they spend a lot of money at the Beach) (we hate queers but we will still take their money in the parking meters). . . .

SPONSOR:
Sen. Still & Sen. Venables

Sens. Bonini; Reps. Ewing, Hocker, Lee, Thornburg

DELAWARE STATE SENATE
144th GENERAL ASSEMBLY

SENATE BILL NO. 156

AN ACT PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RELATING TO SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS.


BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE (Two-thirds of all members elected to each house thereof concurring therein):


Section 1. Amend Article XV of the Constitution of the State of Delaware by adding thereto the following:
“Section 11. Marriage is prohibited and void between persons of the same gender. A marriage obtained or recognized outside this State between persons of the same gender shall not constitute a legal or valid marriage within this State. The uniting of two persons of the same gender in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same gender legal relationship shall not be valid or recognized in this State.”.

Here's just one really big reason why you guys need to take a stand.

Suppose a gay couple that some demon-worshipping Satanist has married in Massachusetts or California moves to Delaware.

One partner takes a position at DelDot; the other teaches public school.

If the State of Delaware does not recognize their marriage as valid, both individuals will have to pay health insurance premiums.

If, on the other hand, Delaware recognizes their marriage as valid, neither has to pay health insurance premiums, because they are a State-share couple.

Aside from the ethical issues, can't you just see the lucrative discrimination lawsuit?

(With apologies to Becky for stealing the cool illustration)

The greatest danger from Mexico is not brown people cleaning houses and cutting grass. . . .

. . . but the fact that continuing to fight the drug war with more machine guns instead of a better policy could turn the area south of the Rio Grande into a genuine failed state.

Visit Drug War Rant for the details (and be sure to click through to the source material).

It's a scary picture.

Ironically, however, the team of former CIA-type spooks who penned the assessment suggest that a classic Libertarian strategy may be Mexico's best chance to avoid disintegration:

One way to deal with the problem would be ending the artificial price of drugs by legalizing them. This would rapidly lower the price of drugs and vastly reduce the money to be made in smuggling them. Nothing hurt the American cartels more than the repeal of Prohibition, and nothing helped them more than Prohibition itself.

But that, of course, would make too much sense.

Being called soulless by the Huckster is like being called ugly by an Arkansas razorback

A given: from a GOP perspective, Bob Barr as the Libertarian candidate is a bad thing that could cost him a critical battleground state.

A maxim: if you want to further marginalize a third-party candidate or political movement, don't talk about it, don't take notice of it, and by all means don't make it part of the public debate.

That being said, I'm wondering tonight just why Mike Huckabee doesn't want John McCain to win the election, given his interview in the Huffington Post:

Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people. That's not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

Here's the official Libertarian Party rejoinder (h/t Independent Political Report):

Huckabee is right that Libertarianism is a threat to Republicanism. The Republican Party, with the help of people like Sen. John McCain, has done nothing but increase the scope and power of government while throwing fiscal responsibility to the wind. It’s the ‘compassionate conservatism’ touted by people like Huckabee, McCain and President Bush that has caused a soaring national debt and a society where prisons are overflowing because of Republican ‘compassion.’ Libertarianism is unquestionably the American message because libertarianism is the only political message that empowers the American people by giving them more control over their lives and their wallets. Huckabee proves once again that there is very little difference in the messages of Republicans and Democrats, and shows that McCain and Obama might as well be running in the same political party.

That's good, but not great.

Here's my suggested response:

Mike Huckabee apparently doesn't trust the American people.

If a smaller government took fewer of their hard-earned dollars, he thinks they'd be too self-centered to invest some of that money in locally controlled schools. He'd rather trust bureaucratic organizations like the FDA, which routinely lets thousands--if not millions--of American citizens suffer and die because it delays for years the approval of medications already thoroughly vetted at safe in Europe and Canada.

In Mike Huckabee's America, you can't trust people to make their own decisions about education or which drugs they should use to dull their cancer pain.

In Mike Huckabee's America, government needs to look up your dress or into your pants before it decides that you are allowed to get married.*

Which is your America?

If you believe in an America where the government should be able to pull money out of your wallet before you can spend it on your own family, the Democrats have a great candidate for you.

If you believe in an America where the government's reach should extend into your bedroom, the GOP has the man for you.

But if you think America is about individual liberty and personal responsibility, then send Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton a message.

Vote Libertarian.

Still probably too long, but you get the idea.

Thanks, Mike, for keeping our brand out there for us.

Now the only question remaining is this: Bob and Wayne, why doesn't a Google search give me any response from you guys?

Raising the Barr: Take a stand on Warner-Lieberman, please

Again, in the spirit of Thomas Knapp's suggestion that even Libertarians who are skeptical/hostile to the Barr/Root ticket should engage positively in a way that strengthens the overall party:

Here's a first gauge of our candidates' ability to keep themselves relevant and in the public eye:

Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act comes up for debate next week. It is a comprehensive carbon cap-and-trade proposition which will--in its effect on refineries--cause gasoline prices to spike by an estimated 48-cents-per-gallon almost immediately, followed by an additional 13-cent-rise over the following year.

It is a knee-jerk, poorly considered piece of global warming legislation that--if it passes (Dubya has promised a veto)--will wreck more immediate havoc on the American economy that ethanol subsidies have. Moreover, it combines the worst sort of shoot-from-the-hip social engineering with a regressive tax that will be felt primarily by the working poor.

John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton are all on the record supporting cap-and-trade.

The Demopublicans intend to solve the world's environmental problems by taxing poor and middle-class Americans.

Here's how you keep Barr/Root in the news and begin to gather voters to the Libertarian standard.

The Democrats and the Republicans think that $4/gallon gas is too cheap.

Not satisfied with forcing food prices up by using billions of dollars of your tax money to subsidize ethanol, they want to add more than 60 cents to the price of every gallon you have to pump.

That's what the Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act would do.

The Senate starts debating it this week.

All three Democrat or Republican presidential candidates support the idea of using the so-called cap-and-trade policy to force higher gasoline taxes.

Shouldn't there be at least one presidential candidate with the common sense to say NO to higher gasoline taxes for poor and middle-class American families?

Shouldn't there be at least one presidential candidate capable of admitting to America that the hundreds of billions spent on ethanol subsidies have been a disaster at the grocery store and the gas pump?

Shouldn't there be at least one presidential candidate willing to go beyond phony gas tax holidays and tell the American people the truth: it's our own government's ridiculous taxes, regulations, and policies that are primarily responsible for our current energy crisis?

Fortunately, there is one.

His name is Bob Barr, and he's a Libertarian.

Plain and simple: next week we get the first indication of whether Barr is serious about challenging the status quo and keeping his candidacy alive in the mainstream media, or whether he just plans to sit on his ass.

I really hope he'll come out firing.

This is the Libertarian Platform. . . . This is the Barr/Root position

Here's what the Libertarian Party Platform (as apparently adopted in Denver) says about same-sex marriage:

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no discriminatory impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

Here's what Bob Barr says:

The Defense of Marriage Act insofar has provided the federal government a club to club down rights of law-abiding American citizens, has been abused, misused, and should be repealed, and I will work to repeal it... Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex-marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government -- as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment, which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress.... The decision today by the supreme court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.

Here's what Wayne Allyn Root says:

Abortion is a states' rights issue. Education is a states' right issue. Medical marijuana is a states' rights issue. Gay marraige [sic] is a states' rights issue. Right to Die (typified by the Terri Schiavo crisis) is a states' rights issue. Come to think of it, almost every social issue of our day is a States' Rights issue. Let's get the federal government out of our lives....

*I support gay rights and civil unions. Gay marriage however is not a federal issue. It is a States' Rights issue only.

If I read English correctly, the Libertarian Party Platform says Government should not be involved in determining who can be married, but the Barr/Root position is only that the Federal Government should not be involved in determining who can be married.

States' rights is a traditionally conservative concept with a history that goes back through massive resistance to segregation to the defense of slavery to Nullification of Federal taxes to the Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions.

So, in the spirit of Thomas Knapp suggesting we help the Barr/Root ticket find its Libertarian voice, here's the question that our national candidates need to answer:

Do you support the plank of the Libertarian Platform regarding Personal Relationships?

A Yes or No will suffice.

Would this be your lucky day, or would you turn yourself in?

From Drug War Rant (by way of others):

An unwitting passenger arriving at Japan's Narita airport has received 142g of cannabis after a customs test went awry, officials say.

A customs officer hid a package of the banned substance in a side pocket of a randomly chosen suitcase in order to test airport security.

Sniffer dogs failed to detect the cannabis and the officer could not remember which bag he had put it in.

I mean, I've found pens and pieces of flash drives in my luggage, maybe even the occasional odd dollar bill, but things like this don't happen to me.

Except when they happen in reverse.

In 1980 I was cycling back to the US with approximately 4,500 other troops from the 4th Infantry Division at the completion of Operation REFORGER.

Marijuana and Hash were the big drugs of choice.

I went up the the customs table to face the MP with absolutely no sense of humor.

"Empty your pockets," he told me.

I stuck my hand into each side pocket of my field jacket, and without thinking pulled out two baggies each festooned with vegetable material remains.


I could almost hear Popeye Doyle creaming his jeans for busting the French Connection. They strip-searched me. They used a finger to check areas in which I am usually required to turn my head and cough. They hauled my duffle bag out of the cargo hold and dumped it out. They stuck nails into my shoe polish--my shoe polish!--on the chance that they might find submerged Hash. (Who smokes Hash they've taken out of shoe polish?)

I became an instant, over-night sensation in the 4th ID.

The real answer (which they refused to listen to) was that I had taken a whole bunch of Sci Fi paperbacks to Germany with me for the five-week exercise. Because I knew they could well get wet and destroyed, I had carefully packed each in a ziploc baggie.

When I read each book, I stuck the baggie into my pocket. We moved a lot, and every time we left an area we had to pick up all the trash. It seemed safer to throw crap in your pockets and dump it later than to litter.

Moreover, by the time you'd finished weeks of rolling around in the muck, your pockets had also collected random bits of vegetation from the ground.

Baggie + pieces of vegetation + bleary-eyed GI + moron MP = body cavity search.

All of which is just a long-winded way of saying: if I found 142 g of cannabis in my suitcase in Japan I'd just assume the position right where I was standing.

Unabashed Statist coercion has become the norm for law enforcement in America

My liberal and progressive friends often show cyber-smirks when I talk about coercive taxation or government intimidation. It occasionally feels like we live in completely different worlds.

So maybe this will help them probe what has heretofore been invisible.

Consider two favorite issues for Statists: mandatory seatbelt laws and restrictions on the private transfer of firearms.

I'm not going to discuss the laws themselves, because that's usually a waste of breath. Either you understand the issues of personal liberty or 2nd Amendment rights, or you don't. What I want to do instead is discuss the overt tactics of intimidation and fear being used to make people toe the line.

Case One: Click It or Ticket

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is in the process of spending its $7,500,000--that's $7.5 million--advertising budget on this campaign to get drivers to buckle up.

The precis on the NHTSA website makes it clear that this is consciously intended as a coercive campaign--conform or we will take your money--with very little or no emphasis on trying to convince people in a rational manner that wearing seatbelts is a good thing:

The cornerstone of NHTSA's seat belt communications program is the national Click It or Ticket May Mobilization. The primary audience continues to be men ages 18 to 34, which research shows are less likely to wear seat belts.

Day and Night, Cops are Cracking Down

Every year during this holiday period, law enforcement agencies join forces day and night, from coast-to-coast, for an enforcement blitz that delivers on our message “Click It or Ticket". The mobilization is supported by national and local paid advertising and earned media campaigns aimed at raising awareness before the blitz that ... Day or Night - Buckle Up or Pay Up.

The section on enforcement strategies makes several points clear:


1) Millions of dollars in NHTSA grants is being expended not to assist local law enforcement in fighting crime, but in paying for overtime and equipment to conduct nightly seatbelt check points.

2) The people organizing these events are quite conscious that they are walking a fine line between intimidation and outrage:

In at least two programs, nighttime vision goggles have been employed. Due to the adverse public reaction to the use of these devices experienced in one of these programs, use of nighttime vision devices such as goggles or scopes is not recommended.

The NHTSA also thoughtfully provides sample op-ed pieces to be submitted to local media over the signatures of cops apparently too tongue-tied to write their own copy, which conclude:

While seat belts have been proven to save lives, too many people still need a tough reminder to buckle up. Law enforcement is all too aware of the risks and will be out in full force buckling down on those who fail to buckle up. Wearing your seat belt costs you nothing, but the costs of NOT wearing one may be a ticket, or worse — your life. So please remember to always buckle up, both day and night. Don’t become a statistic: Click It or Ticket!

Here's the Statist/bureaucratic thought process (if such random synaptic activity can legitimately be characterized as thought):

1. We come up with a great idea of what people should do.
2 Because people are too stupid to do what's good for them, we make it illegal not to do it.
3. We stop emphasizing making rational choices and go for intimidation and coercion.
4. We look for other areas of their lives they obviously need help with.

(While I'm focusing here on the attitude of coercion, it doesn't hurt to note that the $7.5 million advertising budget for Click It or Ticket is only a fraction of the $125.4 million expended on the grants allowing local law enforcement to run those seatbelt check points. Curiously, I cannot find out what the locals do with all those fines.)

Case Two: Private gun transfers in Pennsylvania.

I heard this one over the radio, pimping Guntransfer.org.

Here's the text:

It's a scenario that plays out all too often in Philadelphia:

A widow begins the sad process of going through her husband's belongings--giving away clothes, sorting through paperwork, cleaning out tools--and she comes across his guns. He kept a handgun in the house for protection. She wants it gone. A family friend offers to take it, and she happily agrees. No paperwork filed. No legal transfer takes place. It ends up on the street. The handgun is used in a fatal shooting, and it is traced back to her. Can she be arrested for illegally transferring a firearm? Pennsylvania law says, yes.

Transferring gun ownership is a simple process, but one that many people overlook. If you give or sell a handgun to someone, you must legally transfer ownership from yourself to the new owner. Pennsylvania law requires it. Without the legal transfer any crime committed wtih a gun that you gave or sold to someone can and will be traced back to you. You can be prosecuted and face legal consequences. That's not a risk worth taking.

This is not only coercive and intimidating (take that, you thoughtless widows!), but misleading as to the actual requirements of the law, as Dave Markowitz of The Firing Line points out:

This morning, I caught a commercial on WMMR promoting an apparently-new website, www.guntransfer.org. I thought to myself, "Cool, someone is running an ad for FFL transfer services on 'MMR!" Such services are often used by gunnies purchasing firearms from out-of-state, since such transfers must go through a licensee per Federal law. When I checked it after getting into the office I was disgusted to find that it's a site to promote transfer of guns through licensed dealers, as opposed to private party sales. The whois data shows the registrant for the domain as Commonwealth Media Services, which is a state entity.

What I find troubling about it is that it promotes transfers through FFLs, and makes it seem that any face-to-face private sale is illegal in PA. That is not the case. Private transfers of rifles and shotguns between PA residents is perfectly legal, only handgun sales, NFA transfers, and transactions with out of state residents must go through an FFL. The only reference to private rifle/shotgun sales being actually legal is buried on the Q&A page.

What makes this misleading is that in Pennsylvania, only "firearms" must be transferred through an FFL, per 18 Pa. Con. Stat. Sec. 6111. In PA, the definition of a firearm is this:

"Any pistol or revolver with a barrel length less than 15 inches, any shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches or any rifle with a barrel length less than 16 inches, or any pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun with an overall length of less than 26 inches. The barrel length of a firearm shall be determined by measuring from the muzzle of the barrel to the face of the closed action, bolt or cylinder, whichever is applicable."

See 18 Pa. Consolidated Statutes Sec. 6102.

The statutory definition of firearms specifically does not include most guns which do not fall under the restrictions of the Federal National Firearms Act of 1934. In other words, the vast majority of rifles and shotguns in private possession are not "firearms" for the purpose of this law. For example, the hypothetical hunting rifle and shotgun described on guntransfer.org's Home page generally do not meet the legal definition of a "firearm" in Pennsylvania.

So why the dissimulation?

Guntransfer.org clearly reflects the Philly-centric antigun bias. By fooling people into thinking that private party transfers of any gun are illegal in PA, they are looking to create a paper trail. All gun transfers which go through a licensed dealer first require the transferee to pass a background check conducted in Harrisburg by the Pennsylvania State Police. As you may be aware, a few years ago they were sued for creating an illegal registry of gun owners. As it turned out, the State Police won their case when the court ruled that the records which they were compiling did not meet the statutory definition of an illegal database. Nevertheless, it is still a de facto database of gun owners in Pennsylvania. And we know that historically, gun registration has lead to confiscation in Germany, Britain, and closer to home in New York and New Jersey.

This stinks on ice and they need to be called on it.

That doesn't need much addition, except to point out that you have to pay a fee to the firearms dealer to give away your handgun, and Pennsylvania law permits them to charge anything they damn well please for this "service."

Here's the point: Even if I accept (for sake of argument) that our society needs laws to force people to wear seat belts and regulate private gun transfers, the methods by which the government pursues enforcement should be just as chilling to American citizens as the thought that Dubya and Dick Cheney are listening to your phone calls or reading your emails.

From an ethical standpoint, why is the Attorney General of PA misleading people about the details of the gun transfer law with scary anecdotes any different from Dubya and his cronies misleading people about terrorist threats?

Why is spending $125.4 million in taxpayer dollars justifiable to pursue a victimless "crime" at the expense of police time and effort that could actually be spent protecting people from murderers, rapists, and thieves?

And my conscience checks in. . . .

. . . which is a good thing, because it's literate, impassioned, and carefully critical without being cynical.

Waldo has functioned, on and off, as a part of my conscience for over thirty years. Sometimes when he did not even know he was doing so (I do remember Mitch P. and the injustice too few people--including myself--were willing to see.)

So, as I contemplate what a Libertarian does when confronted with a Barr/Root candidacy, I have to take this argument into account:

But if I were a card-carrying Libertarian, I'd be majorly pissed at the idea of my party being led by the likes of Bob Barr.

For one thing, I'd be upset that a party would nominate a man who by his own admission was wrong about most of the great issues of his time in Congress. He was for the Patriot Act; now he's against it. Munger says, well, politics is about the art of the possible. You have to make compromises. Which is true. But the compromises that brought Barr around weren't substantive; they were to add sunset clauses. But a good law and order prosecutor like Barr had knew (a) the Patriot Act was just a Christmas tree of civil liberties-trashing law enforcement wish lists that had been kicking around for years; and (b) laws are almost never sunsetted, certainly not when they were adopted with the emotional head of vengeance that attended the Patriot Act's passage. It was a sure as the title on the bill that just as RICO went from being a gangland prosecution act to one for suing abortion protesters, the provisions of the Patriot Act ended up being used to bring down a governor with a taste for high-priced whores.

Barr says he was wrong about the war on drugs, too. He opposed allowing the District of Columbia to even study the medical use of marijuana; now he's at one with the 411 crowd and decries the tens of thousands in prison for drug offenses. It would be interesting to see how many his office put away when he was a US Attorney in Georgia.

Barr says he was wrong about Don't Ask Don't Tell, too.

And Barr says he was wrong about the Defense of Marriage Act, with managing the impeachment of President Clinton, his signature legislative achievement. It doesn't outlaw gay marriage, he said at the time; but by writing it so that it withheld Federal tax, welfare, pension, health, immigration and survivors' benefits, Barr essentially gutted the meaning of the institution he valued so much he availed himself of it three times, then sent it up to serial adulterer Bill Clinton to sign into law. He's still against marriage equality, and any rights the Constitution might protect: "I opposed then, and continue to oppose, same-sex marriage, or the designation of gays as a constitutionally protected minority class," he wrote in The Wall Street Journal last year.

At the time, Barr said he just introduced it because a constituent was concerned about the issue, just as he sought to ban witchcraft in the Army in the name of constituent service ("In Washington, particularly in the area of holding our leaders accountable, one of the great figures is Robert E. Lee. We try to keep in mind the standards of General Lee. There is more to our Southern heritage than whether the economy is running well,'' Mr. Barr, a native of Iowa City and graduate of the University of Southern California whose mother, an Ayn Randian, used to denounce him as a liberal). He denounced the Environmental Protection Agency ("Barr blasts E.P.A. for Promoting Homosexual Behavior") for extending family leave policies to partnered gay employees. In a 1998 New York Times interview at an airport, the story recounts, "There was one bit of good news. Glancing at a newspaper, Mr. Barr said, ''Hey! They canceled 'Ellen.' '' Mrs. Barr said: ''It wasn't as funny after she made her announcement.'' During floor debate over his bill, Bar thundered, "the flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society, the family unit."

"America is not ready to change its definition of marriage," the bill's author, Representative Bob Barr, a freshman Republican from Georgia, said at a news conference after the bill had passed. "America will not be the first country in the world that throws the concept of marriage out the window and for the very first time in the history of civilization says that homosexual marriages are as important as, and rise to the level of the legal and moral equivalency of, heterosexual marriage." He ran for re-election on it: "On radio programs and before volunteers, he hammered away on his major bill, the Defense of Marriage Act, which would deny Federal recognition to marriages between homosexuals. ''The legal institution of marriage,'' he said, ''is under direct assault by homosexual extremists.''

Yet Barr declared a prenomination conversion on repealing part of DOMA (essentially adopting the position of Hillary Clinton) after a meeting with some gay libertarians, not two weeks after Outright Libertarians restated their support for another candidate and faulted Barr's "evolution" on gay rights issues for being slow at best. There's nothing on his campaign website, for example, about either what he used to think or what he claims to think now on gay rights. Can states glory in federalism by adopting marriage equality and still see their citizens denied all the benefits federal law confers? Who were those Libertarians who moved Barr, and just how far has his change of mind led him? No one seems to be talking in public. Barr's not, and we're betting on the campaign trail he will make the she-Clinton's Coolidge-like silences on gay rights seem like Wayne Allyn Root selling vacuum cleaners door to door.

The Libertarian Party's convention delegates seemed willing to mortgage their party's soul for the prospect of a few extra points in the November polls and future promises of goodwill. The question will be, can they get it back by 2012?

I also have to note the willingness of people to hear what they most want and need to hear. Outright Libertarians is running this comment above a Barr clip [and the post is credited to Brian Miller, a Libertarian I respect every bit as much as Thomas Knapp or Michael Munger]:

Libertarian Presidential Nominee Bob Barr described the Defense of Marriage Act as a "mistake" and decried how it is used to "club down the rights of law abiding citizens." The former Congressman, during his nomination speech, made an impassioned commitment to repeal the law.

Now take a look at the clip:



But here's the problem, as Less Antman [another credible Libertarian] points out in a comment on Last Free Voice:

I want to be fair, but Barr has been carefully wording his comments on DOMA to refer to SOME provisions of it, not IT, and he has so far failed to unequivocally state that DOMA should be repealed. Keep an open mind, folks, but keep pressuring him for an explicit repeal, or else plan to write off the LGBT community and the people who care about them (which thankfully is a population far, far, far larger than just the number of LGBT).

I have many gay couples as clients in my financial advisory practice who have lost and will lose tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to gift, estate, and income taxes because of the refusal of the federal government to acknowledge same sex marriages. It isn’t enough to let each state determine its state treatment of gay marriage when it affects so many federal treatments of gay marriage.

DOMA should be repealed, and we should continue to pressure Barr until he removes the Clintonesque wording of his answer. For those who believe Barr’s journey toward consistent libertarianism is incomplete, there’s no reason to think he can’t grow between now and September, which will be a critical month (once the Republican convention is over, many Ron Paul r3VOLutionaries will take a look at Barr and determine if they think he is r3VOLutionary enough).

In a year wherein I have already found myself unable to support the candidates from the two major parties, I think I'm going to have to lower the bar significantly just to find a reason even to go into a voting booth this November.

So here's my challenge to Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root: as an opener, if you want this Libertarian's support, I need to see an an unambiguous campaign statement that marriage, same-sex or otherwise, is not for the State or Federal government to recognize or legitimize as per the Libertarian Party platform.

If they can't do that, they might grudgingly get my vote in a lesser-of-three-evils sense (although I am a long way even from that), but what they won't get is any activity on my part to help sell or support this ticket.

I'm not leaving the Libertarian Party. I intend to stay inside and work for positive change, and to keep building a party in Delaware.

But I will not check my principles at the door to do it.

This is my challenge to Michael Munger, Thomas Knapp, Brian Miller, Less Antman, and all the others--from Mary Ruwart to Mike Jingozian and George Phillies:

We've got Barr/Root now, so let's take a shot at making them live up to the principles they claim to represent.

Michael Munger and one answer to my dilemma--UPDATED: The Kn@ppster chimes in

Michael Munger is the Libertarian candidate running for Governor in North Carolina. He's polling around 4%. He's also the Chair of the Department of Political Science at Duke University. His regular blog (which I've just added to the blogroll on the left) is Kids Prefer Cheese.

Munger is a gentleman and a team player. It is fairly obvious if you read his positions on same-sex marriage, victimless crimes, and corporate welfare, that Michael and the new Richard Viguerie-Shane Corey-Bob Barr-Wayne Allyn Root party line is not necessarily his brand of Libertarianism.

Yet when Michael shared the keynote speech honors with Viguerie at the convention--even though I noted he gave quite a different type of speech--he went out of his way to say positive things about Viguerie after the fact.

Likewise, in the aftermath of the Bob Barr nomination, Michael published For Those Upset About Bob Barr, which is brief enough to quote in its entirety:

For those upset about the Bob Barr nomination, two things:

1. It was not that implausible. His responses in the debate helped him a lot.
2. And on the merits, check this. You may or may not find it helpful. But the "he voted for the Patriot Act" claim just isn't right. Or, at least, it's more complex.

In fact, now that I think about it, it's the heart of the matter. Bob Barr opposed the Patriot Act. He tried to compromise, and agreed to vote "yes" on the Patriot Act, in order to get some improvements in a bill that was going to pass anyway. Now, one can say that that was a mistake. In fact, it was. But it is not the same as "voted for the Patriot Act."

The problem with having a candidate who has actually held elective office is that it is likely the person has had to make some actual policy decisions. Whatever else are the merits of the Barr nomination, we are going to have to decide if we want to have some Libertarians who are actually IN office, or if we are just going to continue to be proud of our irrelevance. 'Cause we have a lot to be proud of.

I didn't vote for Bob Barr. I supported Mary Ruwart. But I'm glad Bob's the nominee, and I have already contributed to his campaign. I urge you to do the same.

I don't know if I can be as much of a good soldier as Michael Munger, but then I'm not running for governor and thinking that a well-known national ticket might be worth another 1-2 % and a chance to establish the Libertarian Party of North Carolina firmly into the state's political mix.

Yet he is right about this: real office holders have to deal with real politics and real decisions. They're going to make compromises and be faced with situations that ideology alone won't resolve. That's one of the reasons it's always so tough for Senators to run for President (this year, with Senators squaring off, will be an exception) because their records are filled with votes and compromises that are hard to explain later. Politics (unlike ideology) is always the art of the possible.

I want to listen to a Libertarian I respect, like Michael Munger, and the addition of Mike Jongozian as LP Vice-Chair, along with Mary Ruwart and Lee Wrights to the Libertarian National Committee, gives me hope that the disparate elements of my party are going to try to find a way to live and even campaign together.

None of which says I'm going to support Barr/Root. But in deference to Michael Munger, George Phillies, and a lot of people I respect, I'm going to give a lot of thought to my course of action in the general election.

Comments, as always, are welcome.

UPDATE
Thomas Knapp, the Kn@ppster, another prominent Libertarian whose opinion I value, has provided his own take on the situation (he supported Kubby and then Ruwart at the convention):

The Libertarian Party has selected its 2008 presidential ticket. It's no secret that that ticket does not consist of the candidates I had hoped it would include ... but that's not worth belaboring. The party's national convention is a caucus in form, and one of the rules of the caucus is that those who choose to participate implicitly agree to support the results. I participated, and I will keep that implicit agreement. I congratulate Congressman Barr and Mr. Root, and pledge to support their candidacy as best I can. I sincerely hope that my fellow Libertarians will do likewise.

Perhaps. I remain unconvinced as yet that Barr and Root will not go neo-con lite; the next two weeks should tell us about the major issues that concern Libertarians.

Put it this way: they've got a lot of people inside the party to win over, before they start prospecting elsewhere.

PFC Desmond Doss: What Memorial Day means to me

Unfortunately, politics doesn't get suspended on Memorial Day, but that is what it is.

Here's what Memorial Day means to me, as an American citizen and as a former Medic in the US Army: the story of PFC Desmond Doss at Okinawa.

Doss pass away two years ago; this is taken from his extended obituary on the Adventist News Network:

Desmond T. Doss, Sr., who braved ridicule to serve in World War II as a U.S. Army medic without carrying a gun, and who labored on a Sabbath, May 5, 1945, to rescue 75 wounded soldiers pinned down by enemy gunfire on the island of Okinawa, died March 23 at his residence in Piedmont, Alabama. Doss, the only conscientious objector to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor during World War II, was 87 years of age.

Desmond T. Doss, Sr., who braved ridicule to serve in World War II as a U.S. Army medic without carrying a gun, and who labored on a Sabbath, May 5, 1945, to rescue 75 wounded soldiers pinned down by enemy gunfire on the island of Okinawa, died March 23 at his residence in Piedmont, Alabama. Doss, the only conscientious objector to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor during World War II, was 87 years of age.

It is reported that Doss, a quiet, unassuming man, never liked being called a "conscientious objector," preferring "conscientious cooperator" instead. Instead of accepting a deferment from the military draft, Doss voluntarily joined the U.S. Army, but never took up arms. Assigned to the 307th Infantry, 77th Infantry Division, as a company medic he was often harassed and ridiculed for his beliefs. Raised a Seventh-day Adventist, Doss did not believe in using a gun or killing because of the sixth commandment which states, "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). Doss was a patriot however, and believed in serving his country.

According to his Medal of Honor citation, time after time, Doss' fellow soldiers witnessed how unafraid he was for his own safety. He was always willing to go after a wounded comrade, no matter how great the danger. During the May 5, 1945, battle in Okinawa, Doss refused to take cover from enemy fire as he rescued 75 wounded soldiers, carrying them one-by-one and lowering them over the edge of the 400-foot Maeda Escarpment. He did not stop until he had brought everyone to safety nearly 12 hours later. Doss would later credit knot-tying skills learned in an Adventist youth group, the Pathfinders, with helping him accomplish the rescue.


Despite that day being a Sabbath, or Saturday, Doss understood Jesus' injunction that it was fitting to "do good" on the holy day by saving lives.

According to media reports, when U.S. President Harry Truman gave Doss his medal, Truman told him, "I'm proud of you; you really deserve this. I consider this [medal] a greater honor than being President."

Doss' exemplary devotion to God and his country received nationwide acclaim. On July 4, 2004, a statue of Doss was placed in the National Museum of Patriotism in Atlanta, Ga., along with statues of Dr. Martin Luther King, President Jimmy Carter, and retired Marine Corps General Gray Davis, also a Medal of Honor recipient. Also in 2004, a feature-length documentary called "The Conscientious Objector," telling Doss' story of faith, heroism, and bravery was released. A feature movie describing Doss' story is also being planned.

Ironically, Terry Benedict, who produced the documentary and who will work on the feature film, was receiving a communication Bridge Award from the Seventh-day Adventist Church at the time news of Doss' passing arrived.

"I saw Desmond about [ten days] ago," Benedict told ANN. "We had a nice chat; he was in good spirits. His story was told on film, and it went far, far beyond what Desmond had ever imagined."

In and around Washington, D.C., tributes to Doss emerged.

"There are probably few who appreciated life and freedom more than he did," Major Sheldon Smith, a spokesman for the United States Army, said in a statement. "Private First Class Desmond T. Doss was an American Hero in the truest sense -- one each of us should not hesitate to emulate."

According to Pastor Don Schneider, president of the Adventist Church in North America, Doss "is considered to be a role model - especially to many of our members. His decision to not bear arms in the most dangerous of times was a courageous and heroic decision that has in turn affected many lives. We are proud to have had Desmond as a member of our Church."

Doss' survivors include his wife Frances, his son, Desmond T. Doss, Jr., and his brother, Harold Doss. He was preceded in death by his first wife Dorothy Schutte and his sister, Audrey Millner.

Read Doss' brief, humble account of Miracle Day here.

Or just watch this.

The High Tide

Barr routs Ruwart; Root cuts himself in for a share of the spoils; am I left homeless?

Perhaps John McCain and I, for once, share the same nightmare: Bob Barr at the head of the Libertarian ticket.

It was fairly evident by the third of six ballots that the far more conservative branch of the party (split between Barr and Wayne Allyn Root) had the votes to prevail. After two ballots with the lead tied between Barr and Mary Ruwart, the fifth ballot gave Ruwart an ephemeral three-vote lead, while eliminating Root from contention.

Root then strode to the microphone and threw his support to Barr in exchange for the vice-presidential nomination.

That was pretty much all she wrote. Ruwart could not even make herself say she'd support Barr in her concession speech. Instead, she later nominated Steve Kubby for VP in order to balance the ticket. The strategy might have worked, except that at least a couple dozen delegates had left the floor in disgust, and their votes would have made the difference.

So now the Libertarian Party, in its new incarnation as the plaything for Richard Viguerie, Bob Barr, Shane Corey, Steve Gordon, and Wayne Allyn Root, is poised to enter the presidential lists, with the Barr folks trumpeting loudly the Rasmussen polling that already gives him 6% nationwide.

In some key states--Nevada and Georgia come to mind--Barr/Root arguably has the chance to throw the state from McCain to Obama, just as Ralph Nader might tilt Michigan the other way.

Meanwhile, I'm left wondering who to support and where to go in the general election. I am not leaving the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party of Delaware is just beginning to find its feet, and we've got a lot of work to do.

My own preferred candidate, Dr George Phillies, is out. McCain favors preemptive war. Obama is for increasing the defense budget and the size of the military, while simultaneously creating massive new social programs. Barr has a history of police-state, anti-gay, pro-war on drugs legislation and a cheesy mustache. Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party is strongly anti-abortion. Cynthia McKinney for the Greens is--to put it mildly--a loon, and Ralph Nader is a gadfly rather than a candidate.

Obviously I am going about this the wrong way. So let's backtrack:

Here are my three most important issues:

1) Foreign policy/defense: I want American imperialism rolled back and American interventionism halted, as the same time we begin to pull free from the military/industrial complex by slashing the budgets for defense and homeland security to reasonable levels.

2) Civil libertarian issues: I want to see gay marriage legalized; drugs decriminalized; Real ID abolished; the Patriot Act gutted; and immigrants viewed as human beings. I want intrusive government the hell out of my life.

3) Fiscal sanity: I want a government that stops growing and taking an ever-expanding bite out of my paycheck; I want to see wasteful programs cut, and to have Congress faced with the same sort of imperative the Delaware General Assembly had to face this year: balancing the budget.

So you tell me: if that's what I want, who is my best candidate?

Chile assumes leadership of UNASUR- Viva Chile!!!

These folks know something about peaceful commerce.....we could learn a valuable lesson here if we choose to do so. Aside from have the two prettiest presidents in the world, Argentina and Chile are doing some magnificent work in social and peaceful development in agricultural development and in foreign affairs.

Chile's Bachelet assumes rotating presidency of UNASUR

Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, instead of Colombia's Alvaro Uribe, accepted the rotating presidency of the Union of South-American nations (UNASUR) in Brasilia on Friday.

Bachelet received this nomination from Bolivian President Evo Morales, who actually should pass the presidency to Uribe, but the latter declined, because of the conflict between his country, Ecuador and Venezuela, caused by the Colombian attack against a FARC camp in Ecuador.

After having accepted her functions, Bachelet said before her South-American counterparts that she would seek the consensus and use all the possible energy to put onto right way the South-American unity.

She also said that the UNASUR gave to the South America the chance to gain a more strong voice on the international scene.

Leaders of 12 South-American countries signed in Brasilia Friday morning the treaty to set up the South-American Union of Nations (UNASUR).

Only Uruguay was represented by its vice-president Rodolfo Nin Novoa, all other heads of state were present in Brasilia.

The UNASUR is formed by Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Equator, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela and Surname.

The principal objects of the UNASUR intent to strengthen the political dialogue between states members and the regional integration, especially in the areas of economy, finances, social development and culture.

John McCain Throws Another Pastor Under the Bus

As eloquently reported by our left leaning friends, the ever sexually open John McCain has rejected the endorsement of or Torquemada after it was discovered that Torquemada could torture and sexually humiliate his enemies better than Mr. McCain could.

Our republican friends, sinking to a new low, are offering us torture via the Hillary Nutcracker...

I once heard it said that "George Santayana had an irrational faith in reason" I have an irrational faith in the power of pastors and their monkish wizards to rule through and validate torture and violence, well that and right wing nutjob radio hosts.

Steve Kubby wins Libertarian Presidential debate!

You should know that I still support Dr George Phillies for the nomination, and that I think he did a credible job tonight, but hands down the biggest winner in this debate was Steve Kubby.

I have to call them the way I see them.

Why? I'll give you three reasons.

1) Style: Kubby looked and sounded passionate, came across as witty but on point, and appeared in command of virtually every question.

2) Substance: Kubby did not waffle; on gay marriage he asked who had empowered the government to look up people's dresses and pants to decide who got to get married. In two hours he shed the single dimensionality of a marijuana-only-single-issue campaigner and established himself as a man with credible answers to the questions people care about.

3) Class: At the end of the debate C-SPAN's cameras caught Kubby walking over to shake hands with Bob Barr a second time. He said (paraphrasing as closely as possible): Thank you for your answers tonight. I had some doubts coming in here as to whether you had really become a Libertarian and you addressed them all. He did not know he was on camera.

That having been said, here's my rundown of the other candidate performances tonight. I was joined by my twelve-year-old political junkie daughter (who did not fall asleep until 10:45). Hers are the comments in bold.

Bob Barr: Looks like the actor who plays Barty Crouch in the Harry Potter movies. He should shave that mustache. Sorry, Daddy, yours looks OK. Contrary to Kubby's response, I thought Barr spent most of the night ducking questions. Like a good mainstream politician he ducked specific answers to the question of repealing Federal gun laws, to the question of ending the war on drugs, to the question of gay marriage, and to the question American military intervention. His speaking style gives wooden a bad name.

Mike Gravel: How old is this guy, anyway? Will he make it to November? Isn't John McCain that old, too? Does he ever say anything? Gravel is good on foreign policy, and likes to chant, "Freedom, freedom, freedom!" But he couldn't quite paper over his support for universal health care, the Fair Tax, or mandating little if any change on public education--all sensitive topics with most Libertarians.

George Phillies: He reminds me of my social studies teacher. I think he's probably smarter than anyone else in the room, but who is he going to get to listen to him? Dr Phillies nailed some questions (such as gay marriage, selecting Libertarian judges and ending American interventionism), but lost his audience with the details in others. His job tonight was to position himself as the compromise candidate (which he frankly admitted), and I thought he accomplished some of that. But if he was looking for a breakthrough to bring him up beyond about 10-15% on the first ballot, I don't think he achieved it.

Mike Jingozian: What's up with his eyes? At least he admitted when he didn't know the answer. I kind of like him. I thought his performance as solid, but--as Simon too often says on American Idol--forgettable. I don't think anybody will remember a single answer beyond midnight (it's 11:29 as I write this, and they are already tough to recall).

Mary Ruwart: What's she want to be? Hillary Clinton? She keeps saying she should get it because she's a woman. She needs to get over it. If Kubby was the big winner, Ruwart was probably the big loser. Ruwart's big claim is that she has the expertise and the experience to explain liberty and Libertarian concepts to the general public. If that's true, it wasn't in evidence tonight. Her answers were stumbling, rambling, almost incoherent at times. Unless it all sounded different in the hall, I'd expect some movement among the radical ranks from Ruwart to Kubby after this.

Wayne Allyn Root: Either his tie is too big or his head's too small. If he home schools his children I feel sorry for them. Actually, I thought Root ran a distant second to Kubby tonight. He was a bit too over-the-top in his unrelenting enthusiasm, but his answers were good, and he dispelled a lot of the one dimensionality previously attributed to him. If he and Barr are the two wrestling for the so-called neo-con wing of the Libertarian Party, I came away with the feeling I could live with him a lot better than I could live with Barr.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

We'll see what tomorrow brings.

Notes from the LP Convention: Viguerie in wrong decade; Munger shines; Delaware's Paul Thompson checks in

Thanks to Waldo (whose browser is apparently waterproof and can function in the bath tub), I have a link to Richard Viguerie's keynote address to the Libertarian Convention, and I've also managed to find the first few minutes of North Carolina gubernatorial candidate Michael Munger's co-keynote address at his Kids Prefer Cheese.

I have to agree with Waldo on Viguerie: "a speech straight out of the 1950s. All it lacked was Communists and the Negro Problem."

Nothing in Viguerie's speech touched a single Libertarian value that is not subsumed in Conservatism. No mention of the folly of the war on drugs, government regulation of private relationships, no discussion about shrinking the government or getting it out of our lives.

Senator Taft would have been very, very proud of you, Richard.

In the other hand, Michael Munger's speech actually addressed Libertarian issues (at least in its first three minutes):

This administration in Washington is a really great recruiter for our party. Everywhere I go, people are disgusted.

They glance around, to make sure no one is listening, and then tell me, “You know, I never considered voting Libertarian before. But when I see the Patriot Act, when I see the casualties in the war in Iraq and the war on drugs, then I start to think Libertarian.”

The government is not providing the basic services that our more optimistic fellow citizens have come to expect. When I talk to people in the cities, Latinos and African-Americans, people who send their children to schools that look like war zones, schools that may be the single most disastrous examples of the failure of statist social engineering, I hear it: “I’m starting to think Libertarian.”

Of course, some folks also ask me, “Why don’t Libertarians care about real people? The Democrats and Republicans are interested in real people.”

I answer, yes, Democrats and Republicans are interested in real people. And fleas are interested in real dogs. We don’t elect them dog-catcher, though.

Why would you think that if I care about you, I should want to run your life? Or, if I don’t want to run you life, why would you think I don’t care?

As I said, this year is a great opportunity for Libertarians, for an alternative.

Of course, you can guess which candidate managed to get his speech covered on C-SPAN.

Further note: Paul Thompson, our Delaware delegate to the convention has checked in via email. This is a conflation of two brief reports:

Hello, Delaware Libertarians! I have arrived at the Sheraton formerly known as Adams Mark in Denver, and registered and obtained my credentials as your delegate to the LP National Convention. I am just beginning to get acclimated to the convention site, finding my way around.

Already a disappointment; I came here expecting to see a coordinated group effort to take a block of delegates to the Rockies game tomorrow. Apparently the convention program has no direct role in any effort to get to that game. I'll keep trying but it looks doubtful.

Also, the computer access from here is at the hotel Business Center, with its three computers. Of course I'm on one of them now, but how adequate this will be throughout a convention full of delegates that include our overrepresentation of computer geeks, we'll have to see. Anyway, I will report later on during the convention as availability allows....

We are mostly through the Bylaws part of Convention business. it looks like a contentious convention. Whether a pessimistic prediction David Nolan made yesterday that this could be as divisive as 1983, we'll see....

A brief update now, before I get back to the floor.

The cyber cafe now has five computers, so access is a little better. Also, at least one risk of a civil war here has been averted, in the platform fight. I am happy to be on the generally prevailing side of this, but much happier that the opponents didn't go into all out war mode and then "our side" stopped short of some things I thought would be piling on. More about this after I get home, if any are interested.

Paul's reference to the platform fight is covered in a post at Third Party Watch, regarding the fact that the group behind the minority report essentially gave up after losing the first two or three votes.

We'll have more from Paul as he checks in.

I'm off now to watch the candidates debate on C-SPAN.

UNASUR: BOLIVAR'S DOCTRINA LATIN AMERICA

If Unasur works it will be the fulfillment of Simon Bolivar's Latin American Doctrine.

South America creates regional union
By MARCO SIBAJA, Associated Press Writer Fri May 23, 5:19 PM ET

BRASILIA, Brazil - A new South American union was born Friday as leaders of the region's 12 nations set out to create a continental parliament.

Some see the new organization, Unasur, as a regional version of the European Union. Summit host Brazil wants it to help coordinate defense affairs across South America and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez calls it a counterweight to the United States.

"The number one enemy of the union of the south is the empire of the United States," Chavez said, claiming that the U.S. is "trying to generate wars in South America" to "divide and conquer."

Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, invited other Latin American and Caribbean nations to join the venture. "Unasur is born, open to all the region, born under the signs of diversity and pluralism," he said.

But South American leaders still found their own reasons for division.

Unasur's first secretary-general, Rodrigo Borja, resigned Thursday before the organization formally met. He complained that some leaders had balked at his vision of putting other regional trade blocs, including Mercosur and the Andean Community, under Unasur.
Leaders were also split over plans for a South American Defense Council that would resolve conflicts, promote military cooperation and possibly coordinate joint weapons production.

Colombia is the only nation that opposes joining such a council, saying "the terrorist threat" it faces at home, amid 40 years of civil conflict, precludes military cooperation. Even so, a government statement added, "Colombia does not oppose the creation of a working group to study the theme."

Silva used his speech at the summit Friday to urge wealthier nations to cut farm subsidies and import tariffs, and he defended biofuels, including ethanol, which critics blame for rising food prices.

"We should not be fooled one bit by the arguments of those, who for protectionist or geopolitical motives, feel uncomfortable with our industry, our agriculture and with the realization of our energy potential," Silva told the leaders.

Unasur could ease future political tensions, promoting development on a continent where intra-regional trade topped US$72 billion (euro54.6 billion) in 2006, experts say.

South America's economy is expected grow by 4.7 percent this year, according to the U.N.'s Economic Commission on Latin America. It expanded 5.7 percent in 2007, when foreign direct investment reached a record US$106 billion (euro72 billion) as global demand for the region's natural resources soared.

Appeal for Earthquake Victims: PLEASE DONATE TODAY

If you can, please make a donation.......

DCAA Announcement:

Funds Raised for Quake Relief

Our community has come together once again! We have raised over $30,000.

Yesterday, we wired out $20,000 to Red Cross Society of China.

We plan to send another wire early next week. We are grateful to everybody, including many of our school students, who has made donation. We thank you for raising fund in the companies you work.
The dead toll has risen to over 50,000. Reporters now speculate that up to 80,000 people could be dead. More than 30,000 are still missing. More than 250,000 were injured. More than 5 million people are homeless.

The need for our help continues to increase.

Another fund raiser has been planned for the next Saturday afternoon, 5/31, 1-5 PM, at Chinese American Community Center.

Free ice cream and Italian ice will be served. Please invite your colleagues, neighbors and friends...

Please send your tax deductible donations to:

EARTHQUAKE RELIEF: DCAA, PO Box 309, Hockessin DE 19707.

You can also send your donations directly to American Red Cross.

I really like kavips, but I don't buy the argument about Senator Obama

What I really, really hate to do is disagree with kavips.

kavips is one of the consistently most thoughtful bloggers in Delaware, and the fact that s/he is certainly far from my own political perspective on many issues (although very close on others) does not prevent me from paying close attention when s/he speaks.

But I have thought for some time that kavips is not speaking clearly or consistently with regard to this presidential election cycle.

Currently s/he has up a post on the Different Shades of Brown in America, which starts off at an elementary school concert and ends in a consideration of why we have to elect Barack Obama to provide us the jump into the social changes we need in this country.

It is genuinely written, I think, to be inspiring, and that's the way that such different individuals as Liz, Nancy Willing, and David Anderson took it.

But to me there were just too many jarring, stream-of-consciousness inaccurate generalizations that kept breaking the mood--sort of like when the special effects fail in an action movie, and you lose that necessary suspension of disbelief.

Here are a couple of problematic passages for me:

America does not need to prosper….as Republicans have touted as they roll back taxes on the wealthy. But every human American does….if this nation is to remain a bastion of Democracy against the new threats of Russia, and China. both technological equals with vast resources at their disposal…..

I am genuinely unsure about precisely what the first sentence actually means. I find the characterization of Russia and China as "threats" to be troubling, and as "technological equals" to be inaccurate.

Then there's this:

There may come a time when we may need assistance from the rest of the world if our nation is to survive….. Having a multicultural nation would be our best defense against any national attack…. Who could not support a nation which allowed ones relatives to work and send back the very money one needed to survive upon?

Allow me the luxury of this theoretical example. One of our best defenses which we have going for us to keep China from attacking us, is to have a large number of Chinese living here and calling us their home…. How can an attacking nation convince its citizenery that we are evil when each individual soldiers relatives back home are telling him otherwise?

Likewise with Russians, Indians, Arabs, and Latin Americans…..Our common defense rests on our friendships, probably a little more than it rests on our weapons…..

"How can an attacking nation convince its citizenry that we are evil when each individual soldiers relatives back home are telling him otherwise?" China and Russia, I might point out, are authoritarian nations who don't really depend on the opinion from below in deciding on foreign or military policy. Nor, in a nuclear, precise-guided-munitions age do other countries actually have to convince more than a few button-pushing technicians to launch an attack.

I might also point out that having a 10% Muslim/Arab population is not working out so well for France.

Multiculturalism is an American fetish, not a worldwide value. About fifteen years ago, there was to be a major historical/cultural exchange program between Japan and the US, with each country providing a gigantic, Disney-like traveling exhibit for a two-year tour in the other's country. The project broke off, however, when the Japanese sponsors learned that the US exhibit would emphasize how cultural diversity is our strength. To many Japanese, what American calls multiculturalism is more accurately considered mongrelization. Check Japanese public school history books in vain for any positive references to the Ainu or Koreans.

I also found myself pulling back at this reference:

If any child comes from parents of two different shades of skin, why do we automatically call that child black? Why is he not white? This controversy is solved if we choose to call it as it is…. “If a dark brown mothers the baby of a light brown, it’s a medium brown…” “Whoop de doo.” Anyone with married friends of different shades of brown, who happen to have children, knows full well the impossibility of pigeonholing each of their progeny’s behavior based on their skin’s shade of brown…..

If one looks at race with a clear eye….it is laughable.

"Why do we automatically call that child black? Why is he not white?" Because in the peculiar social-cultural tradition formed by the confluence of European (primarily English), Native American, and African cultures colliding in North America, a particular version of pseudo-genetic racial thought emerged around the late seventeenth century that (unfortunately) became the basis of our own special American brand of racism. We've been trying with mixed success to get beyond that paradigm for decades.

But let's not forget that other cultures have equally twisted if totally different paradigms of racism. Consider the Spanish version of race, which could have two sons of the same "white" parents end up in different racial categories (Peninsulares or Criollos), and which had literally dozens if not hundreds of different legal categories depending on the racial category of your great grandparents. All of which, with suitable bribes, could be eradicated with a Certificado de blanco that, by the Grace of God and King Philip, could immediately extinguish your non-White blood.

At the same time, try out that multicultural mantra on the Middle East, which most Americans and western Europeans mentally populate with Arabs, failing to realize that--for example--the Iranians are Persians, the majority ethnicity in Pakistan is Pashtun, and the ruling minority in Syria is neither Sunni nor Shi'a, but Alawite. There are many Muslim scholars who believe (although it is dangerous for them to say so in public) that the Muslim Middle East actually needs Israel in permanent existence as a common enemy, because otherwise the ethnic and religious animosities would tear the region apart more fiercely than is the case today. Certainly we have gotten a preview of that possibility in the Iraqi Civil War.

I find the inherent paradoxes of the following paragraphs maddening:

But to use Galactica termonolgy, America needs “to Jump”….. We need to move our entire nation, en masse, to some point into the future. The last person to make a jump of the likes we now need, was Franklin D. Roosevelt. The one before that, was Lincoln….. So these events don’t come that often....

Undeniably the winner will need to jump America’s ship far into America’s future…..We can’t wait for the shattering of our infrastructure and economic markets, the poisoning of our planet, or the breakdown of our people to occur before we take action. We know what needs done and that action will need to be taken as quickly as possible. Having either one of the two candidates with a ligher shade of brown calling the shots, means we will still have to relive those same old controversies that should have been put behind us many years ago……

Race should not be an issue…..it certainly isn’t for kids in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades…..ask them…..They’ll tell you….”Who cares what shade of brown lurks in one’s skin? We’re all the same.”

I will only point out two problems with this sequence:

1) "We know what needs done and that action will need to be taken as quickly as possible." Precisely the problem America is facing is that there is not a general consensus on "what needs to be done", and the failure of Dubya's administration did not create one. There are tens of millions of Americans who believe that we need a much more managed, centralized state to achieve social justice, stop global warming, and usher in an era of peace and prosperity through national health care, windfall profits taxes, and a major re-orientation toward mass transit. There are also tens of millions of Americans who favor a less authoritarian, more market-oriented approach to our problems. And even at 28% approval ratings, there are still tens of millions of people out there who believe in social conservatism every bit as much as you believe in multicultural pluralism. If you are using We as a collective pronoun for the entire American people, this sentence is manifestly inaccurate. If you are using We to represent Democratic/liberal consensus, that's more accurate, but then the absence of apparent toleration for other views is a bit daunting.

Look at it this way: Dubya told everybody that the threat of terrorism was so great that they had to put their qualms aside and trust in the government to keep them safe--and we all know how well that's worked out. Your sentence suggests that the many other threats to America are so great that the rest of us have to put our qualms aside and trust new leadership to jump us en masse into the future. There's some parallelism there, I think.

2) First you say we have to elect Senator Obama, because "Having either one of the two candidates with a ligher shade of brown calling the shots, means we will still have to relive those same old controversies that should have been put behind us many years ago," which strikes me as a strange juxtaposition to the follow-up statement that "race should not be an issue." I think everyone really needs to get straight the idea that electing Barack Obama president would be a milestone (electing Catholic JFK was a similar milestone, and if you don't see the equation it only proves you are probably not Catholic of a certain generation), but electing Barack Obama president will not suddenly cause "those same old controversies" to disappear.

It seems to me that after an impassioned argument that we should not let shades of brown divide us, when you then divide the presidential candidates by exactly the measure you deplore, that there is some seriously fuzzy thinking going on here.

Disclaimer: before you take your shot, realize that I know that it was stupidity on my part that led me to write this post. So many of the snippets kavips has strung together in this piece have become litmus tests for declaring people to be hopeless social conservatives, or racists, or other dire things. So I realize that the folks who agree with the spirit of kavips's writing are going to gently (maybe not so gently) explain to me that I should know better. Feel free.

Blogging about blogging from the Libertarian convention

Philosopher Daniel Dennett is fond of saying that people don't necessarily believe in God, but that they believe in the belief in God.

In that spirit (so to speak), instead of asking people with only slightly more than an idle interest in the Libertarian Convention (hello, Waldo) to delve through the myriad blogs to find out what's happened so far, here's a few of the highlights:

At the Libertarians for Justice event (our favorite 9/11 truther squadron):

Long-shot presidential candidate John Finan spoke for a bit and was then asked to sign the L4J pledge demanding a full investigation into the 9/11 attacks. I guess the group is a “9/11 Truthers” organization or whatever… I’d only heard of them a couple times in the past.

Anyway, Finan did not react well to being “ambushed” by this pledge and he and group leader Jim Duensing started to get into it.

Observers are telling me that Finan was ranting and raving and refused to return some sort of fancy marker that Duensing had given him to sign the pledge with.

Eventually, it got so heated that Finan was actually escorted out of the area.

And this is only the first night.

At the same event:

Starchild asked presidential candidate Mike Gravel how he could support coercive taxation for things like education and healthcare, while still claiming to support the core libertarian idea that people should be able to do whatever they liked with their own property, so long as they did not initiate force against others.

A lengthy exchange ensued, with Gravel becoming increasingly angry. At one point, a frustrated Gravel asked if what libertarians wanted was voluntary education. The crowd responded affirmatively. Gravel said, “Fine! Let’s go back to the 18th century.” Well-known libertarian activist Andy shouted from the crowd, “It’s not going back to the 18th century, it’s going back to freedom.” The crowd of delegates cheered.

Meanwhile, there is evidence that the Bob Barr juggernaut might not be as overwhelming as advertised:

I just heard from someone that Bob Barr defeated Lee Wrights, of the Mary Ruwart campaign, for a seat on the Libertarian National Committee. The margin of victory was pretty close, apparently Barr won by only 2 votes.

There’s also talk of some friction within the core members of the Barr-Viguerie group, although it’s totally unconfirmed at this point.

The Ruwart campaign is obviously a little disappointed by their loss, but the close margin must make them feel somewhat better.

The afore-mention excerpts are all from Independent Political Report.

And from Last Free Voice:

Mike Gravel may be falling short of the support needed to get in the big debate (or why else would his people be trying to change the rules?):

About an hour ago, one of the Gravel guys made a motion to expand the amount of time for Bylaws debates until later on in the evening. I raised an eyebrow, but that motion failed and I didn’t think any more of it.

However, we’re running close to the end of the session, and now the Gravel folks are scrambling around like crazy (Gravel himself’s on the floor)… and made a motion to skip directly to a proposal for changing the threshold for Presidential candidates being entitled to give nominating speeches and/or enter the debates. From the chatter I’m overhearing from his volunteers, they don’t yet have enough delegate tokens to get in the debate under current rules.

Meanwhile, the Barr people are apparently exploiting a loophole in the rules to scare up some more votes:

Robert Stacy McCain reports that delegates are being seated for states other than their home states, noting that Libertarian Party convention rules allow for this.

Note: This is pretty significant. Most state LPs do not fill all of their delegate slots for the national convention prior to the convention. This means they have extra slots to give away at the convention, if they so choose. If a candidate can convince one or more existing state delegations (or just their chairs?) to seat additional delegates, the candidate can effectively stuff the ballot box with extra voting delegates who favor that candidate.

From notes on the by-laws committee meeting, there are these two important notes:

Richard Viguerie is giving the Keynote Address. He kinda oscillates between appeals to the base and to disgruntled Republicans, saying “We libertarians…” in one sentence and “We conservatives..” in the next. Still, the crowd has been surprisingly positive. Turnout is not as high as it was for other morning sessions, but the rumored “protests” haven’t happened....

We spend what feels like forever arguing about this [the Statement of Principles]… the Reformers clearly don’t have enough support to change the SoP even with parliamentary tricks.

The new, Viguerie-owned Third Party Watch reports that Mike Gravel might not be the only candidate worrying about getting into the Presidential debate:

Four LP candidates (no, I’m not naming names) have privately indicated that they are not certain they will get enough tokens to qualify for the “C-SPAN debate” because the current rules require the number of tokens to equal at least 10% of the number of delegates.

There's a lot more at all three of these blogs, but this gives the flavor of the coverage. Nobody knows what's about to happen, and indeed anything could.

Guest Post: Sen Joseph R. Biden

There are times when I am so proud to be from Delaware. Senator Biden, thank you.

This article if from the Wall Street Journal and expresses Delaware's profound willingness to engage the world through trade, diplomacy and negotiation; a world that George W. Bush and John McCain seem so willing to alienate. Sen. Biden is right, we are on the wrong track and he is offering us the right track to be on; it is the successful policy we have used to engage the world through peace and prosperity.

It must have felt so good to tell George W. Bush he is full of shit. I commend you sir.

Republicans and Our Enemies
By JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
May 23, 2008; Page A15

On Wednesday, Joe Lieberman wrote on this page that the Democratic Party he and I grew up in has drifted far from the foreign policy espoused by Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy.

In fact, it is the policies that President George W. Bush has pursued, and that John McCain would continue, that are divorced from that great tradition – and from the legacy of Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Sen. Lieberman is right: 9/11 was a pivotal moment. History will judge Mr. Bush's reaction less for the mistakes he made than for the opportunities he squandered.

The president had a historic opportunity to unite Americans and the world in common cause. Instead – by exploiting the politics of fear, instigating an optional war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan, and instituting policies on torture, detainees and domestic surveillance that fly in the face of our values and interests – Mr. Bush divided Americans from each other and from the world.

At the heart of this failure is an obsession with the "war on terrorism" that ignores larger forces shaping the world: the emergence of China, India, Russia and Europe; the spread of lethal weapons and dangerous diseases; uncertain supplies of energy, food and water; the persistence of poverty; ethnic animosities and state failures; a rapidly warming planet; the challenge to nation states from above and below.

Instead, Mr. Bush has turned a small number of radical groups that hate America into a 10-foot tall existential monster that dictates every move we make.

The intersection of al Qaeda with the world's most lethal weapons is a deadly serious problem. Al Qaeda must be destroyed. But to compare terrorism with an all-encompassing ideology like communism and fascism is evidence of profound confusion.

Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. Messrs. Bush and McCain lump together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us: Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Iraq and Iran, al Qaeda and Shiite militias. If they can't identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win.

The results speak for themselves.

On George Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb; its influence in Iraq is expanding; its terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and that country is on the brink of civil war.

Beyond Iran, al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 – are stronger now than at any time since 9/11. Radical recruitment is on the rise. Hamas controls Gaza and launches rockets at Israel every day. Some 140,000 American troops remain stuck in Iraq with no end in sight.

Because of the policies Mr. Bush has pursued and Mr. McCain would continue, the entire Middle East is more dangerous. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are less secure.

The election in November is a vital opportunity for America to start anew. That will require more than a great soldier. It will require a wise leader.

Here, the controversy over engaging Iran is especially instructive.

Last week, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Barack Obama was "naïve and inexperienced" for advocating engagement; "What is it he wants to talk about?" he asked.

Well, for a start, Iran's nuclear program, its support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its patronage of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Beyond bluster, how would Mr. McCain actually deal with these dangers? You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. If Mr. McCain has ruled out talking, we're stuck with an ineffectual policy or military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control.

Sen. Obama is right that the U.S. should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without "preconditions" – i.e. without insisting that Iran first freeze the program, which is the very subject of any negotiations. He has been clear that he would not become personally involved until the necessary preparations had been made and unless he was convinced his engagement would advance our interests.

President Nixon didn't demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao. President Reagan didn't insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev. Even George W. Bush – whose initial disengagement allowed dangers to proliferate – didn't demand that Libya relinquish its nuclear program, that North Korea give up its plutonium, or even that Iran stop aiding those attacking our soldiers in Iraq before authorizing talks.

The net effect of demanding preconditions that Iran rejects is this: We get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb.

Equally unwise is the Bush-McCain fixation on regime change. The regime is abhorrent, but their logic defies comprehension: renounce the bomb – and when you do, we're still going to take you down. The result is that Iran accelerated its efforts to produce fissile material.

Instead of regime change, we should focus on conduct change. We should make it very clear to Iran what it risks in terms of isolation if it continues to pursue a dangerous nuclear program but also what it stands to gain if it does the right thing. That will require keeping our allies in Europe, as well as Russia and China, on the same page as we ratchet up pressure.

It also requires a much more sophisticated understanding than Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain seem to possess that by publicly engaging Iran – including through direct talks – we can exploit cracks within the ruling elite, and between Iran's rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically.

Iran's people need to know that their government, not the U.S., is choosing confrontation over cooperation. Our allies and partners need to know that the U.S. will go the extra diplomatic mile – if we do, they are much more likely to stand with us if diplomacy fails and force proves necessary.

The Bush-McCain saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It achieves nothing. But it forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders. And it spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right from American wallets into Tehran's pockets.

The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on tension with America is an America ready, willing and able to engage. Since when has talking removed the word "no" from our vocabulary?

It's amazing how little faith George Bush, Joe Lieberman and John McCain have in themselves – and in America.

Mr. Biden, a Democratic senator from Delaware, is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The Sheep and the Horses: Reconstruction versus Reality

Indo-European is the source language from which dozens of modern languages--from Hindi to Croatian to French--have descended. Scholars have been working to break down common words and syntax to reconstruct it for decades.



There has even been an attempt to create a story in what some researchers believe is our best reconstruction of Indo-European.

This is the translation:

The Sheep and the Horses

[On a hill] a sheep that ha no wool saw horses--one pulling a heavy wagon, another one a great load, and another swiftly carrying a man. The sheep said to the horses, "It hurts me seeing a man driving horses."

The horses said to the sheep: "Listen, sheep! It hurts us seeing man, the master, making a warm garment for himself from the wool of a sheep when the sheep has no wool for itself."

On hearing this, the sheep fled into the plain.

This is the original (note that [w] stands for a super-scribed "w" that I cannot do on blogspot) as written by Winfred Lehrmann and Ladislav Zgusta in 1979:

Owis ekwosk[w]e

(G[w][e]rei) owis, k[w]esyo wihna ne est, ekwons espeket, oinom ghe g[w]rum woghom weghontm, oinomk[w]e megam bhorom, oinomk[w]e ghmenm oku bherontm.

Owis nu ekwobh(y)os ewewk[w]ont: Ker aghnutoi moie ekwons agontm nerm widntei.

Ekwos tu ewewk[w]ont: Kludhi, owei, ker aghnutoi nsmei widntbh(y)os: ner, potis, owiom r wihnam sebhi g[w]hermom westrom k[w]rneuti. Neghi owiom wihna esti.

Tod kekluwos owis agrom ebhuget.

J. P. Mallory, in his In Search of the Indo-Europeans, points out the philosophical dilemma in creating such stories:

The question as to what extent the reconstructions, or as some might prefer, linguistic triangulations, represent the "original" language has always been a source of debate. There have been those who would argue that the reconstructed forms are founded on reasonably substantiated linguistic observations and that a linguist, projected back into the past, could make him or herself understood among the earlier speakers of a language. Others prefer to view the reconstructions as merely convenient formulas that express the linguistic histories of the various languages in the briefest possible manner. Their realit is not a subject of concern or interest. [p. 16]

The point? Today there are two of them.

1) The minor point: some days I get tired of the propensity of the blogosphere merely to move around or comment on information without injecting something completely new.

2) The major point: go back to my post about Osama bin Laden earlier this week. Is the Osama we see and think about a reconstruction or a reality? Pretty obviously, he's a reconstruction, filtered through a variety of cultural and information lenses. If you actually got to squat in the cave and speak with him, odds are he would be significantly different than your expectations.

But policy and opinions are almost always based on reconstructions, which are then treated as realities.

The problem is, everybody reconstructs differently--especially people from different cultural and political backgrounds.

Do you believe that if I could travel back in time some 5,000 years that I could use The Sheep and the Horses to communicate with the inhabitants? If so, then you can be satisfied with what we say we think we know about bin Laden as an effective substitute for reality.

If not, you're going to have to dig a little deeper.

Return of the Draft....

....yes folks there is more serious consideration for beginning the draft again.... You can read about it here.... I suggest you prepare all the young people.

Rachel Hoffman could have been my daughter . . . or yours

Here's the story, from the Rachel Morningstar Foundation (h/t to Drug War Rant):

Rachel Hoffman had just graduated from Florida State University, with plans to attend culinary school. As an undergrad, she was popular among her group of friends, many of whom she met through her involvement in FSU’s chapters of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).

Like many college students, she shared marijuana with her friends, and would often “go in” on larger amounts in order to save money. And that’s how she got busted.

Rachel was threatened with prison time, then promised a slap on the wrist if she agreed to wear a wire and set up a deal with her suppliers. Tallahassee police gave her $13,000 in cash and told her to purchase 1,500 ecstasy pills, 2 ounces of cocaine, and a handgun. They never informed her attorney, family, or the state prosecutor before they sent Rachel into the lions’ den that day. And nobody had the chance to tell her she was in way over her head.

After police found Rachel’s body, they held a press conference to blame her for her own death. Among Rachel’s family and friends, sadness quickly turned into outrage and action. Last Wednesday, hundreds of students marched in protest of the role the Tallahassee Police Department played in Rachel’s death. They held signs that read “Who Killed Rachel?” and “No More Drug War” while wearing t-shirts they had gotten from SSDP and other allied organizations at our last international conference.

Her mom started the foundation to work for Rachel's Law, a law that would require law enforcement officials to allow citizens to consult an attorney before agreeing to do any undercover work.

You can go here to watch several of the self-serving interviews granted by the Tallahassee Police Department in which they just don't get it that the idea of placing untrained young people in harm's way "to protect our community" (and insuring their participation by threatening them with "serious jail time") is simply un-American.

Had Rachel been my daughter, I would have been tempted to reprise the scene from Terminator wherein Arnold visits the local police department.

You Know it is Bad When the Homeland Gestapo Attack the Press and Academics...

Bill Conroy was normal journalist doing his duty when one day two agents of the Department of Homeland Security came to his house and all of that changed. And his life changed forever..... You can read his story here.

You know that when our academics and journalists are intimidated and coerced, the end is nigh.

George Bush on Cuba....Going from crazy to crazier

George Bush announced another crazy policy towards Cuba. What we need to do to transition Cuba and the Cuban people to real freedom is lift the embargo on that country and begin trade and commerce and peaceful cultural exchange. But that is impossible because we continue to pursue a failed policy of embargo and hostility towards a poor island in the Caribbean.

They say that the true sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, failing and expecting it to work. In short, we have gone from a crazy policy to an even crazier one. Our Founding father's policy of non-intervention and peaceful development and commerce made America the heroes of the world. Now, every single country wants us to go home. That says something profound.

How many times do we need to say it, the best policy we could have to be a force for good in the world is NO INTERFERENCE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF OTHER NATIONS.

One wonders what the people of Cuba would say to George Bush if they had the chance to tell him, I think I have an idea. My friend Julius Gray has a clear idea.

This video perfectly expresses their sentiment and their aspirations for liberty and freedom:

You know you are Crazy When You Support John McCain....

Because it appears that only crazy people support him......According to the Huffington Post, Pastor John Hagee is at it again. Last time I recall he called the Catholic Church the "eternal whore of Babylon," this time he is taking aim at the Jews.

I remember everyone throwing around the racist label liberally, but Hagee's comments clearly reflect a profound psychological illness.

If the bible teaches one thing, it is that this guy John Hagee who has endorsed John McCain is bat shit crazy and dangerous. It is a good thing that John McCain is now trying to distance himself from Hagee but I think it is too late. He is two pastors to the wind. both crazy and both teaching intolerance and outright hatred.

I think it clearly says in one of those books that, "You shalt know them to be bat shit crazy when thou dost seest them start making outrageous fucking comments and making fun of Jews; hey assholes, my name is Jesus, I am a Jew."

To prove the point that he is nuts, let these facts to be submitted to a candid world:

Going in and out of biblical verse, Hagee preached: "'And they the hunters should hunt them,' that will be the Jews. 'From every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks.' If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the holocaust you can't see that."

He goes on: "Theodore Hertzel is the father of Zionism. He was a Jew who at the turn of the 19th century said, this land is our land, God wants us to live there. So he went to the Jews of Europe and said 'I want you to come and join me in the land of Israel.' So few went that Hertzel went into depression. Those who came founded Israel; those who did not went through the hell of the holocaust.

"Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says—Jeremiah writing—'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,' meaning there's no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended. I didn't write it, Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel."

I'll express it the way my grandfather, a WWII hero did...Hagee clearly lives in Nutzie land, happy dappy Nutzie land, I think I want to Der Heil in this Nutzie's face. This is a kind of neo-fascist teaching surpasses Mamood Amedenijad of Iran. Holy Moley you neo-fascist neo-conservative imperialist bastards waving your flags and supporting the dark side of the force....here is a little Nutzie cartoon for you Neo-Nutzie assholes. You are colossal stinkers. Skunks.

UPDATE: I called the Delaware Psychiatric Hospital to ask them to make room for John Hagee and John McCain, Vicente Fox, Jose Maria Aznar, Alvro Uribe, Alvin Garcia, Silvio Berlisconi, Don Rumsfeld, and all the rest of your Nutzie bastards when it is needed. We have a special room for you here with special straight jackets for you and your neo-conservative followers of Adolph Hitler, you extreme right wing imperialist neo-fascists.

It is so time for the left to take over from you assholes. I am so sick of this, the next person I see on MSNBC better have fatigues and beard.

WomenCount: Hillary Clinton is not going anywhere, soon!?

. . . at least if the new PAC WomenCount has anything to say about it.

The problem for Senator Barack Obama is not necessarily race vs gender, but the passion that Hillary has somehow instilled in her supporters. I was particularly struck by this comment at Crack the Bell, which managed to compare the 2008 Democratic National Committee favoring Obama to the 2000 Supreme Court handing Florida to Dubya:

The WomenCount PAC had a wonderful article in the USA Today paper regarding the representation of we the people, the voters. It expressed my thoughts exactly. I am so disappointed in the DNC, that they would interrupt democracy in such a historic race.

First we had the Supreme Court deciding our election in 2000 and now the news media and the DNC are deciding the election in 2008. I am very disallusioned with this whole process. I truly believe the popular vote should decide a candidacy, in an election, not the delegates or superdelegates. Because the DNC has made such a mess of this primary, I am seriously considering becoming an independent. I am completely disgusted with the way Hillary has been treated throughout this whole process. I never thought I would say that Fox News is the only station that has been non partisan during this election.

I am sorry to say I voted for Howard Dean and John Kerry in former races, but I do not intend to vote for Mr. Obama under any circumstances because I will not let the DNC and the news media influence my decision. This election along with the 2000 election has been the most dishonest I have ever seen.

WomenCount was organized by San Francisco clothing millionaire and Clintonista Susie Tompkins Buell [shown in photo with Hillary].

Then--I guess as sort of an answer to Moveon.org--there's Walkamileinourshoes.org, which has this posted:

Participants in Walk A Mile In Our Shoes ask that the DNC acknowledge and act on:

1. Voters Rights
The DNC has a duty to support voter's rights for Florida and Michigan. We request that the DNC enfranchise the voters of MI and FL, who did not agree to give up their right for their votes to be counted. Please fully seat our MI & FL delegates. When the actions or decisions of a few individuals, regardless of their official roles can strip the citizens of the right to have cast votes counted - then we no longer live in a democracy.

2. Women & Families are Significant to the Democratic Party - Don't underestimate us!
The estimates of votes of caucus states disproportionately disenfranchised women, working Americans, families with children, the elderly, and others in Senator Clinton's significant supporters. Don't underestimate the importance of women, working Americans, families, the elderly, and others. We are concerned that the Democratic Party is walking away from us, from most of America.

3. The Good of the Party
It is in the Democratic Party's interest to take a clear look at Senator Clinton's phenomenal connection with the very same broad base that the party has sought to attract for decades. Don't walk away from the winning base! We are most of America! We are most of your constituents. Senator Clinton is winning the popular vote. She is winning the base we must have. She will win the general election.

I have yet to find out who is behind this one.

Finally, there are excerpts from this post on You Can Call Me Uppity:

As he limps closer to the finish line, I found Barack Obama's speech tonight to be very typical of the Narcissist who just can't understand why this just isn't over so he can move into the White House next week. I really think nobody has told him that there's a General Election and that nobody will be spotting him points. No caucuses either....

But this time the Fix is just too in-your-face. Florida and Michigan were blocked from re-voting by Obama and there really is no sense in denying it any longer. Obama would be out of the running if those revotes were to occur and this is not a secret. It is particularly offensive to people who live in Florida and Michigan. My good friend in Michigan has a young daughter who is horrifed. She voted for the first time in her life. She and her young friends in Michigan will not forget. Nor will their parents forget.

There also isn't a woman I know over 40 who will vote for Barack Obama. John McCain could pull a Weekend at Bernie's and we would still vote for him. Every Jew and gay/lesbian I know feels the same way. I won't even get into my Italian family. You don't have your surrogate call a dago a "Garlic Nose" and expect a vote in the end. It's a personal thing. Barack Obama and his surrogates have offended many voting blocks no matter how many ways Roland Martin spins it. Any woman who has spent some time competing in Corporate America recognizes him. Besides being sexist, his campaign has clearly hung out its bigotry laundry as well. Barack Obama also has a very noticeable disdain for people who work with their hands to make life easier for people like him: He just doesn't get how almost irreversibly offended they really are: "Mr. Obama’s aides said they were not concerned with exit polls showing that he had hemorrhaged white working-class voters". For a man who **claims** to have grown up poor, he sure has forgotten the common people....

There is far more to this anti-Obama movement as well. While the Obama camp tends to believe it's all about Hillary, for me it isn't just all about Hillary, even though it is clear that she is superior to him in every way -- and that she has been sacrificed for him in some kind of convoluted Affirmative Action way.

While The Fix all by itself is odious, it's also about him. I can't speak for everyone, but I personally don't appreciate his domestic and foreign relationships. There seems to be an endless array of greasy relationships. Just a few weeks ago, we saw Obama donate the contribution of a man named Alsammarae to charity. Alsammarae is an escapee from and Iraq prison who took refuge in Chicago, of course.

It's also offensive that Obama denies taking money from lobbyists. One look at his top ten contributors should make anyone very suspicious of his relationship with Wall Street. He has also had private fundraisers sponsored by bundling Middle Easterners of dubious character. A former PLO media person has bundled for him as well. I believe Barack Obama has a Middle East conflict of interest that could not be beneficial to America in the end. I cannot help but remember when George Bush mentioned his conflict of interest during a debate. I was horrified that this just slipped by most of America. The rest is a sad history....

Listening the the Race Card during this primary season also seems akin to some kind of Japanese water torture--the constant annoying drop of water on your forehead. People have begun to roll their eyes every time they hear it now. If this pattern continues, I suspect that white people will be racing to the polls in November just to get rid of Barack Obama. I find it amazing that his campaign doesn't realize this. White Guilt only goes so far and then White Anger kicks in at the polls. There is little doubt. The Race Card has been used deliberately in this campaign to advance the self-described "underdog" who knew exactly what he was doing at all times. You need only look to his election history in Chicago to understand that Barack Obama has no problem throwing good people under the bus for his own advancment. Nor does he have a problem doing this to people who actually championed him as a novice.

My point (and as usual I have buried one in here somewhere) is that there is a solid hard core of Clinton supporters out there who will not only vote for John McCain, but actively work against Barack Obama during the general election.

Hillary appears to disown them when she says in public that she and Obama are both committed to putting a Democrat in the White House, but frankly it is not in her best interest to see Obama win. Should Obama go down to defeat, he becomes (ala 1976) Ford to her Reagan.

That's why Hillary will not go away: she's running for president whether it be in 2008 or 2012. In typical Clinton fashion, if that requires the destruction of someone else, so be it.

Shirley nails both Obama and Clinton on the Farm Bill

I hope you visit Delaware Curmudgeon frequently, but if not, you certainly should not pass up her assessment of the raw political expediency exhibited by Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in endorsing the current farm bill.

The next time somebody tells me about all the corporate welfare that the GOP pimps for, I'm going to refer them back to this.

After all, what's the difference between Archer Daniels Midland and Shell Oil?

(And while we're at it, Libertarians, let's recall that Bob Barr supports Saxby "I love farm subsidies for big agricultural corporations" Chambliss over Libertarian candidate Allen Buckley.)

Guest Post: There is a Cold Wind Blowing & It Starts with the "D" Word

Tice Proves Every Bear Has Its Day, Invokes `D' Word (Update1)
By Edward Robinson

May 21 (Bloomberg) -- Money manager David Tice pokes his head into a conference room at his Dallas offices and tells Doug Noland, his top market strategist, the morning investment meeting is starting.

``It's a historic day,'' Tice says as he disappears down the hall. ``This is crazy; just wild.''

It's March 13, one of the worst days yet in the spiraling credit crisis. Shares of Bear Stearns Cos. are falling en route to the bank's emergency rescue 72 hours later. Buyout giant Carlyle Group's mortgage bond fund has collapsed after defaulting on $16.6 billion of debt. The U.S. dollar is trading at a record low of $1.56 to the euro. New York University economics professor Nouriel Roubini is forecasting a severe recession that may last six quarters.

``Cookie anyone?'' says Tice, 53, offering peanut butter Girl Scout sandwich cremes to four members of his investment team.

Tice, founder of the Prudent Bear Fund, is in his element as short sellers savor a rare advantage in their tug of war with Wall Street's bulls. Tice, an economic history addict who lines his office bookshelves with volumes on the Great Depression, is the most bearish of bears. He's been preaching for almost a decade that runaway mortgage lending would blow up.

Blaming Greenspan

Tice blames former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who led the central bank as it ratcheted down the benchmark U.S. interest rate to 1 percent in June 2003 from 5 percent in March 2001 and held it there for a year. Borrowers rushed in and mortgage debt soared to $1.4 trillion in 2006, double the $708 billion in 2001, according to Fed data.

Now, Tice says the Standard & Poor's 500 Index may tumble 40 percent during the next 12-24 months as the credit crisis undermines the economy, bankrupts households and companies and whacks profits. The drop would be worse than the 37 percent plunge in the index from 2000 through 2002.

Tice predicts U.S. equities will enter a bear market that may exceed the 15-year slump from 1965 to 1980. Moreover, he says if the Fed and Wall Street don't break their addiction to easy credit, the economy will eventually crash in a depression -- a condition marked by reduced purchasing power, unemployment and corporate failures.

The U.S. can't continue to inflate bubbles in stocks, real estate and other assets without crippling the financial system, Tice says.

`Drunken Sailors'

``We've become a country of drunken sailors'' he says, snapping his fingers as he makes his point. ``If you spend, spend, spend, there are going to be consequences to that -- you can't borrow your way to prosperity.''

Even so, the turmoil has been good for Prudent Bear. After five years of trailing the S&P 500 with an annualized 0.9 percent loss compared with the index's 11 percent annual gain, the tables have turned for Tice's mutual fund. Prudent Bear, which has $1.1 billion in assets, has returned 11 percent from June 30, 2007, to May 20, beating the 6 percent decline in the S&P 500.

Tice, a short seller who profits when prices fall by borrowing and selling shares and then repaying at a lower price, bet correctly that Citigroup Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. would be hammered by mortgage losses.

He shorted companies that consumers were likely to avoid in a declining economy, such as Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. and Harley-Davidson Inc., according to Prudent Bear's annual report released on Sept. 30, 2007.

Prudent Bear went long on metals with Capstone Mining Corp. and other ore producers. Shares of the Vancouver-based silver, copper and zinc miner jumped 81 percent during the past year through May 20 thanks to the commodities boom and the falling dollar.

Predicting Credit Bubble

``Tice has been talking about the credit bubble for years,'' says David Kathman, a mutual fund analyst at Morningstar Inc., the Chicago- based investment research firm. ``He may have looked foolish there for a while, but now the chickens are coming home to roost.''
Tice and fellow bears had better savor their moment because the bulls are poised to take back the market, says Robert Olstein, a money manager in Purchase, New York, who runs the $1.2 billion Olstein All Cap Value Fund. The S&P 500 has rallied 11 percent since Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke's unprecedented moves to stabilize the U.S. financial system began in March.

In addition to backing JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s takeover of Bear Stearns, the Fed for the first time since the Great Depression allowed securities firms to borrow cash at the same rate as commercial banks.

By March 20, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., among others, tapped $28.8 billion in cheap Fed loans, bolstering confidence that Wall Street would overcome the crisis.

`Butt Kicking'

``Don't bet against the Fed,'' says Olstein, 66, whose fund is down 6 percent this year. ``The worst is over, and the market is looking to turn; and when it takes off, the bears are going to be in for a good butt kicking.''

Richard Yamarone, chief economist at New York-based equity analysis firm Argus Research Co., says the $152 billion package of tax rebates and incentives that lawmakers passed this year will set off a shopping spree.

Another silver lining: Companies in the S&P 500 have almost doubled the average level of cash and equivalents in their coffers since 2001, to $2.05 billion from $1.08 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. After gross domestic product inched ahead 0.6 percent in the first quarter, Yamarone is forecasting the economy will eke out a 1.7 percent increase by year's end.

`Doom and Gloom'

``Depression? C'mon, that's just the doomsayers trying to be funny,'' Yamarone says. ``We're going to be on the rocks during the first half of the year, but the pendulum is swinging too far toward doom and gloom.''

As he's been doing for two decades, Tice counters that bulls are ignoring the pain ahead. Losses from the U.S. mortgage crisis may reach $945 billion, the International Monetary Fund said in April. That would be a bill six times more costly than the savings and loan debacle of the late 1980s, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Banks alone have reported more than $323 billion in losses or writedowns worldwide since early 2007. U.S. consumer confidence fell to its lowest in 28 years in May as record gasoline prices and the loss of more than a quarter million U.S. jobs this year cut into spending.

``The economy is still a wreck,'' Tice says. ``We're not out of the woods.''

End of Golden Age

The credit meltdown runs so deep that the prosperous years on Wall Street that began in 1982 are probably drawing to a close, says Barton Biggs, 75, managing partner at Traxis Partners LLC, a New York- based hedge fund.

``We had a spectacular era of financial success that was extended by the subprime mortgage mania to 2007,'' says Biggs, who was chief global strategist at Morgan Stanley until 2003. ``But I think the golden age of Wall Street is over.''

Tice couldn't agree more. For him, the day of reckoning is long overdue. Yet profiting from the upheaval is fraught with peril. The No. 1 danger for bears: No matter how sound their analysis or prescient their predictions, they're often steamrolled by bullish momentum, Morningstar's Kathman says.

During the mid-1990s, Tice bet the tech boom was unsustainable. No matter. Prudent Bear was pounded for four straight years, dropping 58 percent from 1996 to the end of '99 as dot-coms exploded in value.

Following the 31 percent drop in the S&P 500 in 2001 and '02, Tice predicted equities had entered a long-term bear market. He was wrong again. The S&P 500 climbed to its all-time peak of 1,565.15 on Oct. 9, 2007.

`Bearish Convictions'

Tice says the market's record-breaking rise has only cemented his view that dangers lie ahead.

``He's unshakable in his bearish convictions on the credit bubble and how we're all going to pay for it,'' says James Chanos, founder and president of Kynikos Associates Ltd., a New York-based hedge fund that, like Prudent Bear, shorts stocks.

Chanos says he appreciates Tice's arguments; yet, as a pure stock picker, he doesn't apply macroeconomic analysis in his fund.

Tice, who zips around his Dallas neighborhood on a Vespa scooter and grooves to Led Zeppelin, says dire predictions aside, he's not some dour cynic. He's been enamored with the stock market since his teenage years in Independence, Missouri, in the 1970s. His mother introduced him to investments and analysis by tuning in to ``Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser,'' a TV program broadcast on public television stations.

Tice started on his path to becoming a ``perma-bear,'' a market skeptic in good times and bad, after Black Monday, Oct. 19, 1987. That day, the Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled 508 points, or 23 percent: the worst single-day drop in its history.

Dead Houseplant

Tice, who was studying to pass the chartered financial analyst examinations, was already leery of Wall Street and put off by how investment banks skewed equity research to curry underwriting business.

``The banks were just touting the damn things and never had any skepticism,'' Tice says. ``So we would be the devil's advocate.''

He's still playing that role from a third-floor warren of offices in a 10-story building north of downtown Dallas that he shares with his eight-person investment team. A couple of these analysts are so contrarian, they delight in rooting against the Dallas Cowboys professional football team, heresy in a town that worships the five-time Super Bowl champs.

The offices look like the headquarters that time forgot, with prints of English fox hunts lining the walls and dusty stacks of financial reports in wooden bookcases. A dead houseplant sits on a filing cabinet. Paintings depict lighthouses withstanding the crashing sea, presenting an apt metaphor for how Tice and his colleagues see themselves in relation to the markets.

Biggest Challenge

On this March afternoon, Tice is keeping an eye cocked toward a computer screen that flashes prices of stocks, metals, oil and the dollar. He even plunks his laptop on the table of an upscale Italian restaurant in Dallas during lunch to monitor the action.

``There it is; gold just hit $1,000,'' he says as he tucks into a grilled salmon filet.

With many of his predictions about the credit crisis coming true, Tice's biggest challenge may be outfoxing the newly minted short sellers who are rushing to cash in on the economic gloom.

In April, short interest on the New York Stock Exchange reached 4.1 percent of total shares outstanding, the highest level since Bloomberg started tracking the data in 1995. The flood of shorts increases the chances for a market phenomenon that strikes dread in investors such as Tice: the short squeeze.

Short Squeeze

That's when a stock that's being sold short experiences a sudden upturn. Bears, fearful that shares are moving against them, buy the stock -- to ``cover'' in trading parlance. The buying spurs prices higher.

Tice says he and Noland defend against squeezes by maintaining short positions in 75 different stocks: none of them exceeding 1.25 percent of the portfolio. That way Prudent Bear can quickly unload any shares that start to climb. As of March 31, Tice was shorting organic grocer Whole Foods Market Inc. and credit card provider Capital One Financial Corp. He expects both to suffer if there's a recession as consumers cut back.

Noland and Prudent Bear analyst Ryan Bend feared a short squeeze on CarMax Inc., the national auto retailer based in Richmond, Virginia. In April 2007, Tice bet the worsening economy would wallop CarMax with falling sales and rising auto loan delinquencies. So Prudent Bear started shorting it at $24.78.

By Feb. 29, other bears had sniffed out the opportunity and laid siege to the stock: CarMax's short interest climbed to 17 percent of its daily trading volume from 9.8 percent on Dec. 31, according to Bloomberg data.

`Candy Bars'

Worried any scrap of good news might send shares higher and trigger a squeeze, Noland trimmed CarMax to 0.5 percent from 0.85 percent of the fund in the first quarter.

``We have to cut back on the candy bars to rein in risk,'' says Bend, 32, using lingo for a tasty short candidate.

On April 18, with short interest at 23 percent, Bend closed the position. Based on the stock's drop from $24.78 in April 2007 to $17.50 in January, Tice's target price, the trade delivered a 29 percent return.

Tice and Noland also have to be careful not to fall so in love with their own analysis that they overstay their short positions. Homebuilders have been so-called candy bars amid the real estate crash. As of September, Prudent Bear was shorting 75,000 shares of Los Angeles-based KB Home, which dropped 58 percent last year.

The fund was also short 90,000 shares of Toll Brothers Inc., based in Horsham, Pennsylvania, which fell 38 percent. The two hit bottom in January. KB Home returned 9 percent and Toll Brothers rose 15 percent this year through May 20. Prudent Bear closed its short positions in the companies in the first quarter even though Tice expects little immediate improvement in homebuilders' fortunes.

Pulling Weeds

``You have to pull the weeds,'' he says, referring to closing out losing positions.

Tice forged his bearish views in Texas's investing scene during the 1980s, the era of the TV drama Dallas. He earned a bachelor's degree in accounting from Texas Christian University in Fort Worth in 1976 and a Master of Business Administration from the same school the following year.

He spent the next eight years toiling as an internal auditor and acquisition planning executive in the Texas operations of oil giant Atlantic Richfield Co. and Enserch Corp., a Houston-based oil and natural gas firm.

Tice witnessed firsthand the perils of rampant speculation as the oil boom turned to bust. Then came the S&L debacle, when more than 740 lending institutions failed in a wave of corruption. By Black Monday 1987, Tice identified with the skeptics, not the market boosters. And he opted against looking for a job on Wall Street, which he considered a haven for Ivy Leaguers.

Investing Career

``I had a little chip on my shoulder,'' says Tice, leaning back behind a wooden desk in his office.
Eager to start an investing career, Tice read a book by Thornton O'glove called ``Quality of Earnings'' (Free Press, 1998). O'glove, who co-wrote a newsletter by the same name with money manager Olstein, showed that financial statements could reveal how companies used legerdemain to boost income and downplay expenses.

As a CPA, Tice loved the notion of becoming a financial detective. He also recognized that there was money to be made when stocks tumbled. Tice started his own newsletter called ``Behind the Numbers.''

It dissected financial statements and issued sell recommendations. He tapped $10,000 in savings and worked out of a spare bedroom in the Dallas home he shared with his wife and infant daughter. Soon enough, he started signing clients who saw his research as a way to cross-check Wall Street analysis.

`Cracks in the Financials'

``We didn't always agree with him,'' says Luther King, a fellow TCU grad and founder of Luther King Capital Management in Fort Worth, a money management firm with $7.7 billion in long-only funds. ``But he was an independent voice, and I knew by his nature he was looking for cracks in the financials.''

In the mid-90s, Tice was charging $10,000 a year for his reports. He counted hedge fund managers George Soros, Michael Steinhardt and Chanos as clients. CEOs often recoiled at his research.

In October 1999, Tice issued a sell on Tyco International Ltd. Chief Executive Officer Dennis Kozlowski expressed outrage after Tice raised concern that the Bermuda-based conglomerate was generating quarterly increases in income partly by disguising routine operating expenses as one-time charges for acquisitions. Analysts at Credit Suisse First Boston Inc., Bear Stearns and JPMorgan reiterated bullish recommendations on Tyco.

``Kozlowski was ripping us, and Wall Street was attacking, but we felt strongly that we were right,'' Tice says. In December 2002, an internal review found Tyco had used ``aggressive accounting'' to bolster results.

Bloodied and Unbowed

Separately, Kozlowski and Chief Financial Officer Mark Swartz were charged in New York state court with looting $137 million from Tyco. Convicted in June 2005, they're serving 8- to 25-year prison sentences. Tice sold ``Behind the Numbers'' for an undisclosed sum to his former analysts last year.

By the time Tice had made the Tyco call, he'd expanded into managing money himself by opening Prudent Bear in 1995. He chose the name to reflect his investing approach: He shuns using leverage to boost returns and doesn't hesitate to close out positions and rein in risk.
Still, Tice's wager that the technology-led boom was headed for the rocks was four years too early. Crushed by dot-com mania, the fund suffered a 34 percent drop in 1998. Tice refused to become a bull.

``I was bloodied, but I couldn't waver,'' he says. ``We were a hedge; that was our mandate, and I couldn't just tell clients, 'Well, I'm going to be bullish for three months.'''

Finding Footing

Prudent Bear found its footing in 2000. Betting that Wall Street would suffer from a decline in underwriting securities offerings and weak earnings amid the economic slump, Tice shorted shares of Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley in 2002. They each fell more than 20 percent that year, contributing to Tice's best performance ever: a 63 percent return.

Tice became intrigued by forces such as credit. As early as 2001, he cautioned that the Fed, by lowering interest rates, was rescuing the economy from one bubble by inflating a new one.

``We do not believe it is advisable to stimulate a burst of unprecedented mortgage credit creation,'' he wrote in Prudent Bear's annual report in September 2001.

Tice also decried Wall Street's use of derivatives to transform toxic subprime mortgages into investment-grade securities. Derivatives are financial contracts whose value is based on, and determined by, another security or benchmark. He says banks pumped the credit bubble by manufacturing collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities.

Mining Fed Data

Ultimately, many of these instruments couldn't justify their value. Net issuance of asset-backed securities skyrocketed to a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of $906.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 2006, three and a half times the $255.6 billion in 2001, Fed data show. Last year, issuance plunged to $177.4 billion.

Noland, whom Tice had met in 1997, was a kindred spirit when it came to the credit bubble. The Indiana University MBA holder had turned bearish working for short seller GW Ringoen & Co. in San Francisco before joining Tice in 1999.

An intense man who utters complex sentences in a husky voice, Noland, 45, revels in mining arcane Fed data.

Setting down a document that's 2 inches (5 centimeters) thick called ``Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States,'' Noland says, ``The whole story is right here.''

Noland points to tables showing how total borrowing in the credit markets climbed to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $4.96 trillion in the third quarter of last year, a 148 percent jump from 2001. The increase occurred even as U.S. home prices fell for the 14th straight month and foreclosures spiked.

Five-Alarm Fire

For Noland, this was a five-alarm fire: Wall Street was cranking out more high-risk debt securities in the face of deteriorating credit quality.

``Unlike the tech bubble, which was isolated, the mortgage finance burst is causing huge distortions in the entire economy,'' Noland says.

Tice and Noland anticipated the pummeling Wall Street would take and bet against securities firms. Prudent Bear was short 65,000 shares of Citigroup as of Sept. 30. The bank wrote down $18.1 billion on subprime losses in the fourth quarter.

Tice also sold short 21,000 shares of Merrill Lynch, which lost a record $9.8 billion in the same period. Both stocks dropped more than 40 percent last year.

Last May, Tice started shorting about 351,000 shares of Starbucks Corp. at $28.46 in a bet that stretched consumers would balk at $4 coffee drinks. Yesterday, the gourmet coffee maker closed at $16.83, meaning Prudent Bear would have reaped at least a 41 percent return if Tice covered that day.

Resilient Market

Now the challenge dogging Tice and Noland is that the markets may once again prove as resilient as they have in the past. Since March 10, bullish investors have driven the Dow up more than 350 points on three occasions, including a 420.4 point surge on March 18 -- five days after Tice was proffering cookies amid Bear Stearns's meltdown.

``The bears won for a while, but winter will turn to spring, trees will bloom and market psychology will shift,'' says Neil Hennessy, CEO of Novato, California-based investment firm Hennessy Advisors Inc.

For Tice, who has long been dismissed by bulls as a Cassandra warning of doom that would never come, the credit implosion has at least for now validated his pessimism.

``I do feel intellectually vindicated,'' he says.

Vindication may be cold comfort. In April, the S&P 500 rallied 4.8 percent, its biggest monthly rise in more than four years. If the bulls continue their stampede, Tice may find that even after being right about the credit crisis, he may be wrong about how long the bears will reign.

To contact the reporter on this story: Edward Robinson in San Francisco at edrobinson@bloomberg.net

Thinking about Osama bin Laden before September 11

Note: long, academic-type post warning. Be prepared for some heavy wading.

Recently, I suggested that Edward Said's insight in his work Orientalism--that Westerners often confuse their understanding of foreign nations, individuals, or events for objective truth, could be applied profitably to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the so-called War on Terror.

Where to start? Try a 1999 monograph by Professor M. J. Gohari of Oxford entitled The Taliban: Ascent to Power. Two factors make this book particularly interesting:

1) Its pre-9/11 perspective--what was a scholar writing about bin Laden (he devoted an entire chapter to Bin Laden in that time predicting about his future importance?

2) Its non-Western (at least partly) perspective. Here's the review that Oxford University Press chose to put on the back cover:

This is an informative account of Afghanistan under Taliban rule. While there is a lot of material on the Taliban [this] covers all aspects of the country. . . . There would be an important argument for making the book a self-contained source for anyone wanting to know about Afghanistan today.

The source of this review? Professor [Emeritus] Mujtaba Farahani of the University of Teheran in Iran.

So perhaps it would be very interesting to probe the interpretation of Osama bin Laden that emerges in a country study on Afghanistan that so impressed an Iranian scholar living under the mullahs.

Here is Gohari's capsule biography of bin Laden [the section I am quoting does not cover the various terrorist acts even then attributed to bin Laden--like Khobar Towers--but they are included prominently elsewhere; I mention this so that you will not think their absence in these particular paragraphs is some sort of white-wash]:

Osama bin Mohammad bin Laden was born in the city of Riyadh 1957. He was raised in Medina and received his education in the schools of Jedda, then studied management and economics in King Abdul Aziz University in Jedda. Bin Laden is married and has children. He began his interaction with Islamic groups in 1973 and continued concentrating on Islamic concerns in modern times until the commencement of the jihad in Afghanistan. He is reported to have maintained links, in the beginning of the eighties, with the Mujahideen against the Communist party in South Yemen. His contribution to Afghan Mujahideen until the downfall of the Communist party is considered to be enormous.

He established alongside Sheikh Dr Abdullah Azzam the office for Mujahideen services in Peshawar, founding again in partnership with Sheikh Azzam the Sidda camp for the training of Arab Mujahideen who came for jihad in Afghanistan. His first visit to assist the Afghan Mujahideen started a few days after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. He laid the foundation of "Ma'sadat Al-Ansar" which was a base for Arab Mujahideen in Afghanistan. In 1986 he participated in the battles of Jalalabad with the Arab Mujahideen which was one of the best know battles for the extensive involvement of Arabs.

He left Saudi Arabia in 1991, refusing to return later despite calls from the Saudi government. As a result Saudis reportedly withdrew his citizenship, cancelled his passport, froze his assets, and launched a media campaign against him.

He currently resides in Afghanistan, and has given a call to the Muslims throughout the world to declare a jihad against the Judeo-Christian alliance which is occupying Islamic sacred land in Palestine and the Arabian Peninsula. [p. 135]

Before I comment on this, let's take a look at Gohari's interpretation of bin Laden's theology/ideology and his predictions about future activities.

On bin Laden's theology:

Bin Laden views the conflict in the light of "Muslim believers who are confronted with disbelievers (Kuffar, heathen). In his view, the term, "disbelievers" encompasses the "pragmatic" Arab regimes (including the government of his own homeland, Saudi Arabia), and the United States, which he sees as taking over the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina, and assisting the Jews in their conquest of Palestine.

Bin Laden's views are simple and more or less shared by the rest of Sunni and even Shi'te revivalist groups. This world view not only encourages the use of military and physical force but sanctifies this by religious edict. For Bin Laden, political gains through force have the standing of a religious injunction. He sees the "jihad" as necessary to raise the Muslim world above the world of the disbelievers, and argues that military action is justified by the degraded moral standards of his enemies, the Christians and the Jews. The United States, he maintains, is responsible for the most reprehensible acts of world terrorism, such as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and carpet bombing of Iraq. While the Zionsits, whom he refers to in terms reminiscent of the writers of "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion," are held responsible for the massacres of Dir Yassin, Sabra, and Shatila in Palestine and Lebanon.

In order to perform his religious "duties," Bin Laden founded the "International Islamic Front for jihad against the Jews and the Crusaders." This organization published a "fatwa" (religious ruling) proclaiming the "jihad against disbelievers who conquer Muslim lands" a duty incumbent upon all believing Muslims. [p. 136]

From the Fatwa [which Gohari reproduces almost in its entirety]:

No one today argues about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of its places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.

The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the Crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million . . . despite all this, the Americans are once again trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the American aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.

The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper states through their disunity and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All of these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, His Messenger, and Muslims. [pp. 138-139]

Gohari's 1999 predictions about future bin Laden activities:

Bin Laden's adversaries hold that the principal danger presented by Bin Laden is the combination of tremendous financial resources coupled with an extremist ideology back, in his view, by heavenly decree; an ideology which advocates the wholesale demolition of its perceived enemies, whether soldiers or civilians, children or adults. To them, the alliance of such an individual with a group of trained and experienced fighters, steeped in Islamic indoctrination, is potentially deadly. All the more so when the fighters are veterans of a long, and for their part, victorious war for the sake of religion. Such a combination is a recipe for acts of political violence and mass destruction. One cannot ule out the possibility of an organization espousing such a doctrine employing non-conventional methods. In the estimation of many security analysts, this combination of wealth and extremism gives the Afghan Veterans Association a place among the most dangerous organizations threatening the Western powers and their allies in the Islamic world. [p. 137]

Now let's take a look at what's particularly interesting about all this:

1) Osama bin Laden has been consistent, both before and after 9/11 in his two-pronged jihadist view, that faithful Muslims were (first) combating the American [Crusader] military presence in Saudi Arabia and then resisting Israeli [Zionist] oppression in Palestine and Lebanon. He is not operating out of some vague hatred of capitalism, the American way, or an urge to establish a world-wide Muslim state; he is passionate about achieving two specific goals: the expulsion of America from the Middle East and the destruction of Israel.

This is one of the reasons that American rhetoric (even by Democrats) on the so-called War on Terrorism and the idea that the West is under attack because "they hate our freedoms" fails to convince even moderate Muslims. They know that Osama bin Laden laid out a specific strategy and has stuck to it for more than a decade, and it is not the strategy that Washington imputes to him.

2) Osama bin Laden's moral critique of the US as the primary architect of world terrorism from Hiroshima forward to the carpet bombing of Iraq in Desert Storm is one that most Americans dismiss out of hand, but it is also a critique that the post-colonial developing world finds to be (in general if not always in detail) credible. This is an important understanding: one does not need to support or accept bin Laden's actions in order to agree that his picture of America [and, by extension, Israel] is accurate. Whether we like it or not, from South America to Southeast Asia, bin Laden's portrait of America enjoys wide acceptance (and has enjoyed such acceptance long before Dubya came into power).

3) Bin Laden is capable of drawing some very fine political distinctions that are too often lost on American readers. For example, his relationship pre-9/11 with Saddam Hussein's Iraq is an ambivalent one. He lauds Iraq as the most powerful Arab country (and his use of Arab there, not Muslim, creates a distinction between Arab Iraq and Persian Iran that most Westerners are ignorant of), and decries the American massacres of the Iraqi people, but at the same time says nothing of Iraq's leadership. For bin Laden, Hussein's Iraq was a frustrating mixture of kowtowing to Western influences (Saddam was widely perceived as a Western cat's paw in the his decade-long war against Iran) and resisting them (refusing to admit defeat or give in to UN weapons inspections during the 1990s). The nuances of Osama bin Laden's political speech may be lost on most Western ears, but it is not missed by Muslim observers. If sometimes disdained as a zealot, he is respected as a political thinker.

4) Bin Laden gained great credibility in the Arab and Muslim world by continuing to predict during the 1990s that American strategy in the Middle East hinged on the destruction of Iraq as an independent military and political power. The 2003 invasion made him appear almost prescient, and his commitment to waging a prolonged battle for Iraq was a cold-blooded, clear-headed strategic decision, based on (a) his experiences opposing Western powers in Afghanistan and Somalia; (b) the pre-existing factionalism in Iraq; (c) the potential for drawing US forces into situations where they would kill large numbers of Iraqis in what could be portrayed as massacres; and (d) the ability to draw both Iran and Syria into his grand strategy for evicting US forces from the Arabian Peninsula.

The conclusion: The American interpretation of, and reaction to, Osama bin Laden is both different from (and oblivious to) the interpretation and reaction to bin Laden in the Middle East and throughout the developing world. He has successful melded together (a) a widely accepted critique of American foreign and economic policy; (b) a validated political and military analysis of American goals and strategies in the Middle East; (c) a direct negative linkage of those American goals to the perpetuation of Israeli oppression; and (d) a radical theology that is both internally consistent and useful as a recruiting/mobilization tool.

A simple question: how large an error do we make when we fail to see (or even fail to try to see) Osama bin Laden accurately through the eyes of the Arab world, the Muslim world, and the developing world?

And how long will that failure haunt us?

OK, I'm sick of politics for the moment--let' try some science

. . . because the news is really interesting.

This week, astronomers at the University of Colorado at Boulder announced that they've found about half of the infamous missing matter in the universe.

This is an old problem--at least as far as modern cosmology is concerned. If you add up all the observable matter in the visible universe (galaxies, stars, that kind of thing), you end up with only about 4% of the necessary matter required by the so-called Standard Model of Cosmology. This is baryonic matter, composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

This has led to all sorts of speculative creations and theories, including dark matter and dark energy, to account for the missing mass. The diagram at the side shows the current theoretical mix of baryonic matter, dark matter, and dark energy.




Dark matter (often theorized in the form of WIMPs--Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) and dark energy are pretty weird concepts, and lead to all sorts of mathematical hijinks to make all the equations balance.

Now, however, between the galaxies there seems to be a more prosaic answer:

Now, in an extensive search of the relatively recent, local universe, University of Colorado at Boulder astronomers said they have definitively found about half of the missing normal matter, called baryons, in the spaces between the galaxies. This important component of the universe is known as the intergalactic medium and it extends essentially throughout all of space, from just outside our Milky Way galaxy to the most distant regions of space observed by astronomers.

The questions "where have the local baryons gone, and what are their properties?" are being answered with greater certainty than ever before. "We think we are seeing the strands of a web-like structure that forms the backbone of the universe," said CU-Boulder Professor Mike Shull. "What we are confirming in detail is that intergalactic space, which intuitively might seem to be empty, is in fact the reservoir for most of the normal, baryonic matter in the universe."

How important is this discovery, if it pans out? Think about how it would change the pie chart above.

This is significant enough to lead to a potential rewriting of the now generally accepted inflationary theory of Alan Guth, which required the early universe to expand faster than the speed of light.

Of course, if you already know that the entire universe is only 10,000 years old, you probably won't be too excited about this discovery.

The New Regime at Third Party Watch

The transformation of Third Party Watch into an overt arm of the Viguerie/Barr strategy to take ownership of the Libertarian Party continues to unfold.

Two days ago, blog owner Stephen Gordon sold the enterprise to Viguerie. Something along this line had been in the wind for awhile, as Gordon had recently joined Bob Barr's exploratory committee and had remarked publicly on more than one occasion that he was tired of all the abuse he took from more radical commenters.

Yesterday, the Libertarian Party Media Director revoked the convention press credentials of several TPW contributors, apparently at the request of the new management. For the individual contributors this was no big thing--most of them secured alternate credentials very quickly--but the next item will make it clear that a pattern is developing.

Today, disinter reveals that the new de facto managing editor of Third Party Watch is none other than Shane Corey, the recently ousted LP Executive Director who went to work for Viguerie yesterday. At least know we know what some of his duties are. Shane immediately posted new instructions for contributors that included this:

Please continue to post your work but save in draft mode, we’ll take a look, edit and review here in Manassas and will publish to the site for you.

In other words, as Thomas Knapp found out yesterday, TPW correspondents no longer have direct posting privileges to the blog.

This change prompted at least one frequent contributor to advise Shane he was quitting; this had interesting results:

Now that I have been deleted, all the posts I wrote (only about 20 or so) about the Green Party appear to be gone.

Meanwhile, the tenor of TPW articles has subtly changed in only about 24 hours.

Mary Ruwart's Chat with the Rocky Mountain News is carefully, almost adroitly slanted:

Mary held her own on the issues covering health care, gas prices, end even put in a good dig at her competitor, Bob Barr, thanks to a well placed question

We start with the "Mary held her own"--as if that would be s surprise--but note that no details of her answers are provided. Instead, the focus of the post is the "good dig at her competitor, Bob Barr," that clearly was not part of Dr Ruwart's planned conversation, as it happened in response a questions. "A well placed question," is the characterization provided by an anonymous TPW writer.

Then:

The punches didn’t stop there as “Mark Scrib” setup the islamo-fascist question on Wayne Root:

So Ruwart's responses to questions about her rivals are now "punches," and the article insures that we don't miss the fact that she also refused to "spare" Dr George Phillies.

What else might an active candidate do, I wonder, but highlight differences between themselves and their competitors.

Well, not their competitors, as TPW has just declared Bob Barr to be the Libertarian frontrunner and bemoaned the Atlanta Journal-Constitution hit piece about the amazing Bob Barr Black Hole PAC that absorbs almost all money passing its event horizon without emanating any significant bucks back to the politicians it purports to support.

Hit piece, asks one commenter, Kyle B., (whose remarks I will preserve because even comments are rumored now to be disappearing):

I wouldn’t say the AJC piece was a hit piece on Barr since the 4 days before they ran that story they ran four very positive Bob Barr stories all on the front page of the paper. In fact today on their website they published a reply to the story from Barr’s campaign manager. So don’t think you can claim the AJC is out to get Bob Barr. Overall they have given him very positive press and a lot of it.

Good point.

As a final note, it is obvious that the old readership of TPW is already beginning to desert. Posts that would heretofore have chalked up 80-120 (sometimes even 200) replies are now receiving 40 or less, occasionally less than a dozen.

This may have something to do with the sudden inspiration of Corey and Viguerie to ask Stephen Gordon at the convention if he'll come back to edit his old blog.

How to digest all this? Machinations like these are pretty commonplace in the Democrat or Republican Parties, but are a cut above (in terms of sophistication and bags of cash) anything that third parties are used to seeing. Perhaps, as Tyler Nixon suggests, this is good for the party, the message, and is a necessary part of growing into a major contender.

I'm not sure about that, even though the argument has some merit.

I tend to think that the whole maneuver has to do with two things: (a) the LP's potential 48-state ballot access, and (b) the demonstrated ability of Ron Paul to raise money from Libertarian and libertarian-leaning grassroots. Because we already know where money directed to organizations created by Viguerie and Barr ends up. . . .

. . . right in their own pockets.

And the rumor--at least partly substantiated on LPV--that Barr is shipping in additional delegates to pack the convention vote is, of course, nothing more than another dastardly attempt by old-line Libertarians to discredit the man who's going to single-handedly save their party for them (or from them).

Meanwhile, in typical Net-fashion, a putative replacement for the old TPW beat has appeared--Independent Political Report--with many of the same faces and bylines that made TPW popular. Check it out.

Richard Viguerie IS the anti-Christ, his angel is Bob Barr, and his sword is the Libertarian Party

Those of really long memory may recall direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie's 1976 attempt to take over the American Independent Party (whose last significant candidate had been George Wallace) or his 1977 fund-raising efforts for the Moonies (in which New York State auditors discovered that $926,000 of the $1,500,000 he accumulated went into his own pockets rather than to the Unification Church).

This is what Viguerie stated as his long-term goal in 2000:

To use the Internet to involve Americans in the political process, to help conservatives gain an advantage over the left.

Viguerie was one of Ron Paul's backers, and now that Dr. No is out of the mix, he is apparently pursuing his next step in the process of helping "conservatives gain an advantage over the left" by buying the two things ever aspiring Right-wing Satan should have: a political party (the Libertarian Party) and a presidential candidate (Bob Barr).

As Rod Serling would say, "Presented for your consideration, a series of events. . . ."

1) From David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party:

First, the convention organizers were told that they MUST have former Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia as the convention's keynote speaker. When Barr became a Presidential candidate [SITE], they were then told that his replacement would be fund-raiser Richard Viguerie, a conservative Republican and strong Barr supporter. This choice was imposed on BetteRose Ryan, the convention manager, against her will -- even though dozens of LIBERTARIAN speakers were available and eager to fill the keynote slot.

BetteRose was also told that she MUST invite Neal Boortz, another Barr supporter, to be the speaker at the Sunday Banquet. Boortz had to cancel because of knee surgery, but the pattern of placing Barr supporters in all of the prominent speaking spots has continued.

2) This followed an intriguing attack launched on Libertarian Presidential candidate Dr Mary Ruwart. I have blogged before about Dr Ruwart's problematic position on age-of-consent laws and child pornography, but here's where the story gets really interesting. The charge that Ruwart was soft on child porn and therefore a liability as an LP Presidential Candidate gained its greatest exposure from the organization of opposing candidate Wayne Allyn Root. Ruwart is Libertarian verging on Anarchist, and therefore the darling of the party's radical wing; Root is libertarian verging across the boundary to neo-con, and trying to hustle his hardest for the support of the party's reform wing. Root is often mentioned by Barr supporters as a sound choice for VP. Right in the middle of all this, the LP's Executive Director, Shane Corey, issued a statement calling for greater government/law enforcement coordination to root out child porn. This action was (correctly) perceived as a direct shot at Ruwart and the radicals by the paid (not elected) LP ED, who--it turned out--had acted without consulting the elected Libertarian National Committee. The radicals, however, still possessed enough punch within the party to force Corey to resign his ED position in early May. Now Corey has gone to work for Richard Viguerie.

3) Yesterday, Viguerie purchased Third Party Watch, probably the largest site for (among other things) free-for-all Libertarian in-house arguments. The previous owner, Stephen Gordon, had already gone to work for the Bob Barr Exploratory Committee, and had become increasingly discomfited by the anti-Barr sentiments expressed both by commenters and several individuals like Thomas Knapp who had posting privileges. As of today, anti-Barr posts (and even comments) have begun to disappear.

4) Meanwhile, in what seemed to be an initially unrelated story, Last Free Voice contributor G. E. was denied press credentials to the Libertarian Convention. LFV, coincidentally, has been one of the harshest Barr critics, and has been the source for a lot of the reporting I've done here (the Allen Buckley story, for example). Well, today, the other shoe dropped. LFV reports (because Third Party Watch no longer can) that the new regime at TPW has prevailed upon the Media Director of the Libertarian Party to revoke the press credentials already issued to TPW contributors who had written negative articles about Bob Barr.

What's going on here?

It's very simple, really.

Richard Viguerie is attempting, for the second time in his career, to hijack a large third party with nationwide ballot access in order to pursue his goal of advancing his particular brand of conservatism and wounding the campaign of Senator John McCain.

What's going to happen in Denver this weekend? I'll tell you.

A Borg-like machine is going to attempt to assimilate the Libertarian Party is going to run up against a motley collection of anarchists, minarchists, paleo-libertarians, and (if enough of them have any sense) pragmatic, reform-minded Libertarians who are going to stage a spirited if disjointed fight for control over the amorphous entity we jokingly call a political party.

In order to beat him, they'll have to first keep Barr from winning on the convention's initial ballot, and then coalesce around either Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, or George Phillies as a compromise choice for a real Libertarian candidate. Pundits will be briefed by the Viguerie machine to paint Barr as the party's chance of legitimacy and millions of votes. The others will be cast as unknowns and loonies. Mike Gravel will be hovering in the background, with gravitas and a smart mouth, but no real organization.

Unvarnished opinion: at this point only Dr George Phillies has the resources and campaign organization capable of defeating Barr and launching a national campaign. I realize that many radicals find him to be too centrist (even Statist) for their liking, and that over the years he's managed to piss quite a few people off.

But unlike Bob Barr, George Phillies has put years of his life and tens of thousands of dollars of his own money into building the LP, and--again--unlike Bob Barr, George Phillies has spent the last several weeks actually laying out in detail his position on major policy issues.

The best medicine to defeat a Barr/Root ticket would be a Phillies/Ruwart or Phillies/Kubby, or even Phillies/Smith ticket. That would place a more radical Libertarian on the ticket with a centrist veteran with money and organizational skills.

Think about it, folks, before that smarmy bastard Richard Viguerie steals our party.

************
Note: I will be leaving Third Party Watch on my blogroll for a little while until I see how things pan out. However, if you really want good information on Libertarian politics as they unfold, check out recent additions Last Free Voice, Libertarian Intelligence, and Kn@ppster.

Hitler, narratives, meta-narratives, and the downright abuse of history

Long post warning: in order to preserve the text I'm quoting (because, as you will see, they are changing even as we speak), I'm going to go whole hog and chunk in the whole things rather than just link to them.

*********************

The furor over Dubya's comments about appeasement and Obama's response are the context in which I am writing, but they aren't the story. If you hadn't already figured out that politics would eventually end up in the gutter this season, you haven't been paying attention.

What interests me is the strange case of Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times and his editorial on the use of Hitler and the term "appeasement." Ramsey apparently (you'll see why I use the qualifier in a moment) wanted to set what he considered to be the historical record straight about the continual references to Hitler and Munich in 1938. Which, of course, the right jumped all over like . . . well, I'm spare you the gratuitous simile.

Here's where it gets interesting.

Little Green Footballs is the major source for the editorial that most right-wing sites have been linking back to for the text of the editorial, and they carry the text as the following:

Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.

We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. But in 1938 it was different. Germany’s eastern and western borders had been redrawn 19 years before—and not to its benefit. In the democracies there was some sense of guilt with how Germany had been treated after World War I. Certainly there was a memory of the “Great War.” In 2008, we have entirely forgotten World War I, and how utterly unlike any conception of “The Good War” it was. When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following their historical wisdom: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don’t give anyone an excuse to start one.

That line that I bolded--"What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable"--is the line that has headlined conservative blogs across the country; see Libertarian Republican for an example.

But even though Little Green Footballs quoted the entire editorial, I am anal enough to back-click to the Seattle Times link they provided. Imagine my surprise to discover that the Ramsey editorial that now appears there is significantly different:

Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. But in 1938 people knew a lot less. What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable as a national claim (though he was making it in a last-minute, unreasonable way.) Germany's claim was that the areas of Europe that spoke German and thought of themselves as German be under German authority. In September 1938 the principal remaining area was the Sudetenland.

So the British and French let him have it. Their thought was: "Now you have your Greater Germany." They didn't want a war. They were not superpowers like the United States is now. They remembered the 1914-1918 war and how they almost lost it.

In a few months, in early 1939, Hitler ordered the invasion of what is now the Czech Republic—that is, territory that was not German. Then it was obvious that a deal with him was worthless--and the British and French did not appease Hitler any more. Thus the lesson of Munich: don't appease Hitlers.

But who else is a Hitler? If you paste that label on somebody it means they are cast out. You can't talk to them any more. And it has gotten pasted on quite a few national leaders over the years: Milosevic, Hussein, Ahmadinejad, et. al. In particular, to apply that label to the elected leaders of the Palestinians is to say that you aren't going to listen to their claims to a homeland. I think they do have a claim. So do the Israelis. In order to get anywhere, each side has to listen to the other. To continually bring up Hitler, the Nazis, the Munich Conference and “appeasement,” is to try to prolong the stalemate.

Notice the difference in emphasis. It certainly is not subtle. Ramsey undoubtedly went back and rewrote the article to make it (a) more anti-Hitler; (b) more detailed about the situation at Munich; and (c) to try to put himself back into the "don't appease" category while cautioning people not to call different world leaders "Hitler."

There are three points to make about this affair:

1. Regarding Hitler and Munich: Ramsey has evidently read a little book written about forty years ago by revisionist British historian A. J. P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, which caused a huge stir by suggesting that Adolf Hitler was, in fact, a traditional Prussian/German statesman pursuing the territorial expansion of his nation by the usual Bismarck-patented geo-political means, and that the Allies--by misreading him--were more or less responsible for starting World War Two.

(Years later, Taylor would joke that his very scholarly biography of Bismarck won rave reviews from academics but never made him a farthing, while Origins--which remains in print to this day--has kept him well abreast of three alimony checks for decades.)

Taylor's book is one of those perennially assigned to young graduate students to see if they are clever enough to realize that it's not seriously accepted academic history. And, unfortunately, it's one of those books that--if you read only one easily accessible book on the years leading up to World War Two--might convince you that Hitler was making reasonable demands in light of the evil Versailles Treaty; that the Nuremberg Laws and other forms of Jewish persecution weren't well known throughout Europe; that Germany was rearming for a major European war. . . . You get the picture.

Suffice it to say that Ramsey really has no idea what he is talking about.

2. Regarding the conservative reflex response: on the other hand, making Ramsey's whole editorial into a major "now liberals are saying Hitler was an OK guy" kind of story is not just political whoring, it's almost as filthy as--say--what was once required to get a city contract from John Street as Mayor of Philly. The Ramsey article is the work of one guy who thought his smartass insight about Adolf Hitler and Munich would allow him to lecture the world and make a name for himself. Too bad he putzed the historical data and came off looking like a fool, but that still has nothing to do with Dubya, Obama, or the whole appeasement non-controversy. Ramsey is at this point a footnote to a footnote in an appendix, except for the fact that Sean Hannity will now replay this thousands of times, saying, "And where are the Democrats repudiating Ramsey. . . ?"

3. Regarding the plastic nature of Ramsey's editorial: This is scary. I don't agree with Little Green Footballs very often, but it is not in their best interest to misquote a site to which they are currently providing an active link. I don't buy it for a second. The version that now appears on the Seattle Times website is clearly a revised, rewritten version of the editorial. It is particularly noteworthy that the "Hitler's demands were reasonable" sentence has been restructured to be less quotable and to include a shot at Hitler's tactic that did not exist in the original. The problem with the Web is the problem with Congressmen who "revise and extend" their remarks. How do you revise the past? Just write it over and hope nobody notices.

I hope (assuming you've stuck with me this far) that you'll notice. And that--like me--you will continuously demand that media organizations like the Seattle Times stop revising the past to make their present situations more palatable.

Pictures of the Day

A few disturbing historical facts about marriage that seem to have escaped some of our friends

David Anderson's original post on same-sex marriage, Here Comes the Groom, and donviti's My Retort to Stupidity, have drawn between them well over 150 comments. This post won't do that (I think a high-traffic post is one that draws more than five comments), but I wanted to correct the statement that David Anderson made regarding the universality of the modern Christian form of marriage. David said,

The species is one in which the offspring are best raised in a mixed sex environment. Unsurprisingly, thousands or millions of years of experience (I am not arguing origin theory here) has led to the evolution of an institution to best channel that reality. It exists in the most advanced of cultures and the most primitive of cultures in one form or another. We call it marriage. It consists of a mixed sex relationship or relationships for the purpose of raising families and bonding between the sexes.

Marriage over different cultures has different variations. Some have more than two partners. Some are exclusive for life. Some have an escape valve. Yet around the world, it is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is not a confusing proposition. It is not open for judicial guessing.

Later, it becomes clearly evident that what David is promoting is the idea that traditional Christian marriage is the approved form, as he introduces the "spiritual" component:

The fact that an institution exists in a basic form throughout written history in thousands of different cultures is not a reason to keep it, but evidence of the need to change it according to these people. Everything done in the past was not based upon the wisdom built up as we went from herding nomads to farmers to manufacturers to information engineers. It is based upon prejudice and discrimination. The will of God is considered a repressive scam which must be overturned.

I reject the premise and the goals of the secular progressive left. I proudly stand for tradition, the Bible, and the collective experience of billions of people over the nonsense of a radical elite.

First, we need to realize that marriage--even in the Judeo-Christian tradition--has had many variations, such as Levirate marriage:

Levirate is the practice of a woman marrying one of her husband's sons or brothers after her husband's death, in order to continue his line. Levirate has been practiced by societies with a strong clan structure in which exogamous marriage outside the clan was forbidden. Groups that have practiced levirate include the Israelites, the Xiongnu, the Mongols, and the Tibetans.

Nor is Western Civilization the only civilization struggling over the definition of marriage, as evidenced by India's Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929:

It is note worthy that a contravention of the provisions of the Act does not render the marriage invalid as the validity of the marriage is a subject beyond the scope of the Act. A marriage under the Hindu Law by a minor male is valid even though the marriage was not brought about on his behalf by the natural or lawful guardian. The marriage under the Hindu Law is a sacrament and not a contract. The minority of an individual can operate as a bar to his or her incurring contractual obligations, but it cannot be an impediment in the matter of performing a necessary "Sanskara". A minor's marriage without the consent of the guardian can be held to be valid on the application of the doctrine of factum valet.

The maximum penalty for violating this law? A three-month prison sentence and a small fine, but the marriage itself remained legitimate (and the act specifically did not apply in Kashmir and Jammu).

Then, of course, there's the widespread (both in historical and geographic terms) of Polyandry (marriage of a woman to more than one man):

According to inscriptions describing the reforms of the Sumerian king Urukagina of Lagash (ca. 2300 BC), he is said to have abolished the former custom of polyandry in his country, on pain of the woman taking multiple husbands being stoned with rocks upon which her crime is written.

Polyandry in human relationships occurs or has occurred in Tibet, the Canadian Arctic, Zanskar, Nepal, Bhutan, Ladakh, the Nymba, and Sri Lanka, and is known to have been present in some pre-contact Polynesian societies, though probably only among higher caste women. It is also encountered in some regions of Mongolia, among the Mosuo people in China, and in some Sub-Saharan African and American indigenous communities. Polyandry has been practiced in several cultures in India — in the Jaunsar region in Uttarakhand, among the, Nairs, Theeyas and Toda of South India, and the Nishi of Arunachal Pradesh. The Guanches, the first known inhabitants of the Canary Islands, practiced polyandry until their disappearance. In other societies, there are people who live in de facto polyandrous arrangements that are not recognized by the law. Non-fraternal polyandry is extremely rare and is marked by violence. There are no known indigenous communities that currently practice polyandry involving unrelated males.

The Hebrew Bible prohibits polyandry. For a woman to have sexual relations when she is married to another (which would include a situation such as polyandry) would constitute adultery, with the consequences that it would have on her status, as well as of her children from that relationship.

Islam also bans polyandry.

Important issues to note here: (1) Polyandry pre-dates the Old Testament and is prohibited by it; (2) yet exists as a custom and law in multiple societies.

Modern Western-European-style marriage, with its strange history of being intertwined between law and sacrament, church and state, emerged only with the Council of Trent in 1563:

In the decrees on marriage (twenty-fourth session) the excellence of the celibate state was reaffirmed (see also Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church)), concubinage condemned and the validity of marriage made dependent upon its being performed before a priest and two witnesses -- although the lack of a requirement for parental consent ended a debate that had proceeded from the twelfth century. In the case of a divorce, the right of the innocent party to marry again was denied so long as the other party is alive, even if the other may have committed adultery.

Basic rule of thumb: governments and churches do not bother to legislate against things people are not doing. Thus we can reasonably infer (and scholars have backed this up with research) that the following existed in Europe pre-Trent: (1) marriages not solemnized by a priest; (2) adultery was commonly considered a justification for divorce; (3) that there had been a mixture of civil and canon law with variant definitions of precisely what marriage was.

What did the Council of Trent replace? The Justinian Code--an earlier Christian formulation. Even Christian scholars and writers admitted that other forms of marriage had pre-existed monogamous, heterosexual marriage, and it is also clear that it is the influence of Christianity that caused the Roman Empire to outlaw variant forms of marriage:

In the Christian tradition, a "one man one woman" model for the Christian marriage was advocated by Saint Augustine (354-439 AD) with his published letter The Good of Marriage. To discourage polygamy, he wrote it "was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful." (chapter 15, paragraph 17) Sermons from St. Augustine's letters were popular and influential. In 534 AD Roman Emperor Justinian criminalized all but monogamous man/woman sex within the confines of marriage. The Justinian Code was the basis of European law for 1,000 years.

Opponents of gay marriage like to fear-monger with the speculation that same-sex marriage will lead to people marrying sheep, or other such perversions. They clearly have not sampled the historical variety of marriage in different cultures, which includes marrying plants (!), ghosts, and corpses:

Some parts of India follow a custom in which the groom is required to marry with an auspicious plant called Tulsi before a second marriage to overcome inauspicious predictions about the health of the husband. This also applies if the prospective wife is considered to be 'bad luck' or a 'bad omen' astrologically. However, the relationship is not consummated and does not affect their ability to remarry later. One should note that this is not a norm found across the entire Indian sub-continent.

In the state of Kerala, India, the Nambudiri Brahmin caste traditionally practiced henogamy, in which only the eldest son in each family was permitted to marry. The younger children could have sambandha (temporary relationship) with Kshatriya or Nair women. This is no longer practiced, and in general the Nambudiri Brahmin men marry only form the Nambudiri caste and Nair women prefer to be married to Nair men.

In Mormonism, a couple may seal their marriage "for time and for all eternity" through a "sealing" ceremony conducted within LDS Temples. The couple is then believed to be bound to each other in marriage throughout eternity if they live according to their covenants made in the ceremony. Mormonism also allows living persons to act as proxies in the sealing ceremony to "seal" a marriage between ancestors who have been dead for at least one year and who were married during their lifetime. According to LDS theology, it is then up to the deceased individuals to accept or reject this sealing in the spirit world before their eventual resurrection. A living person can also be sealed to his or her deceased spouse, with another person (of the same sex as the deceased) acting as proxy for that deceased individual.

Other unusual variations include marriage between a living human and a ghost (Taiwan), a living human and a recently-deceased human with whom they were emotionally involved (France), and between a human being and God (Catholic and Orthodox monasticism). Again, these lack the social meaning of ordinary marriage and belong rather to the realm of religion or (in the case of weddings of dogs to other dogs, Kermit the Frog to Miss Piggy, and the like) pure spectacle.

One society that traditionally did without marriage entirely was that of the Na of Yunnan province in southern China. According to anthropologist Cia Hua, sexual liaisons among the Na took place in the form of "visits" initiated by either men or women, each of whom might have two or three partners each at any given time (and as many as two hundred throughout a lifetime). The nonexistence of fathers in the Na family unit was consistent with their practice of matrilineality and matrilocality, in which siblings and their offspring lived with their maternal relatives. In recent years, the Chinese state has encouraged the Na to acculturate to the monogamous marriage norms of greater China. Such programs have included land grants to monogamous Na families, conscription (in the 1970s, couples were rounded up in villages ten or twenty at a time and issued marriage licenses), legislation declaring frequent sexual partners married and outlawing "visits", and the withholding of food rations from children who could not identify their fathers. Many of these measures were relaxed in favor of educational approaches after Deng Xiaoping came into power in 1981.

Point being: if you're going to make an argument for or against a certain definition of marriage, and you're also going to state that your definition is the one sanctioned by history and nature, then you'd best do your homework.

Social conservatives are notorious for not doing theirs.

Obama: "We can't . . . eat as much as we want. . . "

I want to be sure I don't take this quotation out of context (and I am not happy that I cannot find a single net reference that does not have an elipsis). This is Senator Obama campaigning in Oregon as reported by GoogleNews:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

I am hoping that this quotation is just a verbally maladroit attempt to say that the US cannot exist in a vacuum, as if the ecological consequences of its actions will be automatically tolerated by the rest of the world.

I hope that's so, because what it sounds like is that Senator Obama is advocating some pretty serious government intervention into the lives of American citizens. Especially that part, "we can't . . . eat as much as we want. . . ."

What's up there? Enforced vegetarianism because wheat has a smaller carbon footprint than beef?

I wouldn't worry so much were it not for that Michelle Obama quote about pies:

“The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”

I tried, in the spirit of non-partisan charity, to write that one off as a poorly phrased suggestion that US government budgetary priorities would have to change in an Obama administration, not that we would need to begin large-scale, involuntary transfers of wealth.

"We can't . . . eat as much as we want. . . ."

This stuff eventually starts to add up.

Minnesota law enforcement willing to lie, distort, to oppose medical marijuana

I am always troubled when law enforcement organizations choose to enter the political arena. Yes, I understand that they have a right to do so, and I also understand the dynamics that make them desirable from the point of view of many candidates.

But when the AFL-CIO endorses a candidate, we all know that this is a labor organization standing behind a candidate in the belief that said candidate will pursue policies that match the declared interest of the endorsing group. And while steel workers might argue that they know a thing or two about buying American, or restaurant workers might make claims to represent the dining public in terms of tobacco prohibition in eating establishments, there is something entirely different about law enforcement labor and professional organizations lining up behind a candidate or an issue.

Law enforcement organizations attempt to leave the impression with voters that (a) they are dispassionately sharing professional knowledge about what will keep citizens safer; (b) that whatever the police want is good for American citizens by default; and (c) their organizations are not as self-interested as other labor unions and professional organizations.

So, in many ways, it is refreshing to find an organization like Minnesotans for Compassionate Care both lobbying for the legalization of medical marijuana, and will to provide a public, point-by-point refutation of ridiculous and inaccurate claims by law enforcement organizations.

Here's just the first of fourteen patently false claims about medical marijuana made by Minnesota law enforcement organizations and the factual refutations of such claims:

1. The law enforcement claim: Marijuana has no medical value.

In their own words:

• “The bottom line ... is that at this time there is no proven medicinal value in using
marijuana to treat illnesses or disease.” (James C. Backstrom, Dakota County
Attorney; Senate Health, Housing and Family Security Committee, 2/14/07)

• “This bill attempts to legitimize something based on no scientific evidence.” (Michael
Campion, Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety; Senate Judiciary Committee,
4/10/07)

• “There is no proof of marijuana’s medicinal value.” (Pete Janski, Chief of Police for
the city of St. Joseph; current president, Minnesota Police Chiefs Association; Senate
Judiciary, 4/10/07)

• “There is no proof of marijuana’s medicinal value, although there are some
comments to the contrary.” (Mitch Weinzetl, Chief of Police for the Buffalo Police
Department and President-Elect of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association; House
Public Safety and Civil Justice, 3/19/07)

The facts: There is a large and growing body of evidence supporting marijuana’s medical
benefit.

The proof: A 1997 review study found more than 70 studies published in peer-reviewed journals or by government agencies verifying that marijuana has medical value for patients suffering from pain, nausea, appetite loss, and other symptoms of illnesses such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, and HIV/AIDS.1 Since then, many more studies have been published. That is why in February 2008, the American College of Physicians – the second largest physicians group in the country – called for marijuana to be reclassified under federal law to allow physician prescriptions, citing "marijuana's proven efficacy at treating certain symptoms and its relatively low toxicity."

I suspect that most readers will already know the truth about these specious claims. It is important, however, to read these claims and their refutations with a particular eye toward examining the names and positions held by those law enforcement officials who are consciously willing to distort the truth to pursue their own self-interest and label it good public policy.

Dominque, Dave, and Dana: The Delaware Blogosphere evolves (or is it "devolves"?)

Dominique got her baptism of fire at Down With Absolutes as an outspoken Hillary supporter and Obama critic. Passionate in her beliefs, she seemed taken aback by the sheer ferocity of the give-and-take in the responses to her posts.

But she has hung in there, demonstrated that her passion is accompanied by intellectual honesty (as when she declared it was over for Hillary) and a willingness to admit what she didn't know (in her new posts asking about Gordon and Coons).

In short, Dominique got the usual crash-course in what happens when you aspire to move full-force into the blogosphere.

And she has survived the initiation.

On the other hand, within the past month two fixtures of the sphere--Dave Burris and Dana Garrett (once friends despite all ideological differences)--have hit storms that threatened both of their positions in the virtual community.

Dave, of course, enmeshed himself in subpoena-gate with Mike Matthews at DWA, and though his The Rest of the Story contained some explanation, it left open questions about Dave's judgement, tact, and ethics.

Ironically, I met Dave face-to-face for the first time last week, at an event in Bridgeville. It was a handshake and a visual recognition, not a conversation, but it affected the way I saw him. The context of the event (he was squiring Bill Lee around in a friendly crowd) highlighted that strange mix of passion, eloquence, insecurity, and bull-in-a-china-shop brashness that combine into a unique individual. The only real problem Dave has is that he cannot acknowledge the time he's gone over the line.

Everybody goes over the line at one point or another, and you have be able to muster the grace--at least every so often--to acknowledge that you've done so. I didn't say apologize, because, as Pandora says it very well:

If we all had to apologize everytime our tone was unacceptable our posts would be over-flowing with ‘I’m sorry’ comments.

That’s the nature of blogs. We bloggers shoot our mouths off daily.

But no matter how awkwardly phrased, occasionally, Dave, you have to be able to admit that you're not the junior G-man and then move on. Hard as it is to believe, everybody else will, too.

Well, almost everybody else will.

Dana Garrett announced this week that from now on Delaware Watch will be operating under the auspices of comment moderation. This strikes a serious chord in the Delaware blogosphere, because we all take seriously the ability to let fly with whatever is on our minds (or out of them) at any given moment. Let even one comment get stuck in somebody's spam queue, and questions of censorship always arise, even when we really know better.

Some blogs I read utilize comment moderation (Waldo, for example), but within the rough-and-tumble of our little Delaware virtual community you have to be able to give a shot and take one. Nobody wins all the time; there are too many sharp, passionate people here, and we love to take down cocky almost as much as we love to be right.

Dana's fierce, vituperative, and takes no prisoners. He makes outrageous charges, parses meanings out of his opponents words that they never intended, and calls names at the drop of a hat. But he can (or at least could, up to now) take the hits as well as dole them out. When he went over the line, as someone once said at Delawareliberal, "that Uncle Dana, we all know he's just like that."

Somewhere along the line within the last few months, inexplicably, Dana seems to have lost some perspective. His response to Dave Burris labeling him a socialist or Tyler Nixon going after him on differences of opinion about Ron Paul have lost all sense of proportionality. And Delaware Watch has suffered for it. There are still strong arguments and well-researched posts, but there is now an almost palpable sense of self-righteous anger and inability to see anyone else's perspective--ever--that has reduced the blog from one I check daily to a place I visit maybe once or twice a week.

And even then, sometimes, I don't bother to read beyond the titles of the posts.

What I'm saying here is that comment moderation is symptom rather than cause.

In case it matters, Dana, I miss the old Delaware Watch, that used to be funny as well as acidic from time to time.

The thing is, the blogosphere changes, and it does so with what can sometimes be disorienting speed.

It's actually a pretty fragile community, one that hasn't quite found either its place or its true voice in society at large. We're all part of a self-inflicted social experiment here, and social experiments generate casualties as well as successes. I am pleased that Dominique has established herself (and no, Pandora and Cassandra, I haven't forgotten you, but this post seems to have a thing with bloggers whose names start with "D"). I am hopeful that Dave will figure out that nobody demands contrition, just insight. I am deeply regretful that I see Dana withdrawing from the community, and I hope he changes his mind about that.

Good night, moon.

Hear Walt Whitman speak (really!)

This I picked up from Waldo (who got it from Andrew Sullivan), an 1890 recording of the 70-year-old Walt Whitman reading one of his own poems.

The voice is clear, the words fully understandable, the effect is chills down my spine.

Gandalf was a Libertarian . . . who knew?

By way of The Libertarian Alliance Blog, which leads to an old article discussing the political thought underpinning the Lord of the Rings, there is this answer that Gandalf gives to Aragorn about Sauron in The Two Towers:

[Sauron] “supposes that we were all going to Minas Tirith; for that is what he would himself have done in our place. And according to his wisdom it would have been a heavy stroke against his power. Indeed he is in great fear, not knowing what mighty one may suddenly appear, wielding the Ring, and assailing him with war, seeking to cast him down and take his place. That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind.”

Of course, I'm not equating Sauron with government. Well, not exactly. Really.

Six word political philosophies. Why not?

Smithmag is a story-telling website that is home to the well-known project Six-Word Memoirs.

This started with the apocryphal story that Ernest Hemingway was challenged in a bar (where else?) to write a short story in six words, to which he replied: "For sale. Baby shoes. Never worn."

Smithmag has opened this up to both celebrities and ordinary people, with often astounding results that you can read both on the site and in the new book.

My entry was "Twins, adoption, grandchild. Cats. Joyous chaos." Ok, Steve Colbert's "I really thought it was funny" is a lot better.

But, anyway, here's my thought: what about six-word political philosophies and candidate description?

Here's my first take on Libertarianism:

Government shouldn't pay mortgages, mandate helmets.

Not quite what I wanted; only a small part of the philosophy. Six words is tough.

Second try:

Live free or die. Still valid.

Still not satisfactory, but you get the idea. You could also use it to criticize a political philosophy, like Liberalism:

Cradle to grave Nanny suffocates me.

(To my progressive/liberal friends: not intended as a cheap shot; I just figured out that it is easier in six words to lampoon or criticize an idea in six words than to explain it.)

So in the interests of fair play, here's a critique of Libertarianism in six words:

No government. Gated communities. Children starve.

I was also thinking about political candidates.

Say, maybe, Barack Obama:

Change? Cheap talk or necessary medicine?

Perhaps McCain?

Straight talk's cheap when emulating Dubya.

So this is my challenge. I realize that this is not one of those blogs that generates hundreds of comments. but maybe I can get some of you to take a shot at:

Describing your own political ideology (or criticizing somebody else's).

Describing, criticizing, or even lampooning a current candidate or major political figure.

You get extra points if your description is so good that the six words will actually communicate the idea or person you're talking about. (I'm still working on that.)

Anybody game?

For all Those Worried About Gay Marriage....

....I want you to take a rest for a little bit, get a beer, relax and rather than judge other people join me in celebrating women....

Snooze Journal: New Depths of Statist Illogic

Let's see: we have a revenue shortfall.

Let's ask the editorial board at the Snooze Journal.

Not in more than three decades has the General Assembly taken money from the fairest and most equitable source: everyone.

Delaware's income tax went from one of the highest rates in the country at 20 percent for the wealthiest, to among the lowest at 5.9 percent for those earning over $60,000.

There's been no measurable change in the personal income tax formula for more than a decade. Instead, surtaxes have been levied on special groups whenever revenue was needed.

But during that same period of flat income tax , which began in the middle of Gov. Tom Carper's administration, the number of employees on the state payroll has doubled. The state population has increased about 18 percent....

A minimal quarter-percent increase in the personal income tax for 12 months would make up that difference. For most families, that would mean only a few dollars out of their paychecks.

Yeah, that makes sense. Population has grown 18% during the last decade, while State employee rolls have grown 100%, and the problem is that the income tax is too low.

Here's a better idea, guys. Why don't you actually cover the question of where all those new government employees are, and what they're doing to justify taking "only a few more dollars out of their paycheck."

California Supreme Court decides that gay people are American citizens

From BBC News:

California's top court has ruled that a state law banning marriage between same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

The state's Supreme Court said the "right to form a family relationship" applied to all Californians regardless of sexuality....

"Limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.

About time.

Barack Obama gives up the right to challenge Clinton and McCain on the Gas Tax Holiday

OK, I thought the idea of a summer gas tax holiday was not only lame, but represented pure political pandering.

Senator Barack Obama was right to ridicule the idea, neatly forcing Senator Hillary Clinton into a rather stupid, populist stance against all the economists who also criticized the plan.

Now, however, by voting in lemming-like fashion with 96 of his colleagues to suspend filling the Strategic Oil Reserve on the idiotic premise that it will deliver relief to American consumers, Obama has proven himself to be just as capable of pandering.

Let's see: This courageous act will free up 70,000 barrels per day--approximately 0.6% of the 635 million barrels the US will consume this month: potentially driving down the price of gas by 2-5 cents per gallon.

Eliminating the Federal gas tax would have reduced the price 18.4 cents per gallon, a savings that Obama considered just two weeks ago to be one of Clinton's "phony ideas, calculated to win elections instead of actually solving problems."

This would have been a really good time for leadership in that "Change We Can Believe In" style.

Unfortunately not.

The Betrayal of Allen Buckley. . . .

. . . by Bob Barr.

Yesterday I covered Bob Barr's PAC contributions to the re-election campaign of Republican Saxby Chambliss at the expense of Libertarian candidate Allen Buckley, noting especially that these contributions occurred while Barr was a member of the Libertarian National Committee.

Now, it is important to recall that Barr, in running for the Libertarian Presidential nomination, is trading heavily on his name recognition, his association with Ron Paul, and his presumed ability to bring a Libertarian candidacy into the news and past the million-vote threshold.

He's been asking for all those Libertarian pennies, nickels, and dimes to be directed toward his exploratory committee, pointing out in his cute (Ron Paul-like) graphic that he needs tens of thousands of dollars just to be able to set up an office staff and get the campaign off the ground.

Switch: let's look at the persistent, low-budget campaigns of Libertarian Allen Buckley in Georgia. In 2004, Buckley ran for Senate and scored 2%. Two years later, he managed 3.6% as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor.

This year, however, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution suggests that

In a year in which Democrats are floundering [in Georgia] and Chambliss has raised a pile of cash to defend himself, it’d be easy to write Buckley off.

But there’s a conspiracy of events out there that could — despite the traditional third-party disadvantage of no money and less attention — allow Buckley to make the best showing any Libertarian has ever made in Georgia.

Why? Buckley has seized on two critical issues--Saxby Chambliss's support of farm subsidies and the Fair Tax--with which he appears to be gaining some traction (especially since nobody in the Democratic Party seems at all enthusiastic about their candidates).

That's what makes Bob Barr's donations so troubling for Libertarians seeking to build state and local party organizations. Barr's PAC has given Chambliss a total of $3,500. Given that Saxby has raised over $4.4 million (including a cool million from the agri-business interests that benefit from his support for those subsidies), the Barr contribution is statistically and pragmatically inconsequential to the well-heeled GOPer.

Buckley's campaign, however, is another story. He hasn't made any FEC filings this year yet, but his filings from the Lieutenant-Governor's campaign indicate that he ran the campaign on just $5,000, and achieved more than 75,000 votes.

I can't help thinking that Barr's $3,500 would make a considerable difference to Allen Buckley this year.

More than that, imagine what might happen to Buckley's campaign if Barr either publicly endorsed him or solicited others to contribute to his campaign.

I realize that there might be personal issues of loyalty involved between Barr and Chambliss. But when you accept a position on the Libertarian National Committee you undertake the ethical responsibility--at the very least--not to hurt your party's candidates.

From that perspective, it takes a lot of damn gaul to seek the LP Presidential nomination.

Taco Libre & Why Does the Los Angeles Government Want Your Taco Truck.....

The world may be coming to an end.

LA is shutting down the mobile taco trucks.....
http://saveourtacotrucks.org/

It is a violation of fair trade.

Can you believe that?

Well no more street burritos in LA....what a disaster....

Viva Taco Libre Contra los Burocratas!!!

Unfortunately, not quite in time for Giordano Bruno. . . .

. . . the Catholic Church announces that it is OK with the Vatican for us to believe in alien life on other worlds.

The interview with chief Church astronomer Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes is even entitled "The Extraterrestrial is My Brother."

Many posts covering this story harken back to that little conflict between the Church and Galileo (who may have been a scientific giant, but by all accounts was no fun at parties), but I have yet to see one that mentions Giordano Bruno.

Bruno, among other little intellectual peccadillos (like disbelieving in virgin birth), was found guilty in 1600 of believing in the existence of other worlds:

His trial was overseen by the inquisitor Cardinal Bellarmine, who demanded a full recantation, which Bruno eventually refused. Instead he appealed in vain to Pope Clement VIII, hoping to save his life through a partial recantation. The Pope expressed himself in favor of a guilty verdict. Consequently, Bruno was declared a heretic, handed over to secular authorities on February 8 1600. At his trial he listened to the verdict on his knees, then stood up and said: "Perhaps you, my judges, pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it." A month or so later he was brought to the Campo de' Fiori, a central Roman market square, his jaw clamped in an iron gag and an iron spike driven through his tongue. He was tied to a pole naked and burned at the stake, on February 17, 1600.

Ouch.

Just because my friends at Delawareliberal might miss this. . . .

. . . (and I am being utterly serious here).

In all the furor over Bob Barr's announcement yesterday that he is seeking the Libertarian presidential nomination, there is an aspect of this whole story that non-Libertarians might well have missed, and which Democrats in particular should be interested in.

Here's how far you can trust the loyalty of Bob Barr. While serving as a member of the Libertarian National Committee over the past two years, Barr has also headed a PAC that was simultaneously delivering thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Republican candidates around the country--even in races where the Libertarian Party was running candidates.

That, for my liberal friends, is not the key part (because, after all, which should jason, geek, cassandra, pandora, or dv care about the internal treacheries of opposing parties, major or minor?).

Here's my point. Among these contributions, the Barr PAC sent the following to support Georgia chickenshit ('scuse me, I meant chickenhawk) Republican Saxby Chambliss:

Georgia Senate race

Libertarian candidate: Allen Buckley

Bob Barr supported
05/08/07 Saxby Chambliss for Senate $ 500
06/22/07 Saxby Chambliss for Senate $1000
09/28/07 Saxby Chambliss for Senate $1000
01/07/08 Saxby Chambliss for Senate $1000

Total to Republican candidate [Saxby Chambliss] in George Senate race: $3,500

Total to Libertarian candidate in George Senate race: $ 0

I may never agree with my friends at DL about much, but on this we can smoke the pipe together:

Anyone who would actually raise money to support Saxby Chambliss has demonstrated that he lacks the judgment to run for President on anybody's ticket.

So, if knowing Barr co-wrote the Patriot Act, opposed civil unions and gay marriage, wants a hard-line immigration policy, supports the war on drugs, and can't seem to figure out whether to stay in Iraq or leave is not enough reason to realize he is not even a valid third-party candidate, then I guess the Saxby Chambliss litmus test will have to seal the deal.

Two interesting ironies to close out this post:

1) If you visit Allen Buckley's web site, you will actually find this reference: "See: Bob Barr's take on surveillance laws, with which I fully agree." Somebody really ought to tell the poor bastard that Barr is pumping cash into his opponent's campaign. (Moreover, if you take the time to read Buckley's take on the issues, you'll find that--aside from immigration, where he's indistinguishably different from Saxby's neolithic position--his positions are actually spelled out in detail and fairly rational. I don't agree with all of them, but I could sure go a lot further with him than with Chambliss.)

2) If you visit Saxby Chambliss's web site and click your way through the Issues, you'll be challenged to discover a single issue upon which good ole Saxhole presents an even vaguely Libertarian point of view.

Delmarva has another wind power push poll apparently going

OK, my twelve-year-old daughter actually took the call.

She said it was Delmarva Power, and they wanted her opinion on "what we should do about energy in the future."

Now, you have to know that she's probably never heard a thing about Bluewater or the wind power controversy (and having to admit that makes me almost feel obligated to apologize to kavips and tommywonk for being a bad parent).

That just makes it even more interesting when I cite her summation of the phone survey.

"I don't know what it was all about, but they sure don't like wind power."

The Drug War is also a war on both logic and integrity

This sounds damning, doesn't it?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Heavy marijuana use can boost blood levels of a particular protein, perhaps raising a person’s risk of a heart attack or stroke, U.S. government researchers said on Tuesday.

Levels of a protein called apolipoprotein C-III were found to be 30 percent higher in the marijuana users compared to the others. This protein is involved in the body’s metabolism of triglycerides — a type of fat found in the blood — and higher levels cause increased levels of triglycerides.

High levels of triglycerides can contribute to hardening of the arteries or thickening of the artery walls, raising the risk of stroke, heart attack and heart disease.

Of course there are two aspects of this US government study you might want to take into consideration while you are evaluating its reliability.

Number one: the next sentence in the story.

The study did not look at whether the heavy marijuana users actually had heart disease.

In other words: we didn't bother to actually check for any signs of heart disease.

Number two: the definition of a heavy marijuana user.

Which, as it turns out, is someone smoking between 11-50 joints per day.

As pointed out by Marijuana Research Project's Bob Mirken:

“We’re talking about people who are stoned all the time. We’re talking about the marijuana equivalent of the guy in the alley clutching a bottle of cheap wine. If you do anything to that level of excess, it might well have some untoward effects, whether it’s marijuana or wine or broccoli.”

I don't suppose it is surprising to find out that the same government that had a specific program set up to lie to American citizens about the war in Iraq through ersatz experts, also has an arm that produces phony research in order to justify the fiscal and moral sinkhole that is our 21st Century War on Drugs.

More to the point, if you make it a habit to visit Drug War Rant (which is where I originally found this story), you will find so many additional pieces of propaganda and outright lies regarding American drug use and the purported consequences thereof that it will make your head spin.

But--more's the pity--it won't get you high.

Basic failures of government bureaucracy: keeping our food supply safe, approving life-saving drugs

Basic premise of the liberal/progressive movement: Americans need to pay large amounts of taxes in order to allow the government to carry out its mandated functions of keeping us all safe (and here they generally mean things like "safe food," not defense-oriented threats) and maintaining a functioning infrastructure.

Smaller government is a fixation of ninnies, wingnuts, and pumkin-headed spindles.

Right.

Only the problem seems to be that their most sacred cows (and you'll understand why that was a really bad pun momentarily) seem unable to perform, no matter how much money we give them.

I recently documented the fact that (with full Executive and Legislative oversight) the Department of Homeland Security has allowed the number of critical terrorist targets in the US to be increased from an original 160 to over 300,000 (that's one target for every ten people in the country, folks). That explains why Dunkin Donut shops and city fire hydrants have been declared essential to our national security, to the tune of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.

Or how about the US Department of Agriculture, one of the lead agencies charged with keeping our food supply safe? In 2004 a slaughterhouse company in Kansas, Creekstone, spent $6 million to build its own plant to test every single cow for mad cow disease. There was a two-fold purpose in this. Creekstone was trying to open up the Japanese beef import market (where the law then required every animal to be tested, and thus locked out American beef), and at the same time saw a marketing advantage in being able to advertise its beef as safe to worried consumers.

The USA stepped in and forbid Creekstone to test every cow, using an obscure 1913 law giving it authority over certain patent medicine procedures. Was there something wrong with the Creekstone facility? No. Instead, the USDA argued in Federal court that such testing was unfair to other meat producers, because it created the impression that their product was less safe than Creekstone's. This might lead to other producers being forced to spend money to build their own plants, which for some reason the USDA did not want to see happen.

This, by the way, occurred at a time when virtually every independent scientific expert in the country was deriding the USDA's testing program as worse than useless.

OK, I know, we'll blame this one on Dubya. When's he's out of there it will all be better.

Except that doesn't explain why multiple experts castigate the Food and Drug Administration, over the past forty-plus years, for allowing millions of Americans to suffer and die because of inappropriate testing procedures.

The 1962 Kefauver-Harris amendment to the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act placed so many additional restrictions and requirements on the FDA drug-approval process that, post-1962, the period required to authorize the sale and use of new medications (even those already tested in Europe or Canada to equally stringent specifications) increased from seven months to over eight years by the 1990s!

Does this so-called drug lag produce any real harm?

You bet.

Here are some extracts from the heavily documented Theory, Evidence and Examples of FDA Harm at FDAreview.org:

Deaths owing to drug lag have been numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Wardell (1978a) estimated that practolol, a drug in the beta-blocking family, could save ten thousand lives a year if allowed in the United States. Although the FDA allowed a first beta-blocker, propranolol, in 1968, three years after that drug had been available in Europe, it waited until 1978 to allow the use of propranolol for the treatment of hypertension and angina pectoris, its most important indications. Despite clinical evidence as early as 1974, only in 1981 did the FDA allow a second beta-blocker, timolo, for prevention of a second heart attack. The agency's withholding of beta-blockers was alone responsible for probably tens of thousands of deaths (on this general issue see Gieringer 1985; Kazman 1990).

A chief source of information about drug delay is the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, a scholarly, not too outspoken research center funded chiefly by pharmaceutical companies. Their information is often mined by researchers at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The CEI has noted that in recent years thousands of patients have died because the FDA has delayed the arrival of new drugs and devices, including Interleukin-2, Taxotere, Vasoseal, Ancrod, Glucophage, Navelbine, Lamictal, Ethyol, Photofrin, Rilutek, Citicoline, Panorex, Femara, Prostar, Omnicath, and Transform. Prior to FDA approval, most of these drugs and devices had already been available in other countries for a year or longer. . . .

Evidence from the pre-1962 market shows that FDA restrictions have greatly reduced the number of new drugs, and because there was little or no corresponding gain in drug quality, the concomitant mortality and morbidity were unredeemed. The international evidence shows that there has long been a drug lag in the United States, and because Americans have not benefited from the extra "precaution," the concomitant mortality and morbidity are unredeemed. Finally, the off-label evidence indicates that the network of doctors, patients, pharmaceutical firms, hospitals, universities, rating organizations, and so forth is really in charge of defining and judging efficacy and that it functions smoothly and successfully in the realm of uses not approved by the FDA; hence, the mortality and morbidity that result from proof-of-efficacy requirements are unredeemed. All the systematic evidence goes against the coercive FDA apparatus.

This kind of institutional malfeasance goes beyond Democrat/Republican political squabbles: it is indicative of the fact that large-scale bureaucracies--whether governmental or private--have no inherent interest that overrides their own survival and growth instincts.

But, I know, all Libertarians are crazy to point this out.

9/11 "Truth" and selling out your Libertarian principles

For the moment I don't really care whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, or whether a jumbo jet could have managed to impact the Pentagon.

Let's just assume it's all correct, just for the sake of argument.

Now here is a selection of calls by Libertarians 4 Justice and its fellow travelers here and on Third Party Watch over the past few days:

"The Libertarian Party has Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential candidates on the ballot in 2008 who are all calling for a new investigation into the attacks on 9/11 until we are sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the terrorists have been brought to justice."

"We want justice. Simple as that. We want the truth. We want those responsible to pay. The families deserve no less. The only way to provide this is to hold an open and public Congressional inquiry with full subpoena powers."

"Libertarians For Justice want an open and public congressional inquiry."

[Referring to the Popular Mechanics investigation] "How many of the people on your list were under oath?"

"An investigation is needed to get to the facts. Those responsible for the events of the day, and the eyewitnesses, need to be put under oath and their statements proven. Then we will have the truth. I believe that only Congress has the power to put President Bush and Vice President Cheney under oath. Wouldn’t you like to know why Dick Cheney did not follow the order to shoot down the plane headed for the Pentagon?"

"An investigation that, asks questions, and demands answers until We the People are sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the terrorists have been brought to justice.

"Put them under oath!"

"We should welcome and face all the hard questions until they are answered truthfully and factually by our government."

Notice a trend here?

What we have are presumed Libertarians--many of them radicals bordering on anarchists--who bristle at the thought of government power and abuse. Many of them even argue that the 6th Amendment is an example of governmental coercion because it empowers the courts to subpoena witnesses against their will. Most of them routinely disbelieve anything that the government says.

So what we have are presumed Libertarians, champions of free enterprise, advocating that Congress use its coercive subpoena power, and the tax dollars ripped off from those who don't agree with such a process to conduct a bureaucratic investigation of the government itself.

Hey, I've got an idea. Instead of Libertarians for Justice, let's rename the group that Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, and Mike Gravel have signed on to support with a title that more accurately reflects its purpose.

How about Libertarians for Congressional Subpoena powers?

Maybe Libertarians for Using Your Tax Dollars to Pursue Their Agenda?

Or perhaps Libertarians Who Trust the Government to Empower and Support a Self-Investigation?

My personal favorite would be Libertarians Who Have Lost Both Their Minds and Their Principles.

If you are a Libertarian and a believer in a 9/11 conspiracy, then why not pursue a Libertarian rather than a Statist investigation?

Here are a few suggestions:

1) Pay for it yourself, in the form of a private foundation (called, oh, say, Libertarians for Justice). That way you are not coercing anyone else into paying for it, and you have complete control.

2) Use the funds you've gathered to (a) support a massive, private independent investigation. Overcome the lack of subpoena power and classified access by offering a $1 million dollar bounty and guaranteed legal representation to any whistle-blowers or leakers who bring forward the information.

3) Once you have established credible information regarding the culpability of individuals in the conspiracy, file a series of high-profile "wrongful death" civil suits against these individuals, as well as publicizing and turning over all materials to local and state prosecutorial officials.

In other words: prove that you can live up to your Libertarian principles when the issue is serious, or shut the hell up.

I am astounded and saddened, not that fellow Libertarians believe in the conspiracy theory (hell, they may have a point), but that exactly like the Republicans and the Democrats they are running for President in order to use the coercive power of the Federal government to pursue their own agenda, NOT to reduce or dismantle it.

Any Libertarian presidential candidate--and that list specifically includes Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, and Mike Gravel--who either sells out their principles to support this style of investigation, or panders just to get the votes of people who genuinely believe in a 9/11 conspiracy, are not running on Libertarian principles.

Again, I commend Dr George Phillies, as well as Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root, for refusing to sign the pledge.

Lessons from Across the Pond - England's Failed Gun Ban

Here's a thought: Let's slash the Homeland Security budget

No, I'm not kidding.

I've railed here on many occasions about the Defense budget, but until now (at least by implication) I've given DHS--except for the Gestapo-cloned TSA--a free pass.

But I've always known that DHS did not deserve it.

In 2005 I worked as a sub-contractor teaching a course at the Center for Domestic Preparedness in Anniston, Alabama. (You really don't want to know.)

During the course of that experience I spoke at length with a man who was the number-two homeland security official in his state. (I'm not going to identify his state; if I did you could figure out who he is.)

He said, "Homeland security funding is only going to go up, even if the terrorists never attack us again. It has become the new revenue-sharing mechanism. Every good-old-boy sheriff in every rural county in [my state] is out looking for some old retired KKK guy so he can claim he's got a terrorist problem, and needs the money."

I was still onboard with the mainstream government-sponsored view back then (they were, to be honest, purchasing my allegiance with quite a good sum of money each day), and thus I was skeptical.

Then, in 2005, Newark NJ spent a quarter-million bucks of DHS money on air-conditioned garbage trucks.

What the hell, it was New Jersey. Everybody who lives around the Garden State knows that score.

Now, however, it's Duncan Donuts, and the fact that the DHS list of critical targets has expanded from 160 (2003) to nearly 300,000 (2006).

Here's Ian Lustick on The War on Terror Feeding Frenzy, just in case you doubt me:

Why, absent any evidence of a serious domestic terror threat, is the War on Terror so enormous, so all-encompassing, and still expanding?

The fundamental answer is that al Qaeda’s most important accomplishment was not to hijack our planes, but to hijack our political system. For a multitude of politicians, interest groups, professional associations, corporations, media organizations, universities, local and state governments and federal agency officials, the War on Terror is now a major profit center, a funding bonanza, and a set of slogans and sound bites to be inserted into budget, project, grant and contract proposals. For the country as a whole, however, it has become a maelstrom of waste and worry that distracts us from more serious problems.

Consider the congressional response.

In mid-2003, the Department of Homeland Security compiled a list of 160 potential terrorist targets, triggering intense efforts by representatives, senators and their constituents to find potential targets in their districts that might require protection and therefore be eligible for federal funding. The result? Widened definitions and blurrier categories of potential targets and mushrooming increases in the infrastructure and assets deemed worthy of protection. By late 2003, the list had increased more than tenfold to 1,849; by 2004 it had grown to 28,364; by 2005 it mushroomed to 77,069; and by 2006 it was approximately 300,000. . . .

According to a 2005 report by the Small Business Administration (SBA) inspector general, 85 percent of the businesses granted low-interest SBA counterterrorism loans failed to establish their eligibility. The SBA authorized 7,000 loans worth more than $3 billion, including $22 million in loans to Dunkin’ Donuts franchises in nine states. . . .

Other cities found more imaginative ways to combat terrorism. In May 2007, Augusta, Ga., officials authorized spending $3 million to protect fire hydrants against terrorist tampering. This spending decision was recommended by the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police, which cited a 2004 government report labeling hydrants “a top vulnerability.” Not surprisingly, the American Waterworks Association warmly endorsed the idea of spending nearly $60 billion to protect fire hydrants nationwide. . . .

At least I'll feel safe while I'm eating a glazed cake with sprinkles near a fire hydrant in south Jersey.

Stopped clocks, 9/11 Truthers, and other attempts at self-marginalization

I really hate it when this happens.

When I end up agreeing with Eric Dondero, I mean.

Dondero is a self-styled Libertarian Republican who concept of Libertarianism is about as far from mine as you can get.

(Take, for example, his recent article on Dubya as a Libertarian President, or his insistence "that if we flee Iraq and al Qaeda takes over in the MidEast the price of oil will be $250 a barrel and our economy and civil society will be destroyed"--which is actually a quote from Dondero's talk-show partner, but reflects his views accurately.)

To put Dondero in context for Delaware non-Libertarian readers, he is to the LP as is Mike Protack to the DE GOP.

But this time he's right.

Third Party Watch just published a post on the Libertarians for Justice (a 9/11 Truther organization) gaining enough credibility within the party to land several presidential candidates as signatories on their petition for a new September 11 inquiry.

At this point, Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, Daniel Imperato, Mike Jingozian, and Mike Gravel have all signed the petition, either out of misguided Rosie-style conspiratorial belief or just sheer Hillary-style pandering for delegate votes.

Refusing to put their name on the paper are Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root, and George Phillies.

Here's what Libertarian Republican writer Andrew Murphy (supported in a postscript by Dondero himself) has to say about the significance of this issue:

With one of it's presidential candidates now running at 7% nationally in the polls(Bob Barr), one would think that the LP would be more focused on turning that 7% margin into 14% or 21% by November but instead they are insuring that once again the LP will be stuck with less then 1% of the national vote. Even if Bob Barr is smart enough to stay away from such revisionism, if he does get the LP nomination, this pledge will hound him for the entire presidential campaign.

Don't kid yourself. This is not some minor side show that is going on with these Libertarians for Justice. This year already Dylan Avery, director of Loose Change, was the keynote luncheon speaker at the 2008 Libertarian State Chairs Conference. Loose Change, is the You Tube hit from 2005, a documentary claiming that 9/11 was an inside job. A documentary so full of mistakes and distortions that even members the 9/11 truth Movement like Michael Green have separated themselves from some of the theories in the documentary.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.htm

Make no mistake, allowing the 9/11 Truth movement to take over the LP is not going to be good. It is not only bad history but it is bad politics. Like the albatross in Coleridge's Ancient Mariner, this will hang around the LP candidates neck and may even ultimately hang the entire libertarian movement with them.

While I certainly can't agree with Dondero's assignation of the term "hate group" to the Libertarians for Justice, I must reluctantly agree that here is another great way to marginalize yourself as a party.

Besides, assuming that you believe that the people who brought you the Iraq War were competent enough to pull off 9/11 as an inside job blamed on the guiltless Al Qaeda, then there's pretty much no point in voting anyway, is there?

As a postscript, I give full credit to Dr George Phillies for refusing to sign this statement, and feel validated in my support of his candidacy. Go George!

Constructing Al Qaeda: Separating representation from reality--is it even possible?

The late Edward Said (Palestinian advocate, Columbia University professor, and early supporter of Senator Barack Obama) is sinking into greater and greater disfavor these days.

The conservatives have never forgiven him for being an outspoken advocate of Palestine and a strident, over-the-top anti-imperialist. His legacy as an academician is being challenged by charges of plagiarism and falsification of biographical details; his influence at Columbia is coming under more and more strenuous attack.

Recently, apostate Muslim and conservative darling Ibn Warraq has published what he proclaims to be a systematic refutation of Said's most original, ground-breaking work, Orientialism.

(I guess I'd best be careful here. I'm finding all sorts of positive reviews or Warraq's, including one on an Ayn Rand wannabe site, so I guess I'm not going to be a good little Libertarian if I don't fall into line. Oh well. You know how that frightens me.)

What's all the fuss about? Said argued (with great vituperation and continual hyperbole) that the West's interest in knowing about the East, as encapsulated in the discipline called "Orientialism" was not by any means a pure academic quest for knowledge, but a racist, colonialist, hegemonic attempt to describe another culture in such a way as to dominate it.

The standard Said quote used to revile him in Western terms: “it is therefore correct that every European in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently, a rascist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.”

I will not argue the merits of Said's scholarship or politics, but I think we miss one of his most significant insights when we dismiss his entire body of work out of hand. Early in Orientalism, Said is discussing a quotation of Lord Balfour (of the famous 1917 Balfour Declaration on a future Jewish homeland), when he makes an observation that stopped me in my tracks. (Note: like most academics and also freight trains I have a long breaking distance, so to get to the eight words--in bold--that constitute the key insight you are going to have to have the whole paragraph.)

As Balfour justifies the necessity for British occupation of Egypt, supremacy in his mind is associated with "our" knowledge of Egypt and not principally with military or economic power. Knowledge to Balfour means surveying a civilization from its origins to its prime to its decline--and of course, it means, being able to do that. Knowledge means rising above immediacy, beyond self, into the foreign and distant. The object of such knowledge is inherently vulnerable to scrutiny; this object is a "fact" which, if it develops, changes, or otherwise transforms itself in the way that civilizations frequently do, nevertheless is fundamentally, even ontologically stable. To have such knowledge of a thing is to dominate it, to have authority over it. And authority here means for "us" to deny autonomy to "it"--the Oriental country--since we know it and it exists, in a sense, as we know it. British knowledge of Egypt for Balfour is Egypt for Balfour, and the burdens of knowledge make such questions as inferiority and superiority seem petty ones. Balfour nowhere denies British superiority and Egyptian inferiority; he takes them for granted as he describes the consequences of knowledge. (p. 32)

Huh? Let's try to restate that in a little bit clearer format:

Balfour unconsciously mistakes what he knows (or thinks he knows) about Egypt for Egypt itself.

It never occurs to Lord Balfour that (a) his knowledge could be imperfect, being based on cultural assumptions rather than data; (b) he has acquired this knowledge with the single purpose of justifying and executing British domination of Egypt; and (c) there might be significant differences between the Egypt of his mental/cultural construction and the Egypt that actually exists.

So what, finally, has this got to do with Al Qaeda?

Try it this way. Take the previous paragraph and substitute "Americans" for Balfour and "Al Qaeda" for Egypt.

Americans unconsciously mistake what they know (or think they know) about Al Qaeda for Al Qaeda itself.

It never occurs to Americans that (a) their knowledge could be imperfect, being based on cultural assumptions rather than data; (b) they have acquired this knowledge with the single purpose of justifying and executing an American defeat of Al Qaeda; and (c) there might be significant differences between the Al Qaeda of their mental/cultural construction and the Al Qaeda that actually exists.

I say again: Said does not have to be right in his interpretation of Orientalism for this insight to have value for us.

I have long suspected that most Americans confuse a melange of their limited understanding of Islam and the Middle East, media representations of Al Qaeda, government statements (often constructed to be false, but still influential), and the wide assortment of weird factoids and misinformation available on the web for a real understanding of Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism, including its realistic potential to do strategic harm to our country and culture.

If Said's insight has validity, then we are voting for presidential candidates (to cite but a single example) based upon little more than a delusion based on a mirage as interpreted by a fake psychic.

If true, is it possible (because it would certainly be necessary) to differentiate between what we think we know about Al Qaeda from what we need to learn about that organization?

I'm not certain it's possible, but over the next couple of weeks (on and off), I intend to try.

A New Twist on an Old Question: Libertarians and the Poor

I posted back in March on Minimum Wage, Living Wage, and the State as Vampire to the Poor, pointing out that one of the chief impediments between the working poor and making it is not the inadequacy of government programs, but the fact that even in the lower tax brackets the State collects 16-19% of their income before turning around and handing some of it back in benefits.

My thesis, of course, is that in a more Libertarian America, where people got to keep most or all of the money they earned, there would be far fewer poor.

But in a country of 300 million, far fewer is a term elastic enough to still encompass millions.

What about them, then, in a nation with such a small government that no longer provides cradle-to-grave welfare programs?

The traditional Libertarian answer is that private charity will replace public assistance.

Simon Clark, at From the Barrel of a Gun, provides one of the more honest and more original analyses of this issue than I have seen anywhere for some time. I don't suggest he has the last word, but I do think he contributes to moving the discussion forward:

I mentioned this at the Libertarian Party meet-up in London the other day, and I thought I'd blog about it here.

Now, I'd first say that I don't think charity is the answer to socialism. Libertarian policies should negate the need for a 'voluntary welfare state' in any way approaching the scale of what we have today. But charity certainly does have a roll to play, and I suppose quite a big role. Detractors of libertarianism, when confronted with the notion that disabled people might be taken care of by charity rather than the state, decry this as ludicrous. People, they say, are not generous enough; too selfish.

Of course, people don't give a whole lot of money to such causes now, but then the state says it will take care of it. So what area of necessity, which cannot adequately be provided by private enterprise, does the state not provide? I would point to the internet. Not the network itself, but much of that which resides upon it. Take for example, file sharing networks such as Usenet and Bittorrent. Thousands of users spend a large portion of their time, at great effort and, often, expense, to upload copies of shows, movies, music, e-books, games, software etc on to these networks. And they do this for no financial reward. They do it purely for the benefit of others. It is, in effect, charity. And it is not just the uploaders themselves, most users of, say, Bittorrent, will 'seed' a file after downloading it, whereby they give over a portion of their bandwidth so that other users can carry on downloading the file from them, even after they have finished. People actually leave their computers on when they go to work or when they sleep just so people can keep downloading from them - and this obviously costs them electricity! Again, they do not get paid for this. Indeed, many of the file sharing websites out there, most notably The Pirate Bay, are loss-making enterprises. True, The Pirate bay does have adverts, but it is most definitely a charity because, despite never making a profit, the guys who run it keep it going out of their own pocket. Indeed, a lot of the costs are covered by voluntary donations, charity funding charity!

So what does this tell us about libertarianism? I suspect it is an indication that if the state gets out of the business of charity, people will indeed take over. The sad thing is that all of these hard working and generous people are declared to be criminals by the state...

I'm going to have to think about this analogy; I commend it to you as well.

Nanny Knows Best: Killer Vegetables

Sometimes when I read Nanny Knows Best, I can't decide whether I'm reading the sequel to George Orwell's 1984 or visiting the future of America if our Progressive Brethren and Cistern take power.

For example: now it is being seriously bruited about that the British Government should fine restaurants for serving out-of-season (read, "imported") produce.

The source of this ingenious idea (and the individual who is lobbying Prime Minister Harold Brown for its adoption) is none other than Chef Gordon Ramsay of Hell's Kitchen.

The Orwellian logic behind this idea is that it would cause restaurants to rely on local produce, which would have a smaller carbon footprint because it would not have to be transported as far as, say, bananas from Guatemala.

Unfortunately, this idea is already percolating just beneath the surface right here in the USA, where--for example--Progressive guru George Lakoff intends his healthy foods "strategic initiative" to employ the coercive power of the State to achieve exactly the same end:

Government could have an enormous impact in reducing the cost of and increasing access to healthy, locally grown, organic, and sustainable foods. (From Thinking Points, Chapter Seven)

This sort of thinking--even more disturbingly--has penetrated far down the . . . food chain (sorry!) . . . of progressive/liberal thought, as witness this recent comment by von Cracker at Delawareliberal:

Increase the gas tax - change the paradigm. . . .

not saying that Obama needs to do this, obviously it’s a campaign killer, but it does need to be done.

Force people to drive less, investors will move towards mass transportation, citizens will start buying local foods…etc…

When I respond:

And although I will grant you Hillary’s overt pandering (not that she is unique among current prez wannabes in that regard), it is vC’s comment that reminds me why I’m a Libertarian. . . .

He wants to increase gas taxes to “change the paradigm” and “Force people to drive less, investors will move towards mass transportation, citizens will start buying local foods…etc…”

I love the folks who constantly propose this sort of solution. Who cares about people who have jobs that require them to drive? Who cares about the people left with even more crippling fuel prices in places that mass transit isn’t going to happen for decades (if ever) even with massive government investment? Screw all of them: vC wants light rail and local milk (although still with Federal price supports one would assume), and so the idea of using the government’s power to “force” (his word, not mine) people to fall into line with his political ideas is palatable.

What was funny was how quickly vC wanted to back away from that word force. Not from the policies being advocated, but from the word itself:

Sorry that I didn’t say it’s a long-term approach, understandable since we all so used to instant gratification. And not to get into your semantics game, but the correct word would be “influence”. Feel better now?

No, as a matter of fact, I didn't.

Influence backed up by the tax code, fines, regulations, and the full apparatus of government is not only force, but when it's done with the deliberate Orwellian intent to portray it as something else--something healthful and so good for you that you'd just be a spoilsport to say no--that's not just force, it's mind-controlling authoritarian Statism run amuck.

Which is worse than an episode of Hell's Kitchen, because once you turn it on, you won't be able to turn it off.

In honor of Iron Man, the Movie (and Hube)

The remnants of my original 600+ comix collection of Silver-Age Marvels exist safely under glass, framed on the wall of the home office. I picked these to hang on to as representative of the joy of the early 1960s Marvels, when Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Don Heck, and Dick Ayers were revolutionizing the comix industry.

Lee and Kirby, obviously, are legitimate icons of the whole business. Ditko was something of a cult figure, an acquired taste, and a master of almost baroque mood (I tend to think about him, somehow, in the same category with Gil Kane, except that Kane never quite had Ditko's class). Heck and Ayers were second-stringers--journeymen artists who did most of the heavy lifting on the back-up heroes like Giant Man and Iron Man. (Ayers' true love and place to shine was obviously NIck Fury and the Howlin' Commandoes; Heck did a number of early Avengers--after Kirby left and prior to issue 40--that deserve more attention than they usually get.) Ayers and Heck more or less disappeared into the mists after the arrival of the next wave of artists like Gene Colan (aka Adam Austin), John Buscema, Johnny Romita, and (even) Werner Roth.

The four issues under glass are Avengers #4, Tales of Suspense #59, Tales to Astonish #60, and Spiderman #34.

A little about each:

Avengers #4 is justly famous for bringing back Captain America from that block of ice. The Avengers were something of a Justice League rip-off (with most of the assembled heroes having their own strips), with Stan Lee's typical treatment that, in the early days, the group didn't really get along. But what did you expect with the Incredible Hulk as a charter member? The Hulk didn't last long, and with the arrival of Captain America the focus changed and the internal bickering pretty much disappeared. There were some really good issues (I loved Kang the Conqueror in issue #6), but I don't think the Avengers actually came into their own until Thor, Giant Man (and the Wasp), and Iron Man disappeared for awhile. Then Cap got Quicksilver (a poor man's mutant Flash), the Scarlet Witch (his sister), and Hawkeye (villain turned anti-hero from the Iron Man series); they had a particularly good two-parter against the Swordsman in about issues 20-21--a strong story with workmanlike art by Don Heck,

Tales of Suspense #59 and Tales to Astonish #60 attempted to put four second-stringers into their own books. Iron Man and Captain America split Suspense, while Giant Man and the Hulk divided up Astonish (later, the Sub-Mariner would push out Giant Man for the second slot). (The Hulk had lost his own, stand-alone book after six groundbreaking but poor selling issues.) I never really felt like either Captain America or Giant Man found themselves in this format. Iron Man, once Gene Colan took over the pencils, became an excellent, consistent feature, although the continued stories got stretched unmercifully (especially the final confrontation with Whiplash in the last few issues of the magazine).

The Hulk was something else. Steve Ditko continued with the pencils he had taken over from Jack Kirby, and did his best work on a series of stories that found Bruce Banner and his alter ego trapped in Communist China. Later Marie Severin took over the artwork and moved the Hulk back into the big time (with some help from the latter rugged pencils of Herb Trimpe).

But I always felt that one of the best renditions of the Hulk was provided in the two or three stories done by Micky Dimeo (somewhere around issues #85-88), a long-time Marvel inker who did very little artwork on his own. Dimeo's Hulk owed something to Bill Everett, but had a harsh, slab-like appearance that I always felt captured the beast better than anybody else did until Trimpe (or perhaps the Jim Steranko cover from Hulk Annual #1).

I'd love to find a image of the Dimeo Hulk on the web, but haven't been able to do so yet. If anybody can provide one, I'd be greatful.

Spiderman #34 is late Ditko (his last issue would be #39), and there is nothing particularly stellar about the story. In fact, after the issues in the mid-20s, the story-telling went downhill until Romita came along with #40. But what a killer cover!

I learned to read, and even arguably learned to write reading these comix. Fortunately, I had parents who believed that it didn't matter what a kid was reading just as long as he was reading.

Mike Gravel, Becky Isais, and the Non-Aggression Principle

Recently, when Third Party Watch published fund-raising stats for Libertarian Presidential wannabes, former Senator Mike Gravel topped this list with nearly half a million bucks (most raised, presumably, when running for the Democratic nomination, since he's actually been a Libertarian for all of about two weeks).

It also produced this claim by one Becky Isais:

If Mike is answering a call it’s not mine cuz he owes me $1000.00 for work done on his campaign. It’s been 6 months of begging & I’m fed up. ASK Mike Gravel why he thinks he can still fly around the country & claim he can’t pay his debts because he is broke. Mike Gravel has stolen from my family & I think the public needs to know he’s not the kind compassionate man he plays on T.V.

The Gravel campaign immediately disavowed this charge:

Becky Isais worked tirelessly on behalf of Senator Gravel and this campaign as a volunteer operating within the state of Nevada. She helped coordinate effective events for Senator Gravel, and graciously offered help whenever the campaign visited Nevada.

As with all of our volunteers, Becky was told that, should the campaign have money beyond necessary operating expenses, she would receive some compensation for her efforts. However, no formal contract or sum was drawn up or agreed upon, nor was the campaign in a surplus of funds such that it could pay volunteers beyond expectations.

Becky Isais has already received $500.00 from the Gravel campaign for her work and expenses as a volunteer. As this campaign will continually have operating costs, and Becky has already been paid an adequate sum, her additional $1000.00 claim is not realistic, nor was it formally established at any juncture of Becky’s tenure with us. We encourage Mrs. Isais use the Nevada legal system if she feels she is owed money from our campaign.

While we understand Mrs. Isais’s situation, every campaign, be it national, state, or local, will have disgruntled volunteers. Becky Isais never signed a formal contract with the Mike Gravel for President 2008 campaign, nor was she ever considered a paid employee.

Ms. Isais, however, responded on Last Free Voice with copies of the email exchanges with Gravel's staff, showing that she was repeatedly promised the money, and then repeatedly lied to. Here's only a tiny sampling, consistent with the several dozen emails published there:

*********************
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:25:19 -0700
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: Fwd: see what you can do about this.

Becky,
I sent this last week to Mike after he called me.
I really am at a loss as are you as to what more I can do.
I have forwarded your email of today to Mike and Chris.
I know you are hurting.
Stacy

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Stacy standley
Date: Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Subject: Good to catch up, and see what you can do about this.
To: mg

Mike,
I explained to Becky the funding situation and told her she was high on the list.

Here problem is, and I feel for her, Jose, her husband got laid off this week. So they are seriously in the dumps. If she can be a priority to get paid the $500 you will have really helped out someone who deserves it.

She is still on the front line with us here in Nevada.

*********************
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:31:43 -0700
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: Mike will call you today

BEcky,
I talked with Mike last night. I explained the situation you are in, and asked that he try and come up with a way of paying you. He understands, and is working on it. There is no money in the campaign, so that is not an option, but he is going to try another route and he said he would give you a call.

He does want to honor his commitment and to help you out.
So hang in there.

*********************

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:49:50 -0700
From: SStandley
To: cpetherick; senator.gravel
Subject: Becky has contacted me, and still has not been paid-any update?

Mike/Chris,

Becky got in touch with me today. She has not received anything, though the promises kept coming.
What is the status of her getting paid? She was promised, and did perform. I have no knowledge of the current status of the campaign, so I cannot enlighten her at all.

*********************

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:29:23 -0700
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: getting paid

Becky,
Mike returned my call on Sat. He is still committed to paying you, but there is no money. The office is shut down, no paid staff, and the phones are shut off due to non-payment. So he isn’t BSing when he says there is no money.

But, he remains optimistic that he is going to get federal funds and then he will get people caught up. Just so you don’t think you are the only one hanging, Mindi paid her own way to WDC and her hotel room to give a speech for Mike-she is owed alot for that and she is out of pocket.

All I can say is be patient, which is not easy when you need money, I know. I will stay on top of the campaign to ensure you get paid when the funds come in.

*********************

Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 18:17:38 -0700
From: SStandley
To: beckynevada
Subject: follow up to try and get you paid

Becky,
I am trying to get you paid, Mike has his priorities, and obviously staying on the campaign trail is his. Though this is not necessarily what you think he should focus on with limited resources.

What is the amount that you figure you are owed? I will try another tact at getting you paid and see what I can do.

The primary principle of the Libertarian Party is not to initiate force, fraud, or coercion against other people.

It appears, when you compare the official campaign statement to the emails Ms. Isais provided, that Senator Gravel and his campaign has not mastered this principle.

Governmentium: the newest and heaviest element ever discovered

From our Aussie friends at Thoughts on Freedom.

The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

Too funny.

Dr. Mary Ruwart explains why she should not be the Libertarian Presidential Candidate

At Third Party Watch, Dr Mary Ruwart has finally thrown the gauntlet back in the face of Wayne Allyn Root and those who raised the issue that her stand of age-of-consent and child pornography argued against her ability to be a successful* LP Presidential Candidate.

*Successful, in this context (a third party candidacy) does not mean getting elected; it means being a visible spokesperson, expanding the party voter base, and hopefully having an impact on the balance between the Demopublican candidates.

She titles the piece, Do You Believe in Liberty?, and as near as I can tell it didn't change anyone's opinion. Those who believe in the coronation of Dr. Ruwart find vindication for their true faith; those who possessed reservations still possess them.

Dr. Ruwart makes an articulate case that, in general, bans on guns, or drugs, or pornography do not achieve the desired goal.

She asserts for the Libertarian Party the credit for the steady movement of society toward medical marijuana, decriminalization of drugs, and resistance to the war on drugs. That the LP has held these positions is true; that the LP, which has often been virtually invisible on the political scene for years, achieved these ends is far more questionable.

All of that pales by the paragraphs that occur in the latter part of the essay, in which Dr Ruwart equates pragmatism with the betrayal of the idea of liberty:

We have always been able to grow the Party and get millions of votes. The choice has always been ours; all we’ve ever needed to do was sell out. All we’ve ever needed to do is denounce liberty so that we could avoid scorn and ridicule. All that has ever been required of us is that we stop being the Party of Principle and become the Party of Expediency. All we’ve ever needed to do was stop telling the truth to the American people, stop trying to help them understand the price they pay when they fall for statist propaganda. All that was ever needed was to support bans that harm our children, but give us the illusion of protecting them.

If I and other Libertarian candidates had taken this path years ago, the Libertarian Party might be bigger and more popular than it is today. In all likelihood, however, discussions about doing away with the War on Drugs or getting rid of gun bans wouldn’t be part of the agenda. If we hadn’t talked about liberty when it was unpopular to do so, Ron Paul wouldn’t have been so well received in his grassroots presidential campaign. Instead, we would be talking about protecting and enriching ourselves, and sacrificing our children on the altar of appearance to do so.

Is that the kind of future we want for the LP? If so, we have several candidates ready and willing to take us down the path of least resistance. Wayne Allyn Root isn’t the only “establishment-lite” candidate running. He’s not the only one who wants to keep the truth from the American people, to soft-sell our message, to denounce our most cherished values in order to make ourselves look “mainstream.” He’s not the only candidate ready to sacrifice our children so that we can have the illusion of heroism without the substance.

I’m not interested in that kind of future for our party. If we really care about the children, then we’ll tell the truth about liberty until the American public hears us instead of selling out for fifteen minutes on Fox News and the occasional mention in Jay Leno’s monologue.

In this astounding segment, Dr Ruwart turns the logic of existing as a political party on its head: lack of success at the ballot box is equated with success for spreading the ideals of liberty. Failure to expand the party to include those who have so-called little L libertarian leanings, those who might have formed the basis for a large-scale movement to have held back the tide of government regulation, who might have opposed the last few decades of military interventionism, or who might have been educated to view their civil rights to be worth retaining even if it meant accepting a greater risk of terrorists. . . .

Those who might have voted Libertarian, those who might have been recruited in state and local organizations, they aren't pure enough in their understanding of liberty to suit Dr Ruwart and her supporters.

Let me be clear: I think that this is the absolute wrong direction for the party and for our nominee.

This is what I wrote for an earlier post at TPW:

There is an important dynamic at work here that nobody really seems to be discussing, but everybody is reacting to. It is the dynamic that results in Bob Barr and Mike Gravel gravitating to the LP. It is the dynamic that causes an obscure answer Mary Ruwart gave a decade ago to become the object of both vile self-interested smear and legitimate concern.

The dynamic is this: if the Libertarian voting population is something less than half a million people, then the core of people who self-identify as LP members is in the low tens of thousands at the very most. Possibly ten thousand would really encompass it all.

But if the reformers carry the day and the LP becomes an actual political party that garners even 2-3% of the popular vote, this would mean capturing the (at least temporary) allegiance of several million people. In the terms upon which the debate has been heretofore conducted, these would be (at best) libertarian-leaning folks who are much less radical than even the current reform and/or centrist Libertarians.

The influence of the grognards in either camp—radical or reform—is going to be decreased by political success. The ideology is going to be diluted by an onset of pragmatists, fellow travelers, single-issue zealots, and all the rest will grab bits and pieces of the idea of liberty and apply it, mangle it, and misinterpret it with such happy abandon that it will totally screw up the existing two-party political system.

We will achieve the chaos necessary to transform the American political system only by releasing control, and accepting the reality that to have change is to give up control.

This means . . . that we have to find some way to co-exist with the former GOPers and pull in the social liberals who have come to see that their cultural values can best be pursued in an atmosphere of economic freedom and smaller government. We have to take in the newcomers as invited guests and not intruders. Otherwise we remain an impotent minority.

I want to build a functional and successful Libertarian Party of Delaware.

I want to challenge the Demopublican monopoly on power, and begin the serious work of rolling back the power of Statism.

That's not going to happen by remaining the party that has its principles, along with its nose, so high in the air that the mere commoners cannot be expected to glimpse them.

I want a real Presidential candidate whose message will support local and state candidates running as Libertarians, not a philosopher-queen whose views will only guarantee that this year fewer and fewer Americans will decide to cast their votes for greater personal freedom, greater economic freedom, and smaller government.