Skip to main content

Quick hits: the political realm we inhabit is filled with strange ideas

1.  David Brock, in NYT, attributes most of our problems not to our leaders, but to the "fact" that we don't follow them well enough, and that we are uppity enough to think we should be allowed to criticize them.

2.  Sasha Issenberg, at The Atlantic, thinks that we can solve our problem of low voter turn-out by eliminating secret ballots (I do know that worked for decades in Eastern Europe) and by shaming people who don't vote by threatening to publish their names.  Astoundingly, she stops short of demanding the Australian ballot, even though she thinks voting is not a personal choice but a mandatory social obligation.

3.  Gene Healy at the Examiner points out that the Obama administration (despite all boasting to the contrary) is effectively the least transparent presidential administrations in American history.  Among his examples, he points out one major instance in which the government has refused to tell the public how it intends to interpret Section 215 of the Patriot Act.  Is ignorance of the law an excuse when the government won't tell you what's illegal?

4.  Boston.com covers the fact that Mitt Romney is quietly moving to eliminate as many Ron Paul delegates from the Tampa convention as possible via loyalty oaths and affadavits.  Eric Golub at the Washington Post (whose photo, strangely, shows him yawning) is OK with the elimination of those Ron Paul supporters because he doesn't think they are Republicans.  Apparently, Eric never got the liberal talking points instruction that libertarians are always to be considered disguised Republicans.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...