tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post115559724140706983..comments2024-03-29T06:22:47.638-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: The Worst Habit of Liberalism... Handing Karl Rove Every Advantage.David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1156309277853969482006-08-22T22:01:00.000-07:002006-08-22T22:01:00.000-07:00Whew! 78 comments???? I hereby swear I have done m...Whew! 78 comments???? I hereby swear I have done my best not to tell you something you’ve already heard! I am in agreement with Mark who points out how much harder to herd liberals are and how meaningless the word conservative has become.<BR/><BR/>But here is my main point: am I not ultimately responsible for my own beliefs and opinions?<BR/><BR/>Are you honestly claiming that the Democrats and Liberals have been too strident? That we have not been welcoming enough? How have we become so weak that we don’t claim our right to free association? I have needed no one’s permission to be a liberal or a democrat EVER. It is not something I determine by friendships, nor have I ever needed anyone to tell me what my beliefs are, nor validate them for me. And here is the real sin of our nation, we have forgotten how to be discerning with our opinions. We are lazy, ignorant, apathetic and anxious to blame everyone but ourselves for our problems. But this is one that you’re not pinning on me. My personal theory is that this is due to our cultural mores on discussing religion and politics.<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>“Despite all of the relentless evidence that we are being ruled by kleptocrats, hypocrites, neo-feudalists and outright morons, millions of decent Americans have nevertheless clustered inside a big tent that stinks to high heaven! A tent they despise. But where they sit in misery, because they are offered nowhere else to go!”<BR/><BR/>Well, why don’t they leave? The helplessness and misery you describe they are manufacturing for themselves. You may have described something that happens, and it may be what is losing elections. But this tent building has made the Conservatives monstrous, and I think the Liberals are not immune to becoming monstrous if they also lower the bar for what it means to be Liberal. And those souls feeling stuck in the Conservative tent because some Liberal was snotty about their opinions I feel sorry for, because they will just wander into the first tent with an empty seat. Pandering is just as destructive as mean-minded dogmatism. I’m an agnostic… but I am not going to start claiming I see Jesus just so Christians will talk to me. Karl Rove is just our era’s P.T. Barnum- he’s getting butts in the pews, but the butts he gets there I’m not sure I want in my tent. Even now, the Neo Cons are imploding because they require more than faith in the party… now they require a studious ignorance of the poor results of their choices.<BR/><BR/>The meme I think we want is American. I am an American, and these things I hold dear I don’t label Liberal or Conservative… Americans need no kings and we can handle the unvarnished truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1156250012950602342006-08-22T05:33:00.000-07:002006-08-22T05:33:00.000-07:00I'll be happy to comment further on practical libe...I'll be happy to comment further on practical libertarianism for those interested in continuing the discussion via email (including a few of the misnomers that keep persisting here.)<BR/><BR/>lenny.zimmermann@navy.milAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1156217870411807732006-08-21T20:37:00.000-07:002006-08-21T20:37:00.000-07:00Undisclosed Locations in Europe, Pakistan, and els...Undisclosed Locations in Europe, Pakistan, and elsewhere?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1156174767119571042006-08-21T08:39:00.000-07:002006-08-21T08:39:00.000-07:00Show where that Gulag that Karl Rove built is situ...<I>Show where that Gulag that Karl Rove built is situated.</I><BR/><BR/>Guantanamo Bay?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1156106288830019172006-08-20T13:38:00.000-07:002006-08-20T13:38:00.000-07:00You are all being very bright.I'd form a moderate-...You are all being very bright.<BR/><BR/>I'd form a moderate-modernism party if I thought there to be a chance. Maybe later.<BR/><BR/>Right now, we need to save the Enlightenment. Only one institution on Earth can (and will) do that. The Democratic Party. <BR/><BR/>Period. Stop waffling. If one House starts up committees again, we might be saved. How else do you plan to do that?<BR/><BR/><BR/>as for the libertarians and "pragmatic-incrementalism" See my four parter about THIS VERY SUBJECT at http://reformthelp.org/David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1156076226560643872006-08-20T05:17:00.000-07:002006-08-20T05:17:00.000-07:00Lenny,I didn't say I hadn't met any Libertarians w...Lenny,<BR/>I didn't say I hadn't met any Libertarians who think as you do - I said that I hadn't met any organised group of Libertarians who think as you do. There is a huge difference.<BR/><BR/>The FDA, EPA, SEC, and other regulatory bodies need to remain under government rather than corporate control - their first and foremost responsibility <B>must</B> be towards protection of the public rather than making an profit - and by the very nature of such bodies, they are monopolies - and a corporate monopoly is a very scary thing. (Even as government entities, the FDA and others are hardly independent of corporate influence - and the FDA probably does more harm by legalising drugs that don't work than by being slow at evaluation). And all such regulatory bodies need the power to enforce their regulations - and I'd rather have that in government than private hands. (I can definitely see the case for the FDIC being privatised if you don;t want it to be comprehensive).<BR/><BR/>Private only education has been tried. It doesn't work well. Private healthcare is quite simply less efficient and less cost-effective than state provided healthcare (to the point that you guys pay more in taxes towards healthcare than we do). Doubts about this almost invariably come from the Cato institute or other such bodies being their efficiently corporate funded selves.<BR/><BR/>It is not that government is the only entity that can provide services to the entire population - but for anything that looks remotely like a monopoly, the government is the only entity that is not certain to exploit and screw those it is providing the service to. Charities don't work comprehensively and businesses are in business to make a profit - and that means that if you hand them a monopoly, they are going to squeeze - and if you hand them regulatory and enforcement powers, they are going to effectively run a protection racket.<BR/><BR/>It's not that I can't see the Libertarian ideas working. It;s that with my knowledge of history, I have seen most of them played out in the real world - and there's a damn good reason we moved away from them.<BR/><BR/>You load sixteen tons, and what do you get?<BR/>another day older and deeper in debt<BR/>St. Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go<BR/>I owe my soul to the company store<BR/><BR/>- just one example of what happens when you don't have a lot of government mandated laws to protect workers rather than simply letting "agreements" sort out wages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1156074361924935872006-08-20T04:46:00.000-07:002006-08-20T04:46:00.000-07:00Monkeyboy, you're making the same mistake many oth...Monkeyboy, you're making the same mistake many other have done so far, that I have tried to explain but appear to be failing to do so. Libertarianism is NOT anarchy. It accepts government as a necessary evil that MUST exist to provide some services. SOME libertarians are anarchists, but MOST are definitively not. And when all is said and done I'm talking about pragamatic, incremental libertarianism anyway (the scaling back of services to see which one we really do or do not need our government to provide.) Personally I prefer cutting welfare from the top down (a reduction in corporate welfare/subsidies before we ever think about affecting welfare for the poor) and providing tax relief from the bottom up. I don't see either party talking about anything like that, only from Libertarians.<BR/><BR/>(Drat, you got me posting again! Grrr... At least the main blog topic has changed.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1156040448009802002006-08-19T19:20:00.000-07:002006-08-19T19:20:00.000-07:00lenny,Can you name a single society that didn't fo...lenny,<BR/><BR/>Can you name a single society that <I>didn't</I> form a government that provided services?<BR/><BR/>I think if the libertarians want to prove their system works...they're gonna have to all pitch in and buy an island somewhere...and live in government-free bliss.<BR/><BR/>I see a kind of <I>Lord of the Flies</I> society coming from the great libertarian experiment...but you guys could prove me wrong!<BR/><BR/>Here's a little help:<BR/><BR/>http://www.privateislandsonline.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1156026808055709352006-08-19T15:33:00.000-07:002006-08-19T15:33:00.000-07:00Ok, one last comment, then. You assume GOVERNMENT ...Ok, one last comment, then. You assume GOVERNMENT is the one that must provide those services. I didn't say those services were not needed, only that government is not the only answer to provide them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155995848807301942006-08-19T06:57:00.000-07:002006-08-19T06:57:00.000-07:00For Dr. Brin, on the subject of gerrymandering – t...For Dr. Brin, on the subject of <A HREF="http://issuepedia.org/Gerrymandering" REL="nofollow">gerrymandering</A> – thought you might like this:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A35484" REL="nofollow">The Vanishing Voter</A>: long article in <I>The Independent</I> about gerrymandering and other systematic political corruption in North Carolina government. "The real scandal ... is the way our legislators have systematically removed voters from the legislative elections process while giving themselves completely safe districts to run in." Maybe folks are catching on? (Or maybe Geary reads Brin... he certainly seems a progressive sort, anyway; he has also written extensively about the BS we've been running into around here trying to get commuter rail started before they finally pave over the last stand of trees with McMansions and multilane highways.)<BR/><BR/>I'll try to repost this the next time it's relevant, since it's not strictly on-topic this time and is also at the end of a long string of comments.Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155994126165915492006-08-19T06:28:00.000-07:002006-08-19T06:28:00.000-07:00Let me add one thing. I don't think the instant ab...Let me add one thing. I don't think the instant abolishment of those agencies would necessarily be appropriate or even a good thing, which is unfortunately how those planks seem to all come off. Instead I think it more appropriate to begin scaling them back and taking efforts to increase transparency and accountability in those agencies. IN the long term we may well be better off without those agencies, but peraonally I'd prefer to take steps towards that direction rather then simply removing them altogether, and that's where I think a lot of folks can;t concieve of hte LP paltoform. They see it as a call for "anarchy next wednesday" and don't bother to find out the reasoning behind those planks rather then viewing them as a likely ultimate goal that would require a time and effort to move towards those ideals at an appropriate pace. (Don't get me wrong, some would prefer instant dismantling of those agencies, but I'm not sure I would say that a majority of libertarians would expect that to be an appropriate action.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155993349054827052006-08-19T06:15:00.000-07:002006-08-19T06:15:00.000-07:00I think this will be the last I post on it, since ...I think this will be the last I post on it, since it's broken down really to my opinion and is more a conversation between me and Andrew now and I'm starting to feel like I've hijacked the thread.<BR/><BR/>Andrew said: "I just can't take seriously any party that would, in one fell swoop, get rid of the EPA, SEC, Dept of Education, FDIC, FDA, etc.<BR/><BR/>Can You? Does it disturb you that your party is represented as wanting this?"<BR/><BR/>Doesn't distrub me at all. Can you concieve of resons why some, even most, of those departments, being run by government, have failed to provide a greater public good? Do we need our government, as opposed to some other entity, to do all of those things? Certainly there are some functions provided within each of those agencies that falls into what I might consider a legitimate function of government, such as regulatory oversight to ensure a fair, free market and to protect against those folks who might infringe upon our rights. What I question more is why folks like yourself do NOT question the functions of those agencies. Are they efficiently providing the services needed? Are they doing so in a manner that warrants taking money away from everyone to ensure all of our rights are protected, or are they taking it from the many to give to the few? Do you belive that those agencies, simply by virtue of being government agencies (and presumably not motivated by monetary gain, which is quite a debatable point on its own) always act int he best interests of everyone? That none in the agency are corrupt or would use their positions for their own gain?<BR/><BR/>Frankly I know of quite a few other ways the majority of services by virtually all of those agencies can be provided more efficently at a lower cost, but those agencies would all need to be trimmed down greatly or even eliminated. Yes I KNOW how crazy that may sound to some folks, but it seems to me it only sounds crazy because some are unwilling to look into and consider that there really are alternatives out there. <BR/><BR/>As a final note I would always ask that when all is said and done we give government one ultimate power that we (except in a few specific circumstances) do not allow ourselves. We have given government the right to use lethal force against us where deemed necessary. (Hopefully we keep the use of that right very tightly controlled, but it doesn;t always happen.) What that means is that when all is said and done every law we pass, every regulation we ask government to enforce, every cent the government collects to provide us services (especially services unrelated to the protection of our rights) are all enforced at the end of the barrel of a gun. Admittedly MOST crimes will only net a fine, or community service or even jail time, but every arrest has the potential for deadly force linked to it. Is it worth holding a gun to someones head to make them pay for a stamp on food that the FDA says is or is not "safe" for our consuption? Is it right to have a government oversight board that tells us what we can and cannot put into our own bodies, all at the point of a gun, in ultimate terms? It's one thing to prevent, for example, a canned peach company from selling poisoned peaches as it they were the best thing in the world for you, but that same agency delays life-saving medicines from getting to people who are willing to take the possible risks involved with those medicines. As long as the consumer is informed of the risks, then I feel it's up to the consumer to decide what does and does not constitute acceptable risks for what goes into their bodies. <BR/><BR/>Every agency you list has alternatives. Is it so impossible to concieve that those alternatives can work outside of being governmental agencies?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155950622136513702006-08-18T18:23:00.000-07:002006-08-18T18:23:00.000-07:00Fracis,Sorry, but I consider myself a libertarian ...Fracis,<BR/><BR/>Sorry, but I consider myself a libertarian and I just don't agree with your assessement at all. (The LRC linked in my last post is an example of the non-extremist postion, for example). While anarchist and minarchist versions of libertarianism may well insist on belief of the basic good of man, libertarian philosophy in general actually acknowledges the opposite. That government, as Jefferson said, is a necessary evil. An entity required to ensure that those who would interfere with our rights are held accountable. Somebody's gotta keep the thugs and con-artists in line and libertarianism accepts government in that role. I guess you and I aren't talking to the same libertarians. (Although if you say Dr. Brin and myself both make the same claim about how libertariansim should work, when done in a pragmatic fashion, doesn't that mean you already know at least two folks who are at least libertarian leaning that don't agree with your assessment of libertarianism? I suggest we are not an anomoly. Follow some of the links above with an open mind and debate THOSE libertarians, give them some CITOKATE and see if you can fix their errors.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155950028182212092006-08-18T18:13:00.000-07:002006-08-18T18:13:00.000-07:00(Apologies to all others who may find all of this ...(Apologies to all others who may find all of this boring and off-topic and if you are not interested in libertarian philosophies and stuff, please skip on to the next posting.)<BR/><BR/>Andrew,<BR/><BR/>The national party platform for the LP is, especially right now, in heavy contention amongst Libertarians. The platform itself was heavily cut back on planks but, unfortunately, not a lot of wording was changed in the planks. If it were up to me the LP platform would probably consist of a statement of principles and leave all the rest to the candidates to work from. Dr. Brin has also been kind enough to link in previous postings here to the Libertarian Reform Caucus at http://www.reformthelp.org/ for some other libertarian points of view and to show that there is a very real an growing movement within the LP to begin moving forward with a pragmatic, incremental approach to political action in a libertarian direction.<BR/><BR/>I agree the national platform is... somewhat odd, to say the least. Several of the state LP groups have a lot more consistent platforms. (I find the Louisiana one to be damned wordy, but pretty decent in all. I can only find a slightly older one online, though, at http://www.la.lp.org/platform.htm if anyone is interested.)<BR/><BR/>At any rate EVERY party has their extremists (the LP has just been small enough that ours sometimes show up a bit more glaringly). I would certainly encourage folks to do what many claim to do, which is to look at the individual candidates and see what their positions really are. Actual candidates tend to have a lot more consistent and moderate platforms then the national LP platform.<BR/><BR/>The concept of "small government", however, is really just a catchphrase, I believe. When we consider the legitimacy and role of government envisioned by enlightenment thinkers (the general model for out government which has proven to be quite successful when all is said and done) then government most likely would not play the role it currently does in so very many areas of our lives. Libertarian thought would generally accept the military, the judiciary and the police forces as an integral part of legitimate functions of government. Government as a protector of rights.<BR/><BR/>The welfare state, however, while I have no doubts was created as a function of concern and compassion for the well-being of our fellow citizens, is not necessarily something libertarians would consider and appropriate use of government. This is where the hard part for many folks comes in. That does NOT mean libertarians don't think we should not support our fellow man and our society, it only means they do not feel government (at least not NATIONAL government) should be involved in taking money away from any group of people and giving it to others in the name of charity. In all there are too many unintended consequences which begin to show up. The problem is it's not an easy "you're just being mean, we're being concerned and reasonable" kind of analogy. There is a lot more going on under there.<BR/><BR/>Certainly more then I can cover in a blog post like this and it's a bit off topic anyway. If I might suggest I greatly enjoy several blogs which often use language and rhetoric not too dissimilar to Dr. Brin's in getting many of these kinds of views across. I particularly like http://www.reason.com, http://www.hammeroftruth.com and http://www.theagitator.com. If you take some time and check out some of those posts and papers available at those sites it might give you a better idea of one of the more active currents in the libertarian movement (not to mention lots of smart folks explaining lots of those ideas a lot more in-depth.) If nothing else it's a different point of view to chew on and come up with better debating points against (and thereby lots of CITOKATE you can apply, or maybe be affected by from your own political philosophy).<BR/><BR/>BTW, the "real Libertarian" candidates being suggested as just whack-jobs may be true in some circumstance (and the same can be said for some candidates in ALL the parties out there) but I would certainly urge folks to really get to know a candidate and their positions, and more importantly the WHYs of their positions. Something that may sound a little oddball right up front (legalizing drugs?) may have a whole lot more meat to it once you dig in and find out the facts beyond the propaganda we have so often been fed. There are a LOT better Libertarian candidates out there these days. (Bill Pierce running for governor of Ohio http://peirceforohio.com/, for example, or Bob Smither running for Congress http://www.smither4congress.com/ to take Tom Delay's seat.) <BR/><BR/>Again, there are plenty of us who don't agree with those who do put their libertarian beliefs behind FIBM ideology. But even with many of those type I tend to agree with 80% or more of there overall philosophy, yet find myself only agreeing with 60% of the Democratic agenda and only 30% (or less) of the neocon Republican BS. So even if I think 20% of some libertarian's positions are junk I still end up agreeing with far more of their position then with the other guys. So why would I, in good conscience, vote for any of the other guys?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155949800896033862006-08-18T18:10:00.000-07:002006-08-18T18:10:00.000-07:00Libertarian because it sounds like you don't have ...<EM>Libertarian because it sounds like you don't have a complete conception of libetrtarain philosophy. While there are some anarchists who proclaim libertarianism as their persumed political philosphy of choice, to paint libertariansm with an anarchist brush, or to paint all libertarians as FIBMers, is definitively wrong.</EM><BR/><BR/>So you and David both claim. But I have yet to see an organised group of Liertarians who are anything other than extremists - and the difference between the moderate Libertarians I know of and those of my friends who identify as socialists is simply a matter of where you draw the line - or haggling over the price if you will. And the Libertarian party is definitely at the extreme end of Libertarianism.<BR/><BR/>It would be a cheap shot to quote Colbert's belief that if a government governs best when it governs least, contemporary Iraq has a superb government - but if we want economic freedom, the textbook example under the Transparency International rankings (and hence touted by both the Heritage Foundation and the Cato institute) is Hong Kong. Does this mean that due to massive economic freedom, Hong Kong is easy for businesses to operate in? Not a bit of it. It means that due to the massive economic freedom, the Hong Kong oligarchy can easily crush all competition - and people who are being crushed have no protection under the law.<BR/><BR/>As for the authoritarian and libertarian populists argument, if you were dealing with hard line examples of both, I would vote for George W Bush before I would vote for either group - and I would expect his administration to be more honest and more efficient. Which, given my opinions of the current American President is about as harsh as I can possibly be.<BR/><BR/>Libertarianism has two basic fallacies at the core of it - it assumes that everyone has good intentions, and it assumes that everyone has the strength and ability to take care of themselves (or persuade others to do so) on any playing field at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155943487498412122006-08-18T16:24:00.000-07:002006-08-18T16:24:00.000-07:00If our political system were divided between Liber...If our political system were divided between Libertarians and Authoritarian Populists, I'd certainly be a Libertarian; at least I think I would depending on how the parties really shaped out. A moderate, 50% version of that party appeals to me.<BR/><BR/>But the <I>real</I> Libertarian party is mostly wackos and crazies. People talk of throwing away votes, but voting for someone you don't actually want to see in office, as any reasonable person would feel about an actual Libertarian candidate, is the hight of vote disposal. I guess a protest vote is better than no vote at all, but only in the margins.<BR/><BR/>Also, I agree with Andrew, "small government" is a red herring. The point is efficient government and maximizing the actual, real freedom of individuals.<BR/><BR/>On a related side note, whenever I try to determine what the best form of government should be based on first principles, I always end up at libertarianism. But I don't really believe in extreme libertarianism so I struggle to understand the disconnect. While I still don't have a great answer I think it ultimately boils down to one principle that in some ways directly contradicts pure libertarianism: <I>we as a people have the right to determine our own destiny and what kind of society we want to live in</I>. We don't have to leave it to the rich, or just the individual, we really do have the right to collectively choose a different path. The use of the word "right" might not make much sense to others, but for me it was really illuminating to think in those terms.Xactiphynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08254344563346437079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155930061235166012006-08-18T12:41:00.000-07:002006-08-18T12:41:00.000-07:00Mr. Smith,Libertarian because it sounds like you d...Mr. Smith,<BR/><BR/>Libertarian because it sounds like you don't have a complete conception of libetrtarain philosophy. While there are some anarchists who proclaim libertarianism as their persumed political philosphy of choice, to paint libertariansm with an anarchist brush, or to paint all libertarians as FIBMers, is definitively wrong.<BR/><BR/>To remove profit from the equation does little to remove the motivation for profit from the individual. Instead regulation and oversight have a definitive place in providing whatever may be decided as appropriate for providing public services. That does NOT mean the government should necesarily provide all of those services for us (and to date there are many areas where the government has shown itself to be exceptionally inept anyway) just as it does not mean that a blind market should be some kind of deciding factor. A FREE market, watched over to ensure a fair marketplace (as has often been discussed in the same thread you reference) is something Libertarains around here, at least, can certainly support.<BR/><BR/>Supporting Libertarians means I'm supporting folks who at least claim far more openly that they support moving our government to be much smaller then it currently is. That couldn't happen overnight anyway, but taking steps to get us there is far better, IMHO, then not moving there at all. Should those Libertarins then want to push at some later date for total anarchy, then at that point it will be time to me to vote for something else. Somehow I don't expect I'll have to worry about that in my lifetime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155924217119248402006-08-18T11:03:00.000-07:002006-08-18T11:03:00.000-07:00Lenny:Tactical voting for a 3d party in your home...Lenny:<BR/><BR/>Tactical voting for a 3d party in your home state is not inconsistent with helping to put the Democratic party back in a position to check the Republicans' power.<BR/><BR/>Send all the messages you like, but please remember that divided government will ultimately be less capable of ruining our Constitution.Sethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16486234948199900568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155907866659859132006-08-18T06:31:00.000-07:002006-08-18T06:31:00.000-07:00David,I definitely didn't take the "bullshit" comm...David,<BR/>I definitely didn't take the "bullshit" comment as any kind of personal attack. I only meant to suggest it's use, while certainly showing your level of commitment and concern to your position, doesn't necessarily help to convince the person you are trying to persuade. (Then again, I'm probably not the type of person you are necessarily trying to persuade, anyway, since I'm not longer a registered Dem and therefore have no real ability to influence Democratic Party policy to help them ensure success in the coming election.) So no harm no foul here, just offering some, hopefully, constructive criticism should it be of any use to you.<BR/><BR/>As for examples of Democratic corruption, let's not be niave. It exists all over (William Jefferson as only the most recent example, from my ever-more-embarrasing state, but I still love it here anyway. ;)) Of course as a regular reader I am also very familiar with your arguments about the Clinton administration and the blatant disregards of the current administration. I'm down with it, really I am!<BR/><BR/>But do I vote Dem (which in some races I likely will, mind you) instead of, say, Libertarian as the best option to unseat the insane thieves currently in power? Is it better to vote Dem, so I don't "waste" my vote, when a Libertarian is running for the same seat or do I vote Libertarian to try and bolster a fairly new resurgence of interest in libertarian ideals in this region (especially since this will be the first time since 1912 that a label other than Republican or Democratic will show up after a name on a Louisiana ballot)? This is where I am not convinced that voting Dem will be the right thing for me to do (or to convince others to do) mainly because the utter dissatisfaction with the current thugs in power, the wrongs they continually commit and the general distrust of the Democratic Party helps play into the hands of may, just maybe, finally being able to start the ball rolling to getting enough momentum behind a truly viable third party option. I may be completely and utterly wrong about that, but I believe so firmly in more of the philosophy of Libertarian Party then I do with either of the two currently in power that I can't help but think that I need to try. If I don't (meaning, in effect, that if I and many others don't) make that effort, don't push for our beliefs and go back to either voting AGAINST someone (rather than for a candidate) or not voting at all, then maybe we will never, ever be given a real choice in this country. <BR/><BR/>Maybe the Dems will be able to finally take something back from the current cads if I help bolster their cause, but will I only be slowing the tide? Maybe we could stem the tide of being a fascist state, but at the price of becoming a socialist one? I'd rather be in a socialist state rater than fascist one, mind you, but I prefer freedom to make my own mistakes over either of those choices. <BR/><BR/>So is the short term gain of slowing these moves to totalitarianism worth possibly further crippling the ideological movement I do support?<BR/><BR/>I do see what you are saying, but I'm not sure I can phiolsophically subjugate tossing out the Great White Shark that is so immediate a threat for a seeming kitty cat that is downright tame by comparison, but could easily grow into a man-eating Tiger down the road. When all the while I'd rather get some rational, enlightened, human beings into office instead.<BR/><BR/>No matter, though. I'll keep reading so long as you keep posting (over 99% of which I very often agree with and find your reasoning and style to be quite compelling in presentation.) So as long as you keep blogging you may yet persuade me.<BR/><BR/>P.S. I personally love it when the political lamp is lit. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155903878605229622006-08-18T05:24:00.000-07:002006-08-18T05:24:00.000-07:00I don't know why I bother posting in this Tower of...I don't know why I bother posting in this Tower of Babel. I just can't help myself.<BR/><BR/>Your heart's in the right place, David. So are many others but almost no one sees that there is <I>no</I> political solution and that includes, coups, revolutions, reforms and elections of whomever. The aggrandizement of the Religion of Politics has been going on since Lincoln and those practicing it in any form are wearing the frocks and talking the talk.<BR/><BR/>It's all <A HREF="http://djomama.blogspot.com/2006/07/its-official.html" REL="nofollow">moot</A> anyway.jomamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11059960615448444452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155893524513503322006-08-18T02:32:00.000-07:002006-08-18T02:32:00.000-07:00Rob,The Democratic Party can't claim to fully be f...Rob,<BR/><BR/>The Democratic Party can't claim to fully be fiscal conservatives (although they are good at balancing budgets - both Clinton and Carter improved the budget balance, and the worst Democratic presidents since WWII have done only as much harm to it as the best Republicans) because they aren't. However, they are better fiscal conservatives than the Republican party. And in terms of keeping budgets balanced (as opposed to being tight fisted) they are fiscal conservatives.<BR/><BR/>Brother Doug:<BR/>Ward Churchill is certainly someone I'd never heard of until he was eviscerated for plagiarism - but I had certainly heard of his equivalents on the right such as Coulter. And as for the violent, I'll match the anarchists who trash McDonalds and Starbucks against the abortion clinic bombers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155889103571937182006-08-18T01:18:00.000-07:002006-08-18T01:18:00.000-07:00CITIZEN James...good for you. And after the electi...CITIZEN James...<BR/>good for you. And after the election please take what remains of the Republican Party back, even if you have to split it. Democracy needs at least two alternatives.reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594313655855683716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155881342918967252006-08-17T23:09:00.000-07:002006-08-17T23:09:00.000-07:00Perhaps I am an exception, but I switched from the...Perhaps I am an exception, but I switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic party back in 2000 because I felt that they did have a 'bigger tent', and that I was essentially no longer welcome in the GOP as they were selling out the ideals I believed in: deficit reduction, counter terrorism (yes, people were aware of terrorism before 9/11. Some even remember the foiled millenium bomb plot thanks to adults like Clark and Beers who understand that simple quiet police work can often acompish far more than massive wars of choice. But I digress.), while playing up moralizing (hollow moralizing at that), and shallow appeals to greed. (tax cuts. Get your tax cuts.)<BR/><BR/>Of course, I suppose it wasn't that big of a switch. I was part of a vanishing breed - loosely termed the "rockefeller republicans". Though not really a vanishing breed, as one which had gradually shifted over to the DLC wing of the Democratic party as the GOP shfted from the "pro-liberty/self reliance" meme to the "God and country" meme.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps there are others out there like me. A "silent majority" as Nixon would have put it, who go largely unnoticed as we tend more often to speak calmly and with those who wish to discuss things civilly rather than scream at the top of our lungs to anyone within earshot. The ones who rove targets not to get our votes, but to get our disgust in hope that we stay home on election day.<BR/><BR/>Or perhaps I am simply a strange exception, a quirk in the process. Time will tell.<BR/><BR/>And I will show up and vote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155851937162998752006-08-17T14:58:00.000-07:002006-08-17T14:58:00.000-07:00Lenny, I do regret that I used “bullshit” but I wo...Lenny, I do regret that I used “bullshit” but I won’t apologize, because there was nothing ad hominem about it. I was speaking to a general class of views that I believe are, in and of themselves, utter and complete donkey drek. If you choose to defend those views, be confident that I already know that YOU are not donkey drek! Just attending this blog is evidence that you are not.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, you CLAIM not to hold the very view that I called “bullshit”! So exactly what is my offense?<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, I think you are the one who is just not listening. Take for example: “prostituting my vote to a Democrat who will do just as much cronyism as the current thugs are doing. “<BR/><BR/>Um.... exactly where - in what universe - is this true? Yes, I can well imagine that living in Louisiana can give one a jaundiced view and the LOCAL dems there may be corrupt. But, on the national scene, where is the evidence that democrats are EVEN ONE PERCENT as corrupt at the present clade of klepto neo feudalists who have seized control over Barry Goldwater’s party, quintupling both secrecy and the debt, replacing bid wars with no-bid contracts and making pork the law of the land?<BR/><BR/>Dig this (and WHY ARE NO DEMS SAYING THIS?) We were promised hundreds of INDICTMENTS of Clinton era officials, as soon as “honest Republicans” got control of Executive Branch filing cabinets. We were promised Clintonites hanging from every lamp post! Instead, the total number of indictments, for actual malfeasance in the performance of office, was the lowest in all of US history.<BR/><BR/>It was, in fact ZERO! That is none, nada, zip, nil. NONE!<BR/><BR/>And don’t think the bushites didn’t TRY. They spent billions trying to prove Cintonite malfeasance. Billions. <BR/><BR/> In fact, I AM PRAYING THAT SOME REPORTER WILL PUBLISH HOW MANY FBI AGENTS WERE RE-ASSIGNED IN 2001, TO DUTIES SIFTING FOR CLINTON ERA INDICTABLE CRIMES!<BR/><BR/>Have any of you ever seen such a number? Think about it. FBI guys, re-assigned from normal duties... during the run-up to 9/11? <BR/><BR/> Is there any conceivable more-smoking gun? Please ask around. Spread the word. Just that one factoid would be brutal.<BR/><BR/>So no, it just doesn’t work, Lenny. This era is NOT Clinton-Dole, when the disagreements were over policy. Or Clinton-Gingrich, when ideology played a role. This is not about policy or ideology or even POWER anymore. <BR/><BR/>It is about the very survival of democracy of freedom and of the Great Experiment. This is no matter of <I>holding one’s nose</I> and voting democrat.<BR/><BR/>It is a matter of vigorously and eagerly giving the democratic party every thing we can possibly give, praying that they at least retake Congress, so that we have a prayer of saving the United States of America. <BR/><BR/>And yes, that is exactly what’s before us right now. Absolutely not a scintilla less than that.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1155843568704929122006-08-17T12:39:00.000-07:002006-08-17T12:39:00.000-07:00A federal judge rules that Bush's warrantless wire...A federal judge rules that Bush's warrantless wiretaps are unconstitutional, and in a very Brinnish turn of phrase announces:<BR/><BR/><B>"There Are No Hereditary Kings in America"</B><BR/><BR/>http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001364.phpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com