Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
On Second Thought, You Don't Hate America
An Albuquerque employee of the office of Veterans Affairs has
beaten charges of "sedition." She was originally charged for
selling state secrets to Iran writing a
letter to the editor criticizing the Bush administration.
In the letter, Berg criticized the federal government on several issues, including its actions in Iraq and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
"I am furious with the tragically misplaced priorities and criminal negligence of this government," she wrote.
Berg identified herself as a VA nurse in the letter.
Within weeks of her letter's publication, Berg said Mel Hooker, Veterans Affairs Medical Center human resources chief, and other staff confiscated her work computer and later told her she was being investigated for possible sedition.
What would have happened if they'd found
burned Dixie Chicks MP3s
on there?
|4.19.06 @ 10:39AM|#
What would have happened if they'd found burned Dixie Chicks
MP3s on there?
Actually, you rip CDs to convert them into mp3s on
a computer. You can then burn them onto a CD,
either in mp3 format or in audio format, but even then the computer
would only contain ripped mp3s.
|4.19.06 @ 10:43AM|#
Did they check whether she posted comments on blogs? What about bumper stickers on her car? Let's be really thorough before dismissing the charges. Can't have an anti-war bumper sticker and a VA parking permit on the same vehicle or the terrorists have won. (Please read with deep irony.)
|4.19.06 @ 10:59AM|#
Well I for one feel so much safer that her vigilant superiors
(cough) looked into it in the first place. I mean who knew? She
could have been part of one of them sleeper cells they talk about
on the intraweb or something.
WTF, I mean this is like from the Castro playbook or something? Get
hauled off and questioned for your opinions going against
government policy.
|4.19.06 @ 11:00AM|#
This almost seems too outlandish to be real. She got charged for sedition for writing a critical letter? Anyone know any legal basis there?
|4.19.06 @ 11:09AM|#
Yeah, sedition? Holy ass. It's like a parody. Did they threaten her with Gitmo?
|4.19.06 @ 11:14AM|#
Jason, I know of a number of laws this violates, but until now I thought they only applied in other countries.
|4.19.06 @ 11:14AM|#
Jason,
You fool! You are in the pre-9/11 mindset. Before everything
changed. We are now in a post-legal world (see NSA wire tapping).
Decisons are now made by the decider, and what he decides,
overrides any preconceived notion of law.
MP|4.19.06 @ 11:40AM|#
Decisons are now made by the decider, and what he decides,
overrides any preconceived notion of law.
This morning, in yet another reminder of how ignorant I am, and how
history repeats itself, I was reading about YOUNGSTOWN
SHEET & TUBE CO. V SAWYER (1952). GWB is simply carrying on
with the long U.S. tradition of imperialist presidents.
|4.19.06 @ 11:41AM|#
Attempt # 3:
"She got charged for sedition for writing a critical letter?"
If you read the article, she was not "charged" in the sense of
"indicted", but rather in the sense of "accused". It's an inartful
use of language in this situation.
|4.19.06 @ 11:41AM|#
I wish the full article said whom she was charged by. Were any actual criminal proceedings initiated? or was it someone at the VA hospital who read too many Ben Shapiro columns and thought disagreeing with the gov't is sedition?
|4.19.06 @ 11:41AM|#
I wish the full article said whom she was charged by. Were any actual criminal proceedings initiated? or was it someone at the VA hospital who read too many Ben Shapiro columns and thought disagreeing with the gov't is sedition?
|4.19.06 @ 11:51AM|#
I hope you Libers wake up soon and realize that the GOP is NOT
your closest of the two parties.
Yeah, sure, one can fuss over their right to be asshole and
complain that the PC police are bringing them down - but when the
real poo poo hits the fan, it's those "PC" liberals who are your
real friends.
JMJ
|4.19.06 @ 12:02PM|#
"I hope you Libers wake up soon and realize that the GOP is NOT
your closest of the two parties."
Um JMJ, libertarians as a rule don't think either of the two
parties are closest. That's why we are LIBERTARIANS. So it seems to
me the only person that needs waking is you.
Take stock of your environs, look around, read a post or two. Think
before you type lest you look stupid. Well ok too late on that last
point, sorry.
|4.19.06 @ 12:02PM|#
Mark - when the president acts with "war powers" when we are not
constitutionally at war...
JMJ
|4.19.06 @ 12:03PM|#
AL, it seems to me that most Libertarians lean to the Right. In
your world, however, who knows? ;)
JMJ
|4.19.06 @ 12:06PM|#
Mark - when the president acts with "war powers" when we are
not constitutionally at war...
I like it.
I can see President's in their office, overlooking the rose garden
and then turning on a dime and whispering to their chief aid
-
'OK, it's time for us to unleash the real poo poo'
|4.19.06 @ 12:11PM|#
This reminds me of that last South Park episode (did you see
it?) when at the end Jesus, Bush et al start pooping all over each
other and the flag!
Now there's two libertarians that I just plain adore!
JMJ
|4.19.06 @ 12:13PM|#
"Yeah, sure, one can fuss over their right to be asshole and
complain that the PC police are bringing them down - but when the
real poo poo hits the fan, it's those "PC" liberals who are your
real friends."
Yeah, because only a real friend would advocate disarming you
during a disaster.
Troll.
|4.19.06 @ 12:15PM|#
"AL, it seems to me that most Libertarians lean to the
Right."
On economic issues yes. We all passed or did not sleep through our
Econ 101 class, as most of your ilk obviously did. On social and
civil liberties issues we are traditionally more liberal than the
"liberals". We refuse to give our liberties up for "PC"
considerations, for economic "security", and other "liberal"
pogroms. We also don't like all this Patriot Act War on Terror BS
either.
YOU should wake up and realise that for civil liberties issues the
Libertarians are a better fit than the Democrats or the Green Party
or whoever your non-Republican choice is.
I think you will find few supports of the VA hospital staff
here.
Clue, you are not in the National Review blog. This is not a
ProanythingtheRepublicanssayisgospel blog. You need to know your
subject better to be a good troll. I'm trying to help you man.
|4.19.06 @ 12:20PM|#
Sage,
"Get your facts straight before you go spouting off more
nonsense.
What facts are you talking about?
Mediageek,
""Yeah, sure, one can fuss over their right to be asshole and
complain that the PC police are bringing them down - but when the
real poo poo hits the fan, it's those "PC" liberals who are your
real friends."
Yeah, because only a real friend would advocate disarming you
during a disaster."
It depends on the disaster. But in the case of NO, it made sense,
and the violence, in an oterwise extremely violent town, was kept
to a minimum. It was one of the few things we did right,
there.
AL,
""AL, it seems to me that most Libertarians lean to the
Right."
On economic issues yes. We all passed or did not sleep through our
Econ 101 class, as most of your ilk obviously did. On social and
civil liberties issues we are traditionally more liberal than the
"liberals". We refuse to give our liberties up for "PC"
considerations, for economic "security", and other "liberal"
pogroms. We also don't like all this Patriot Act War on Terror BS
either.
YOU should wake up and realise that for civil liberties issues the
Libertarians are a better fit than the Democrats or the Green Party
or whoever your non-Republican choice is.
I think you will find few supports of the VA hospital staff
here.
Clue, you are not in the National Review blog. This is not a
ProanythingtheRepublicanssayisgospel blog. You need to know your
subject better to be a good troll. I'm trying to help you
man."
I'd take it easy on the hubris when it comes to your knowledge of
economics, if I were you. You guys are considered the wackies, not
my ilk. All I was saying was that Libertarians seem to lean more
toward the GOP which strikes me as telling. That's all.
JMJ
|4.19.06 @ 12:21PM|#
Here's a better one:
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3724
Scott Savage, who serves as a reference librarian for the
university, suggested four best-selling conservative books for
freshman reading in his role as a member of OSU Mansfield's First
Year Reading Experience Committee. ...
Savage was put under "investigation" by OSU's Office of Human
Resources after three professors filed a complaint of
discrimination and harassment against him, saying that the book
suggestions made them feel "unsafe." The complaint came after the
OSU Mansfield faculty voted without dissent to file charges against
Savage. The faculty later voted to allow the individual professors
to file charges.
"File charges" against someone for recommending mainstream books
they don't like. PC is NOT a class act.
|4.19.06 @ 12:24PM|#
"It depends on the disaster. But in the case of NO, it made
sense, and the violence, in an oterwise extremely violent town, was
kept to a minimum. It was one of the few things we did right,
there."
Yes, because we all know that sending out a bunch of SWAT cops to
tackle a little old lady in her home in order to forcibly disarm
her of a .38 revolver is a wise use of scant resources.
I don't believe you can say such things without being insane, a
troll, or both.
|4.19.06 @ 12:27PM|#
"You guys are considered the wackies, not my
ilk."
You're an idiot.
Centrally planned economic theories are DEAD. They've been DOA
since Marx first put pen to paper.
|4.19.06 @ 12:29PM|#
Holy crap, JMJ takes a LOT of abuse on this website.
Chin up old bean. I'm sure JMJ is a lovely chap.
Jim Henley|4.19.06 @ 12:30PM|#
If only the nurse had waited until she quit working for the
military and THEN spoke out against the Bush Administration nobody
could POSSIBLY have objected.
Hey! Why are you all laughing?!
MP|4.19.06 @ 12:30PM|#
It depends on the disaster. But in the case of NO, it made
sense, and the violence, in an oterwise extremely violent town, was
kept to a minimum. It was one of the few things we did right,
there.
What we should have done was sent them all to a refugee camp for
forced relocation by the Feds. That way the State could have fully
controlled the situation.
Yep...
|4.19.06 @ 12:31PM|#
Pepe Le Mur, I get the distinct feeling that the lowly scumbag
who recommended those lowly scumbag books is probably a real lowly
scumbag who is doing more than just suggesting reading
material.
The "charges," you loony, are institutional, not legal and have
since been dropped.
Nice try, though.
Mediageek, I don't think anything like that happened.
JMJ
|4.19.06 @ 12:33PM|#
JMJ, wow hit a nerve there I guess. Look if you want to live
with your head in the sand that's fine. If you want to learn
something about what others think and how libertarianism differs
from Neo-Cons, then read some.
I see a majority here saying that the VA staff was totally crazy.
What does that tell you about libertarian leanings? Oh wait that
can't be true because I was always told libertarians were arch
conservative more so than the neo-con folks. Oh man uh uh gee
uh.
You can't get your brain around it because it does not fit your off
the rack world view.
Get a clue fella.
|4.19.06 @ 12:33PM|#
Mediageek, no one one the left advocates total economic central
planning anymore. Where the hell have you been?
MP, isn't that exactly what happened?
JMJ
|4.19.06 @ 12:41PM|#
"it's those "PC" liberals who are your real friends."
That's why JMJ takes a lot of abuse.
|4.19.06 @ 12:41PM|#
"Mediageek, no one one the left advocates total economic
central planning anymore. Where the hell have you been?"
Ok, Jersey, I'll bite.
What part of the economy would you leave to operate unfettered from
federal regulation?
|4.19.06 @ 12:46PM|#
"Yes, AL, I saw the reaction and am pleased."
Well it is our mission to please you, especially since you no
longer believe in command economies.
"Ok, Jersey, I'll bite.
What part of the economy would you leave to operate unfettered from
federal regulation?"
Yeah JMJ dying to hear this.
|4.19.06 @ 12:47PM|#
mediageek,
I think he qualified it with the word "total" I'm sure he's
perfectly okay with lots of partial federal regulation.
|4.19.06 @ 12:47PM|#
I thought the sedition acts were repealed or found unconstitutional way back during Jefferson's presidency. What gives?
|4.19.06 @ 12:51PM|#
"MG - every part that does not need some
oversight."
Do you even read what you post?
LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME.
My dog could come up with a better thesis.
But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that, like most typical
leftists, you're intellectually lazy.
|4.19.06 @ 12:55PM|#
No, MG, it's called real world pragmatism. If you see a need,
you fill it. If you don't, you don't. Idiot morons who apply their
idiot moron ideologies to everything without consideration for real
world pragmatics are the intellectual lazies.
JMJ
|4.19.06 @ 12:55PM|#
"every part that does not need some oversight."
JMJ, yeah nothing scary in that. No need for me to worry about my
property being taken. If I play by the rules and do the right thing
I have nothing to fear. They are only going after rich bad people
anyway.
Man, you have more in common with the Republicans than you even
want to know.
Fool.
|4.19.06 @ 12:57PM|#
JW- A Sedition Act was passed in 1918-it's the one that Debs was imprisoned under. It was repealed after WWI.
|4.19.06 @ 1:03PM|#
"No, MG, it's called real world pragmatism. If you see a
need, you fill it. If you don't, you don't. Idiot morons who apply
their idiot moron ideologies to everything without consideration
for real world pragmatics are the intellectual lazies."
Allow me to translate:
*ahem*
"BLAHBLAHBLAH. I'm not going to answer your question because I
haven't actually put any real thought into it."
Would it be poor taste for me to just declare victory now and be
done with it?
|4.19.06 @ 1:04PM|#
Centrally planned economic theories are DEAD. They've been
DOA since Marx first put pen to paper.
Couldn't the same be said about laissez-faire capitalism, which
many libertarian seem to be so fond of?
Other than the World Bank / US promotion of it to developing
countries, no developed nation has unregulated markets at play. And
it doesn't seem to be working too well in those developing
countries either.
|4.19.06 @ 1:06PM|#
"If you see a need, you fill it. If you don't, you don't."
JMJ, good to know. That makes it completely different.
WTF?????
Basically like Republicans you are saying we should trust the
government to do the right thing.
If you think the government economic tinkering does not damage
civil liberties then you have a LOT of learning to do.
At this point in time Republicans (to me anyway) and their crazy
Protect American Enduring War are more of an issue. Hence this
thread and the article that spawned it. But that does not mean I am
not watching out for pick pocket idiots like you who want the
government to manage the rest of my life, money, etc.
Man screw that. It's about time you cried racism as you did the
other day or something because your line has played out
otherwise.
|4.19.06 @ 1:08PM|#
You can argue that there's no truly "pure" strain of unfettered
market economics in operation, but that's splitting ideological and
semantic hairs.
Generally speaking, the US and other nations with generally free
market economies leave centrally planned places in the dust.
While there are things like the World Bank or the Fed which can be
argued to be forms of central planning, compared to a place like,
say North Korea, the Fed ain't so bad.
|4.19.06 @ 1:09PM|#
We all passed or did not sleep through our Econ 101 class,
as most of your ilk obviously did.
::cough:: Maybe not all of us.
|4.19.06 @ 1:10PM|#
Chicago Tom, The World Bank is not Free Market. Who makes it up?
Governments. DUH!!! Automatically means it is not
laissez-faire.
Econ classes people, econ classes. I mean there is always night
school. Never too late.
R C Dean|4.19.06 @ 1:13PM|#
Jesus wept, JMJ. A career civil servant makes an ass of himself
by accusing a subordinate of sedition, and its the fault of
Chimpeachment W. Katrinaburton?
No charges were brought, and the dark night of fascism is
descending in America?
What a fascinating planet you live on. Must be some quirk in the
quantum noosphere that allows your posts to appear here in this
iteration of the metaverse.
|4.19.06 @ 1:14PM|#
Yes, Another Lurker, perhaps if you took some economics, you
wouldn't be so married to the two paragraphs of Limbaugh model
you're so fond of.
Might I suggest Robert Reich, Duncan Black, Robert Rubin, or
Lawrence Summers? Each of whom has forgotten more about economics
than I suspect you've ever learned.
|4.19.06 @ 1:18PM|#
Joe, I have to ask:
Are the majority of people on the left complete mental feebs?
I don't run in those circles, and the majority of encounters I have
with leftists leaves me thinking that they're lucky to be able to
breath without assistance.
I mean, I may disagree with you vehemently, but at least you're
thoughtful. Are you and Christopher Hitchens the only ones like
this?
|4.19.06 @ 1:25PM|#
Chicago Tom, The World Bank is not Free Market. Who makes it
up? Governments. DUH!!! Automatically means it is not
laissez-faire.
Well, the world bank isn't a market at all, its an institution. But
it does pressure countries into adopting laissez-faire market
economies as a condition of receiving aid.
R C Dean|4.19.06 @ 1:26PM|#
Dowdified query:
Are the majority of people . . . complete mental
feebs?
Answer:
Yes.
|4.19.06 @ 1:32PM|#
"Well, the world bank isn't a market at all, its an institution.
But it does pressure countries into adopting laissez-faire market
economies as a condition of receiving aid."
Tom tom tom, if you think what the World Bank advocates is market
economics then I have a bridge in London to sell you. I personally
find the World Bank the biggest enemy to true market economics
since the Soviets were around.
But but but that can't be true because Republicans like it!! Man
the average Republican wouldn't know a free market if it bit them
in the ass.
Folks it's not either or here in this life.
|4.19.06 @ 1:34PM|#
Jesus wept, JMJ. A career civil servant makes an ass of
himself by accusing a subordinate of sedition, and its the fault of
Chimpeachment W. Katrinaburton?
No charges were brought, and the dark night of fascism is
descending in America?
RC,
Are you honestly implying that the current administration and its
supporters love affair with "with us or against us" rhetoric and
labeling dissent as "aiding the enemy" and equating it with treason
has absolutely NOTHING to do with this incident?
The fact that "sedition" was even discussed in this context is
quite alarming, regardless of whether charges were brought. The
blame for the rise of these kind of anti-1st amendment beliefs
falls directly at the feet of our current administration who have
made it very clear that dissent about the war effort will not be
tolerated.
This administration has fostered an atmosphere of fear and silence,
and yet when that atmosphere trickles down to lower levels of
government, there is absolutely no culpability on the part of the
administration? Get serious
|4.19.06 @ 1:36PM|#
"Are you honestly implying that the current administration and
its supporters love affair with "with us or against us" rhetoric
and labeling dissent as "aiding the enemy" and equating it with
treason has absolutely NOTHING to do with this incident?
The fact that "sedition" was even discussed in this context is
quite alarming, regardless of whether charges were brought. The
blame for the rise of these kind of anti-1st amendment beliefs
falls directly at the feet of our current administration who have
made it very clear that dissent about the war effort will not be
tolerated.
This administration has fostered an atmosphere of fear and silence,
and yet when that atmosphere trickles down to lower levels of
government, there is absolutely no culpability on the part of the
administration? Get serious"
ChicagoTom well said on that one.
|4.19.06 @ 1:38PM|#
Mg,
""No, MG, it's called real world pragmatism. If you see a need, you
fill it. If you don't, you don't. Idiot morons who apply their
idiot moron ideologies to everything without consideration for real
world pragmatics are the intellectual lazies."
Allow me to translate:
*ahem*
"BLAHBLAHBLAH. I'm not going to answer your question because I
haven't actually put any real thought into it."
Would it be poor taste for me to just declare victory now and be
done with it?"
Now I know you're a kid. "Victory?" And how would you measure that?
Got some screwy libertarian formula for that one? If you don't get
what I said then you are an Idiot moron.
AL,
"Basically like Republicans you are saying we should trust the
government to do the right thing."
No, but who else can you turn to? When authority is required, they
are the authority. What the hell else can ya' do? It ain't perfect.
I never said it was. It's just that the gov't is who you turn to
for authority.
JMJ
|4.19.06 @ 1:41PM|#
No, but who else can you turn to? When authority is
required, they are the authority. What the hell else can ya' do? It
ain't perfect. I never said it was. It's just that the gov't is who
you turn to for authority.
Well, I think we all agree with that...
|4.19.06 @ 1:44PM|#
"No, but who else can you turn to? When authority is required,
they are the authority. What the hell else can ya' do? It ain't
perfect. I never said it was. It's just that the gov't is who you
turn to for authority."
Take that statement, change authority to national security and you
just created the EXACT arguement for the average supporter of all
of Bush's crazy Patriot Act, War on Terror, civil liberties
violations, etc.
Is it making a little sense yet?
Look I am not an anarchist, and I think from our prior discussions
you know I am not a "take the government out of EVERYTHING" guy.
But it does not need to be the first place you look for a solution.
It's a cop-out.
|4.19.06 @ 1:52PM|#
AL,
""No, but who else can you turn to? When authority is required,
they are the authority. What the hell else can ya' do? It ain't
perfect. I never said it was. It's just that the gov't is who you
turn to for authority."
Take that statement, change authority to national security and you
just created the EXACT arguement for the average supporter of all
of Bush's crazy Patriot Act, War on Terror, civil liberties
violations, etc.
Is it making a little sense yet?
Look I am not an anarchist, and I think from our prior discussions
you know I am not a "take the government out of EVERYTHING" guy.
But it does not need to be the first place you look for a solution.
It's a cop-out."
No, that is NOT the argument asshole Bush is making - he's saying
that "we're at war," but we're not. He has exceeded his authority
because the sleazy cons have stacked the courts and the congress
and there are no checks or balances to restrain him becausze the
American people or so f'n stupid they actually buy all the
God-gays-guns malarkey that the sleazy cons spew.
I never said the gov't "was the first place." Actually, what I was
really implying was that it is the last. That's the point. We need
a final authority. Final. Not first.
JMJ
|4.19.06 @ 2:04PM|#
"Actually, what I was really implying was that it is the last.
That's the point. We need a final authority. Final. Not
first."
Interesting your posts on the "correct" response to Hurrican
Katrina fly in the face of that.
A lot of your Bush ire I am with though. I think the jackboots are
a weeeee bit further away from our door than you, but hey I like to
try to head things off before they get too crazy.
It's funny in general I am on your AND Joe's side regarding the
issue at hand here about civil liberties, war on terror, and yet
somehow in the end I am just another Dittohead.
Still working on that one.
|4.19.06 @ 2:04PM|#
"We need a final authority. Final. Not first."
A distinction without a difference, I'm afraid.
I do periodic checks on which of the big coalitions I prefer, and
historically the Right winds up on top. The keys are:
1) Self defence is my One Big Issue. I will turn activist against
any coalition that threatens me on that issue, regardless of any
other policies.
2) I view single payor healthcare as a mistake of galactic
proportions. Strong advocacy of that positon makes me highly
unlikely to join your coalition.
There used to be a lot more, but my distaste for the right
coalition's spending habits and lack of transparency counterbalance
many of those. To me, the left coalition is making ground, but it
has a few fundamental planks that I just can't swallow.
R C Dean|4.19.06 @ 2:06PM|#
Are you honestly implying that the current administration
and its supporters love affair with "with us or against us"
rhetoric and labeling dissent as "aiding the enemy" and equating it
with treason has absolutely NOTHING to do with this
incident
I'm saying that its perfectly possible that some career civil
servant is stupid enough to believe that accusing his subordinate
of sedition will curry favor with his superiors.
I'm also saying that it requires a pretty good case of BDS to pin
this on the Chimpler.
Can anyone point to anything this administration has done to
actually squelch free speech or a free press? Any arrests? Any
indictments? Any frickin' investigations (not counting
l'affaire Plame, which is entirely a self-inflicted wound
on the media)? Any threats of the above? Anything at all?
The whole chilling-of-free-speech, dark-night-of-fascism thing is a
fantasy, concocted by people for a whole slew of reasons ranging
from partisanship to hatred to a desire to puff up their drab
little lives with some drama.
God knows this administration has done some dumbass things in the
name of Homeland Security, but by far the worst thing they have
done to the First Amendment goes by the name McCain-Feingold.
fyodor|4.19.06 @ 2:09PM|#
[Bush] has exceeded his authority because the sleazy cons
have stacked the courts and the congress and there are no checks or
balances to restrain him becausze the American people or so f'n
stupid they actually buy all the God-gays-guns malarkey that the
sleazy cons spew.
Interesting example of partisan thinking. Aside from the appalling
disrespect towards those with whom he disagrees (a meme not all
that uncommon among my political allies in these parts, either),
note the broad brush that not only conflates all the supposed evils
(and stupidities) of the other side, but actually explain each
other and feed on each other, without any regard whatever to the
fact that they may be wholly different issues with totally separate
justifications and pros and cons. It's almost like he's writing a
horror movie! But please consider, JMJ, that even though I don't
like Bush myself, the Democrats try to put their own into all three
branches of government as well! The side you dislike winning
elections does not mean checks and balances have been
abolished!!
|4.19.06 @ 2:13PM|#
Sigh.
These comments show why we're ****ed. I mean really, the
Republicans (and Limbaugh?!), advocates of laissez faire? The World
Bank, a laissez faire institution?
verily, such people know nothing of economics, or even the English
language. We're driving full speed into the abyss because people
can't understand the difference between laissez faire and
mercantilism...
|4.19.06 @ 2:16PM|#
AL,
""Actually, what I was really implying was that it is the last.
That's the point. We need a final authority. Final. Not
first."
Interesting your posts on the "correct" response to Hurrican
Katrina fly in the face of that."
It was a friggin disaster area! What the hell are talking
about?
"A lot of your Bush ire I am with though. I think the jackboots are
a weeeee bit further away from our door than you, but hey I like to
try to head things off before they get too crazy.
It's funny in general I am on your AND Joe's side regarding the
issue at hand here about civil liberties, war on terror, and yet
somehow in the end I am just another Dittohead.
Still working on that one."
What concerns us is that your ideology seems rather rigid,
inflexible. It does not seem to always take reality into
account.
Jason,
""We need a final authority. Final. Not first."
A distinction without a difference, I'm afraid.
I do periodic checks on which of the big coalitions I prefer, and
historically the Right winds up on top. The keys are:
1) Self defence is my One Big Issue. I will turn activist against
any coalition that threatens me on that issue, regardless of any
other policies.
2) I view single payor healthcare as a mistake of galactic
proportions. Strong advocacy of that positon makes me highly
unlikely to join your coalition.
There used to be a lot more, but my distaste for the right
coalition's spending habits and lack of transparency counterbalance
many of those. To me, the left coalition is making ground, but it
has a few fundamental planks that I just can't swallow."
Jason, if you think the Dems are going to 'take yer guns,' then
you're a loony. As for single payor, that seems quite a ways off,
if ever. Gotta warn you though - the first big step toward single
payor is happening right now - and it's a GOP governor who's moving
it along...
JMJ
|4.19.06 @ 2:16PM|#
"the American people or so f'n stupid"
Why is it that people have the impression that leftoids are smug,
condescending, arrogant pricks?
(standard disclaimer for JMJ, otherwise I must be a dittohead:
A largely agree with your views on civil liberties & this
administration)
Jim Henley|4.19.06 @ 2:18PM|#
"Pretty soon we'll have laws and every other fuckin'
thing."
Was it Charlie Utter who said that, or Seth Bullock?
|4.19.06 @ 2:29PM|#
JMJ becausze the American people or so f'n stupid
...
I actually thought you were making some reasonable arguments til
you got here...I mean, come on, that's no way to win friends and
influence people--I may think you are stupid, but that's ok, you go
about your life. You think I'm stupid, so you have to be my
mom?
|4.19.06 @ 2:34PM|#
"What concerns us is that your ideology seems rather rigid,
inflexible. It does not seem to always take reality into
account."
Yeah you are Captain flexable JMJ. Grab a mirror amigo.
Ironchef, welcome to the fake Dittohead camp with me, I was getting
lonesome.
Brian24 I am with you down the line. There are no bragging rights
with our political parties as each is as stupid and out to violate
the Constitution as the other, just in different ways.
Oh wait, never mind Joe told me I was a right-winger. Still
scratching my head.
|4.19.06 @ 2:48PM|#
I'm saying that its perfectly possible that some career
civil servant is stupid enough to believe that accusing his
subordinate of sedition will curry favor with his
superiors.
And how does a belief like that arise? Out of whole cloth? It is
quite possible that the reason for this belief is because the
government is fostering an atmosphere that shuns and attacks
dissent, esp within the ranks of government employees.
I'm also saying that it requires a pretty good case of BDS to
pin this on the Chimpler.
I say it requires quite a bit of intellectual dishonesty to believe
that there is no culpability on the part of this administration for
fostering and even promoting an environment like this.
Can anyone point to anything this administration has done to
actually squelch free speech or a free press? Any arrests? Any
indictments? Any frickin' investigations (not counting l'affaire
Plame, which is entirely a self-inflicted wound on the media)? Any
threats of the above? Anything at all?
Patriot act? NSA Spying? Library records? SPying on anti-war
demonstrators and Quakers?
Indictments? WHo needs indictments when they can just haul you off
to Gitmo as an "enemy combatant"?
Making people afraid to speak out squelches free speech, regardless
of whether people are being indicted for it.
When the president goes around condemning the media for reporting
that the he might be breaking the law and unlawfully spying on
Americans, that has no effect on free speech?
When the Washington Post editorializes that retired Generals should
not denigrate the Sec of Defense or else they will be giving "aid"
to our enemy, that has no effect on free speech?
When the word treason is tossed around at anyone who disagrees with
the policies of this admin or tries to hold them accountable for
their deceptions, that has no effect of free speech?
Just because we aren't actually rounding people up, doesn't mean
that barring that, nothing the administration and it's followers do
or say has any effects on the 1st amendment and the practicing of
it. And this whole atmosphere came from the top down. No of course
it isn't all the administration's fault, but to
pretend that it bears zero responsibility is dishonest.
Of course, now that his approval ratings are in the mid 30's and
disenchantment with the war effort nationally, the admins rhetoric
is far less effective, but you can't just ignore the atmosphere
that had wrapped this country up post 9/11 and in the first years
of the war.
|4.19.06 @ 2:53PM|#
JMJ:
It is interesting. The right coalition tells me that I should
listen to what they say and not what they do, on the grounds that
everything big government they do is a forced compromise with the
left. Obviously, that isn't true.
Still, the left coalition tells me that what they say to motivate
their core voters doesn't matter at all. We won't REALLY "get
reasonable gun control", and we won't REALLY be able to nationalize
healthcare.
You can see where that leaves me in a pickle.
|4.19.06 @ 2:59PM|#
File charges" against someone for recommending mainstream
books they don't like.
"Mainstream books." Anyone bother to copy and paste since Fuckhead
Lemur didn't make it a link?
The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian, The Professors by
David Horowitz, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye�or, and It
Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum
The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.
|4.19.06 @ 3:08PM|#
"..it's those "PC" liberals who are your real friends."
We have no friends.
Comment by: MP
har har.
I think every american becomes a libertarian, momentarily, on tax
day. Or the first time they're arrested.
JG
|4.19.06 @ 3:14PM|#
Jersey at 12:20 pm:
"It depends on the disaster. But in the case of NO, it made
sense, and the violence, in an oterwise extremely violent town, was
kept to a minimum. It was one of the few things we did right,
there."
Jersey at 2:16 pm:
"Jason, if you think the Dems are going to 'take yer guns,'
then you're a loony."
|4.19.06 @ 3:25PM|#
Well Jason, I personally would love to see stronger control
regulation and universal healthcare but I don't see it coming down
the pike for a long long time to come if ever. I guess the best
thing I could tell anyone is "split your tickets!" Balance is the
key. I'd rather the gov't do nothing than do something stupid. On
that I'm sure we all agree. ;)
MG,
""It depends on the disaster. But in the case of NO, it made sense,
and the violence, in an oterwise extremely violent town, was kept
to a minimum. It was one of the few things we did right,
there."
Jersey at 2:16 pm:
"Jason, if you think the Dems are going to 'take yer guns,' then
you're a loony.""
It was a disaster - and they're giving them back now.
JMJ
|4.19.06 @ 3:26PM|#
Jersey at 12:31 pm:
"Mediageek, I don't think anything like that*
happened."
*A little old lady being tackled by a huge cop in order to
confiscate her self defense pistol.
Note: Link goes to video of a little old lady in New Orleans being
tackled by a musclebound cop in order to confiscate her
self-defense pistol.
Or perhaps Jersey would like to explain how in a disaster zone
infirm and old people would be allowed to keep their defensive
arms?
Which is it, Jersey? Either the cops should confiscate all the
guns, or they shouldn't.
|4.19.06 @ 3:30PM|#
"Now I know you're a kid."
Intellectually and logically bested by someone who's younger than
you.
I'll bet that stings.
|4.19.06 @ 3:32PM|#
"It was a disaster..."
Oh, right! *smacks forehead* I keep forgetting. People trapped in a
disaster have no right to defend themselves.
"... - and they're giving them back now."
Only after the NRA filed a flurry of lawsuits on behalf of those
who had their arms forcibly confiscated.
|4.19.06 @ 3:34PM|#
"Eh, people are goofy. What can ya' say? The cop should be
fired."
Why? He was just doing his job! Guns have no place in a disaster
area, after all!
Why, the gall of that grandma! Wanting to keep possession of a
defensive arm! How dare she spit in the eye of authority like
that!
|4.19.06 @ 3:45PM|#
MG, what do you want here? In a martial law situation, you have
to disarm. That's just life.
Geniuses like you remind me...
After 9/11, idiot Ashcroft refused to order the FBI to track gun
ownership records of young arab men because it would 'infringe on
the rights.'
After invading Iraq, idiot Rumsfeld didn't disarm the Iraqis,
leading to the disaster we have today.
Fuck your stupid guns.
There's a time to arm and a time to disarm. There's a time for most
everything under the sun. Grow up.
JMJ
|4.19.06 @ 4:07PM|#
"After 9/11, idiot Ashcroft refused to order the FBI to track
gun ownership records of young arab men because it would 'infringe
on the rights.'
After invading Iraq, idiot Rumsfeld didn't disarm the Iraqis,
leading to the disaster we have today."
WOW so now Ashcroft was in the wrong for now racially profiling
Arab gun owners (Sounds like the one thing the man did
right).
How about if we had never rode into Iraq in the first place we
would not have had the problem period. That's my position, but are
you so dumb as to think that asking everyone in Iraq to pretty
please bring their guns and bombs in that the situation would be
different now.
Jersey, you say some things I like and then you come in with with
this simplistic stupid shit.
dhex|4.19.06 @ 4:12PM|#
"MG, what do you want here? In a martial law situation, you have
to disarm. "
ahhh...now we get to the heart of the matter.
see, jersey - IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME - the problem with the dems
and the republicants and all those fine partisan folk is that, to
me, it's an issue of boot-licking. now, i'm one of those libertoids
who's mostly a libertine, and i've got nothing against bootlicking,
part-time bootblacks...shit, some of my best friends are
leathermen.
but i do have a problem when the political arena is used to play
out the psychosexual hangups of others; hence retardations like gay
marriage (or just sodomy laws in general) or the stuff you posted
above. i understand that most republicans are content to lick
boots, so long as it's a republican boot. and dems are quite
content to snuggle with the smooth, soft leather of a democratic
boot, as we saw during the clinton "you cannot love your country
and fear your government" administration.
but not all of us are into public s+m play writ large, and prefer
these things to be kept out of the public sphere. moreover, since
not all of us are unrepentant subs (not that there's anything wrong
with that, some of my best friends are, etc) this whole "whatever
you say daddy" (so long as it is the proper daddy) is not all that
convincing.
me, personally, i'm a little too butch for all this "i trust the
government to protect me all the time" thing. i don't believe my
fellow citizens are brainwashed, but i do think they're conflating
the personal and the private a bit too much, and may want to
consider getting their kicks in less political arenas.
|4.19.06 @ 4:19PM|#
MediaGeek,
Thanks for digging up the vid and saving me from doing it.
As for JMJ, quit engaging him. His mentality is that "Uncle Sam
knows best". He refuses to see how enforcing PC speech = gun
confiscation = state religion = smoking bans in private = drug war.
He just doesn't understand how we can be conservative in our
economic policies while being liberal in our social policies.
He doesn't realize that Democrats and Republicans have so much more
in common than they are ever willing to admit. One restricts
freedom in the name of terrorism and immigration the other
restricts it in the name of political correctness and healthy
living.
Whatever the reason, they both restrict my right to live how I want
to live so long as it doesn't infringe on others to do the same, or
in the words of the Declaration of Independence "unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness".
Timothy|4.19.06 @ 4:25PM|#
Joe: I'll take Larry Summers, Brad DeLong, and and Mark Thoma*
for my lefty economist dollar over Duncan Black any day. For my
righty economist dollar I'll take Andrew Samwick, Art Laffer, and
Alan Greenspan. For my libertarian dollar would be spent on the
entire GMU department, plus Milton Friedman. I'm not sure where
Fisher Black would go politically, but what I've read of his work
is interesting.
*Full disclosure, I was a student in one of Thoma's classes at
Oregon my last year in college.
|4.19.06 @ 4:32PM|#
Kwix, I guess the reason I continue to engage JMJ is simply
because I find it fun.
I guess that makes me a sick bastard, because it's really a lot
like picking on the retarded kid in the classroom, but I just can't
help myself.
As for JMJ, dude, I hope you are really, really good looking,
because if I'm both younger and smarter than you (as has already
been established in this very thread) then it would truly suck if
you had to go through life with the trifecta of old, dumb, and
ugly.
|4.19.06 @ 4:42PM|#
AL,
""After 9/11, idiot Ashcroft refused to order the FBI to track gun
ownership records of young arab men because it would 'infringe on
the rights.'
After invading Iraq, idiot Rumsfeld didn't disarm the Iraqis,
leading to the disaster we have today."
WOW so now Ashcroft was in the wrong for now racially profiling
Arab gun owners (Sounds like the one thing the man did
right)."
Pragmatism eludes you, Lurker.
"How about if we had never rode into Iraq in the first place we
would not have had the problem period. That's my position, but are
you so dumb as to think that asking everyone in Iraq to pretty
please bring their guns and bombs in that the situation would be
different now.
Jersey, you say some things I like and then you come in with with
this simplistic stupid shit."
I agree that invasion was wrong, but if we were going to do it, the
ONLY way to win a war is to forcibly disarm the population. Anyone
who thinks otherwise is stupid. Period.
Kwix,
"As for JMJ, quit engaging him. His mentality is that "Uncle Sam
knows best"."
I don't think that at all.
"He refuses to see how enforcing PC speech"
What???
"= gun confiscation ="
In wars and disaster areas???
"state religion"
WHAT THE F!!!
"= smoking bans in private"
You lying piece of ....
"= drug war."
You are a liar. A god damned liar. Sleazy little punk liar.
JMJ
|4.19.06 @ 4:50PM|#
If you ever get depressed about the state of the country, just imagine what it would be like if we all subscribed to JMJ's idea of pragmatism.
|4.19.06 @ 4:50PM|#
It must really suck to argue with people and find out that the crazy thoughts in your head are so easily dispelled by a ten second Google search.
dhex|4.19.06 @ 4:52PM|#
dear jersey:
pragmatism != morally correct action.
in fact, it is often the opposite.
HOW CURIOUS.
|4.19.06 @ 4:52PM|#
"Pragmatism eludes you, Lurker."
Well if racial profiling is pragmatic then I guess I am not
pragmatic.
You got me you sly one you.
|4.19.06 @ 5:00PM|#
Dhex - morality is for morons. Empirically based ethical
decision making is neither arbitrary nor moralistic. You're
outclassed here pal.
Al, I remember, right after 9/11, Al Franken was on with Conan
O'Brien. COnan asked him about "profiling," All said, "If it were a
bunch of Jewish comedians that flew those planes into those
buildings, I wouldn't complain at all about being harrassed."
You guys are all about silly adolescent libertarian ideology - and
no reality.
JMJ
|4.19.06 @ 5:01PM|#
"You are a liar. A god damned liar. Sleazy little punk
liar."
Ooooh, you've really stepped in it now,
dum-dum!
|4.19.06 @ 5:03PM|#
"You guys are all about silly adolescent libertarian
ideology - and no reality."
Why hello Mr. Pot! How are you today?
|4.19.06 @ 5:05PM|#
Don't know if anyone has ever posted this here, but Jersey considers himself something of an author himself. If you want to see exactly how wacko he is, wou can find out here. My favorite so far is the recent post where he claims that the invasion of Iraq was an eminent domain abuse by the federal government.
|4.19.06 @ 5:10PM|#
Jason Ligon,
the only folks more comitted to Gun Control than the left, are the
right.
And yes, I know you don't know what I mean.
Maybe you heard about a certain case down south in "red" territory.
A man was startled in the middle of the night in his bed, and shot
an intruder who was there illegally.
Of course the man in bed was black, and the intruder was a
trespassing cop, with no warrant.
That man, in that "red" state, is now sitting on death row. Who
woulda guessed it.
I suspect you do actually know what I am talking about.
Not to say I support the left on gun control, just making the point
that neither does the "red" either, when it comes down to it.
|4.19.06 @ 5:17PM|#
I would like to second Doctor Witherspoon's suggestion below that Mister McJones is a disgrace to our great State of New Jersey.
|4.19.06 @ 5:24PM|#
Alright, well, you all got this guy to say "morality is for morons". I can't see where the discussion could possibly go from there.
|4.19.06 @ 5:27PM|#
I bet it's all because of one of Bush's signing
statements.
He probably signed a law establishing Jesus day, and added a
statement saying "PS: Lock that Berg bitch up. She's harshing my
buzz."
|4.19.06 @ 5:28PM|#
This is from Jersey's archives:
"Our day in the future world of Libertarian Utopia:
We wake up late in the morning because the power is out. We get in
our car and, after seven tries and finally a jump, it starts,
blowing plumes of toxic gas all over our garden. We stop at
McDonalds on the way and try to drink our 190 degree coffee, which
we barely get a chance to sip. We eat what we think is some kind of
sausage on some kind of perhaps bread. We sit in three hours of
traffic to get through the ten miles of pot-holed roads to get to
work. We arrive at work late and get yelled at like a truant
juvenile. We work 12 1/2 hours, with no overtime or even
acknowledgement of our extra effort, performing completely
non-productive service sector task management. We then drive the
three hours again to get home and fix ourselves a steak, that we
pray doesn�t cause us madness, and vegetables that are genetically
closer in structure to us then their wild originator. We have spent
the day ingesting more chemicals then Timothy Leary did in a
lifetime. We worked more hours than our great grandfather, the
plowman. We produced nothing of value whatsoever. We are probably
divorced and have 1.5 children, who we see twice a month, who are
really not sure which one is �daddy�. We watch Fox news, which is
now on every channel, and believe it is �fair and balanced� (can I
say that?) and come away with opinions so ill informed that we may
as well have developed them while tripping on acid and staring at a
wall. We are very angry about gay people, fifteen year old girls
who get abortions, black people, people who don�t speak enough
English, �hateful� liberals (now there�s an oxymoron!), women with
opinions, and anything that might make our lives better. And we are
convinced there is too much regulation and litigation in the world
and we have to put a stop to it.
JMJ
Posted in Quickie"
Jersey,
Do you actually believe this is what it would be like if
Libertarians ran everything? You seemed to be conflated
Libertaranism with some sort of stereotype of certain types of
neocon/theocon Republicans.
This post is just absurd. I'm rather libertarian in bent and:
A) Black
B) A polyglot who has spent a large amount of time with
non-Americans of many backgrounds and opposes 'national
languages'
C) support gay marriage
D) Have a very strong-willed wife who always presents her
opinion
E) despise Fox news
Just for your information, I also believe in evolution, anthrogenic
global warming, dislike the Administration, think we need to get
out of Iraq, and a number of other things that I assume you believe
that "libertarians" must scoff at.
Jersey: libertarian (or even the big L version) does not equal =
'big-government Republican theocon'.
I'm not even going to bother your misconceptions about governmental
versus non-governmental regulatory frameworks.
|4.19.06 @ 5:29PM|#
I can't help but be skeptical of the "ends over means" position in political philosophy. That is, undoubtedly, the Left's position (and the Right's too anymore)-- and both describe it as "pragmatic politics." I would like to see JMJ present a model of what kind of state he wants (kind of like the whole "minimal state" thing Nozick describes). Then it would be easier to test it like a thought experiment. The main questions I would like to see answered: if government has no pragmatic limitations IN PRINCIPAL (that is, if we can indentify points in society where state regulation, etc. is justifiable without resorting to an axiom such as the libertarian "as little as possible), then what are the mechanisms by which we judge unjustifiable vs. justifialble governmental action? In other words, if it is right for the government to take people's guns in NO, then how exactly do we determine when it is NOT right for a government to act thus? If JMJ could construct such a model, then perhaps there could be a more constructive conversation than simply "you're an idiot!" "no, you are!" (not that it isn't fun :)
|4.19.06 @ 5:50PM|#
"the only folks more comitted to Gun Control than the left,
are the right."
Disagree.
The Republicans are anti-gun, but don't speak up for gun control
much because the NRA is a big donor to the R's and therefore they
have to kowtow somewhat.
|4.19.06 @ 5:56PM|#
The kind of State that Jersey wants (or rather, the one he'd end up with if he got everything he wanted) is described here. (Beginnings of relevant posts are highlighted.)
|4.19.06 @ 5:57PM|#
PS: The server squirrels seem much improved today. Thank you. (Hoping I haven't jinxed everything now.)
|4.19.06 @ 6:01PM|#
"If JMJ could construct such a model, then perhaps there
could be a more constructive conversation than simply "you're an
idiot!" "no, you are!" (not that it isn't fun :)"
I honestly don't think that's going to happen.
Whenever Jersey actually presents something other than an outright
condemnation, said idea gets criticized, and then he does one of
the following:
1) Offers a vague, completely undefined "solution"
2) Attempts to change the subject by insulting the current
administration and accusing us of being shills for it.
3) Making accusations of racism.
4) Making shit up.
I've noticed that number four seems to be his favorite debate
tactic.
|4.19.06 @ 6:04PM|#
We watch Fox news, which is now on every channel, and
believe it is �fair and balanced� (can I say that?) and come away
with opinions so ill informed that we may as well have developed
them while tripping on acid and staring at a wall.
C'mon, nobody tripping on acid would come up with the crap they say
on Fox News. It would be waaaaaay groovier.
C'mon, Jersey, "morality is for morons?" Now you sound like
Kissinger. I thought better than that of you.
William Livingston: kudos on the Arsenic and Old Lace reference.
Boo-ya.
|4.19.06 @ 6:19PM|#
The VA is in the habit of taking reprisals against both veterans & employees who write things that 'embarrass' the VA. In Feb, 2006 I had written a member of the U S Congress about VA Medical Center, Wilkes Barre, Pa [WBVAMC]not reporting an incident of an employee, Chief of Staff [COS]at WBVAMC, assaulting another employee by choking to local law enforcment or taking any disciplinary action against COS, WBVAMC. Jay Kloin, MD, of VA Out-Patient Clinic, Allentown, Pa [AVAOPC] ordered my therapist, P S Casner, to tell him, Mr Casner, where I had heard of the assault, who had told me of the assault & not to write any letters to members of the Congress any more. This was & is illegal & unethical conduct, harassment & taking reprisals against me & de facto harassment. Dr Kloin may be reached at AVAOPC, 610 776 4304, 3110 HAMILTON BLVD, ALLENTOWN, PA 18103; Dr Kloin's superiors are Wm Grossman, MD, COS & Roland E Moore, Medical Director, VAMC, 1111 EAST END, WILKES BARRE PA 570 824 3521. Dr Kloin is now making verbal accusation of me threating him & has told me that I was "in trouble & to stop threating him" Since I'm 69 years old, 100% disabled, walk with a cane, hunch backed, short of breath, 5 ft 1 in tall, weigh 220 lbs, told Dr Kloin that I didn't wish to speak to him & asked him to keep at least 10 ft a way from me. I make it a point to keep at least 10 ft from Dr Kloin. Dr Kloin is around 5 ft 9 in, weighs around 175 lbs, is apparently a fit middle-aged man. I fail to see how I present any physical danger to Dr Kloin. As for my writing to a member of the Congress-that is my right & Dr Kloin is interefering it unlawfully. To force Mr Casner, my shrink, to deliver threats to me & illegally ask questions of me, is both illegal & unethical. It would be interesting to see a written comment on this matter from the Drs Kloin or Grossman, or Mr Moore.
R C Dean|4.19.06 @ 6:22PM|#
Sorry, ChicagoTom, but I am completely unimpressed with your
litany of how the Bushbots have crushed dissent in this
country.,
No indictments. No arrests. No convictions. No one shipped to
Gitmo. Not one single person punished for exercising their First
Amendment rights. Not one.
Sure, lots of potential 4th Amendment violations out there that
could be used to intimidate people, but I sure don't see any
evidence that any one is intimidated.
Nope. I see millions of people criticizing the Bush administration
in the most vituperative and colorful terms. I see dozens of
published editorials that are critical as well.
The idea that Americans are cowering, afraid to express their
opinions of this government for fear of jackboots kicking in their
door is a fantasy.
Now, some folks aren't real happy at the reception their opinions
get in the marketplace of ideas, and may for that reason feel a
little constrained about letting their freak flag fly, but lets not
confuse robust disagreement with fascist oppression.
|4.19.06 @ 6:31PM|#
Stevo,
I remember reading that, actually. That certainly explains my
opinion of the matter (and most others here). I hope that Jersey
can come up with something that isn't so easily caricatured.
I think one of Jersey's underlying critiques is certainly worth
considering: Libertarians seem often to make political decisions
via an axiomatic (and to many unexamined) assumption that less
government is better in all cases. Now, whether or not this axiom
is valid, if it IS unexamined then it is of limited utility in the
real world (rather like Marx's "do what we can and take what we
need"). I tend to think of this as a valid point, and an unsettling
one for me as a libertarian. Nonetheless, I think we can make some
distinctions here. My critique of the position that JMJ holds is
that it has no regulatory model. If we can use government
abitrarily to make things better then how do we determine when not
to use it? Part of it is, of course, the definition of "better."
What I or JMJ thinks as better may not be better for someone else.
More problematically, the whole idea of making the world "better"
presupposes a transcendental notion of the good that defines
goodness outside of the practical and contingent realities within
which we make all moral decisions. It is utopian in the strictest
sense of the word: it is "nowhere" (literally speaking) because the
"where", the practical world, is too corrupt and people too myopic
to make proper decisions. As a naturalist, I find the metaphysical
underpinnings of this highly suspect. I also find it contradicotry
epistemologically. How does a government have any more insight into
the "better" than an individual person. What's more, historically
speaking, the "better" has always been used for corrupt ends in
itself.
Now, doesn't the minimal state model fall into such a
transcendental category? I don't think so-- or at least not in the
same way. As long as this model remains falsifiable, then its
transcendental function is "merely" logical-- in much the same way
that God and Free Will existed for Kant as transcendental
categories of practical reason. In other words, I maintain that it
is rationally justifiable to construct political models and to base
civic decisions on them as long as they do not pretend to
irrationally utopian ideas (and are, thus, provisional like
scientific theories). What's more, I think it rationally
unjustified NOT to have some sort of a model. JMJ doesn't seem to
make his opinions out of a model and is, therefore, I argue, open
to the criticism of 1) a kind of subconcious utopian irrationality
or 2) an unprincipled intellectual stance. If he could construct
such a model, then his criticisms of Libertarianism would make much
more sense, and our criticisms of him would have a more
constructive purpose than simple censure because of not adhering to
the stated orthodoxy.
Sorry for the length.
lunchstealer|4.19.06 @ 7:27PM|#
I hope you Libers wake up soon and realize that the GOP is
NOT your closest of the two parties.
OK, first of all, if you really want libertarians to join the
progressive coalition, let me give you a few hints. Try - JUST
FUCKING TRY - to hide your contempt for us. Perhaps you could refer
to us as 'libertarians' instead of 'libers'. Perhaps you could
invite us to join with you, rather than coming in here and issuing
these smug pronouncements that we should 'wake up' - something like
"Hey, I know we've got our differences, but if more libertarians
would band together with us liberals, we could at least stop the
Bush-style jerks from trampling all over civil liberties".
Of course, I think the best thing you could do is probably to stop
posting here, and ask one of your friends who's not as void of
ideas and un-fucking-charming as you are to take your place.
Seriously, we've got liberal posters who come over here and talk to
us, but when they do so, they actually engage the issues, not just
toss your spunk on the screen and tell us how we're all Bush's
toadies.
Yeah, sure, one can fuss over their right to be
asshole
You're certainly adept at excercising that particular right.
--
I get the distinct feeling that the lowly scumbag who
recommended those lowly scumbag books is probably a real lowly
scumbag who is doing more than just suggesting reading
material.
OK, Do you see here how what you're doing is being an appologist
for left wing violations of civil liberties? I'm sure there are
jerks on right-wing blogs who are saying things like "Oh, I'm sure
she was doing other things than just writing a letter to the
editor". You're exhibiting a double standard. When a progressive
needs civil liberties you jump to the ramparts, but a left-wing
attack on conservative speech brings out "Oh, I'm sure that
right-wing guy deserved it." Its a double standard, and it shows
that at least YOUR brand of progressive civil liberties are as
two-faced and insincere as Pat Robertson's. If I was to start
supporting your brand of civil liberties, I'd be selling
out my ideals just as surely as if I were to support Bush. You're
exactly the same as him.
The "charges," you loony, are institutional, not legal and have
since been dropped.
Actually, no legal charges were ever brought against the nurse,
either. It was an investigation by the HR department, and they too
were dropped. Again, you're being an appologist for left-wing
attempts to limit speech, even while you decry similar behavior on
the right.
[libertarians] are very angry about gay people, fifteen year
old girls who get abortions, black people, people who don�t speak
enough English...
The above statement shows that you have no respect for libertarian
ideas or ideals. You hate us so much that you don't listen to a
single thing we say. A liberal who had any respect at all for
libertarians would never have written the above sentence. You're a
troll. You have no sense of intellectual honesty, and almost every
post I see makes me cringe for my friends who are liberal, because
you are a disgrace to liberals.
|4.19.06 @ 7:42PM|#
As the Glenn Reynolds thread has shown, you know you're a
libertarian when folks from both the Republicans and Democrats
accuse you of being the other side.
The Republicans get mad because many of us don't support
imperialistic or preemptive wars of aggression.
The Democrats get mad because we don't support the redistribution
of wealth.
I tell people that libertarians are the true liberals because
libertarians want everything liberalised. Unfortunately,
the left wing took control of that word here in America, and I
don't think they're giving it back...not that we'd want it,
considering the connotations it would give folks.
|4.19.06 @ 7:52PM|#
Lowdog, not even the left wants the word "liberal" back after
the way they've mucked it up in the past five decades.
I wonder what they'll call themselves after they thoroughly corrupt
the term "Progressive?"
|4.19.06 @ 8:01PM|#
Mediageek's JMJ list seems to be exactly the same as the one
applied to ChicagoTom's modus operandi:
"1) Offers a vague, completely undefined "solution"
2) Attempts to change the subject by insulting the current
administration and accusing us of being shills for it.
3) Making accusations of racism.
4) Making shit up."
Are JMJ & ChicagoTom the same knucklehead posting under two
aliases?
|4.19.06 @ 8:13PM|#
Hmmm... Good point.
But CT's really going off - in a JMJ fashion - on the "The Past Is
Another Planet" thread about how "you people" toe the Bush
administration line and how [those people] call people (like him,
apparently!) who disagree with him "kossacks" (SP?) and "stupid
crazy liberals" despite the fact that those words are never used in
the entire thread.
Course, you guys are ganging up on JMJ over here while CT seems to
be only pissed at me... Heh!
lunchstealer|4.19.06 @ 8:17PM|#
Lowdog,
I've had many of the same ideas. There's always that movement afoot
to rebrand themselves "progressive". Maybe we should support that.
Of course, I worry about what that means to Yes and King Crimson
fans, but I'm willing to let that slide.
lunchstealer|4.19.06 @ 8:33PM|#
Actually, rob, CT may have kinda gone off the deepend, but I thought he had a point about your 'daily kos' snark.
|4.19.06 @ 8:36PM|#
Jerkoff MyJones-
Mark - when the president acts with "war powers" when we are
not constitutionally at war...
Would that be: Wilson(Dem), Roosevelt(Dem), Truman(Dem),
Kennedy(Dem), Johnson(Dem), or Bush 43(Repub)?
And, from a libertarian viewpoint... who
do you really think is going to stop a 'president'...
given the last 100 years of 'precedent'?
|4.19.06 @ 8:44PM|#
Jim Henley-
Hey! Why are you all laughing?!
Because, she's still an ignorant bint!
Actually, I agree w/ your point... If she
had quit before her objections, it would not be as bad--
but instead, all she has done is proved that she
is nothing but a cheap whore.
|4.19.06 @ 9:19PM|#
Despite the several valiant efforts to save this thread, it
started quite lightheartedly amusing and quickly became quite
darkly amusing, ccharacterized by such statements as If you
don't get what I said then you are an Idiot moron -- now
there's constructive dialog. Any thread that devolves into a
disavowment of morality is, though memorable for its extreme
vitriol and irrationality, pretty effed up.
By the way, JMJ, if that's what you think of morality, then that
probably has something to do with why you're so hostile to (afraid
of) liberty/libertarianism.
|4.19.06 @ 9:58PM|#
Joe-
Also, the next time you compare me to Christopher Hitchens, you
lose a finger. ;-)
You can only wish you were C.
Hitchens-
He's probably richer than you...
He's surely smarter than you...
He'll definitely drink you under the
table...
Plus, I'd bet more people here at "Hit & Run" would actually
prefer reading something from him...
Don't you understand 'flattery'? :o)
|4.19.06 @ 10:23PM|#
rob-
Are JMJ & ChicagoTom the same knucklehead posting under two
aliases?
I'll agree w/ 'mediageek'... ChicagoTom seems to be a thoughtful
poster who(even if/when I disagree) contributes to the
discussion.
JMJ is just a troll...
|4.19.06 @ 10:57PM|#
I was fishing the other day and laid out my bait and waited -
BAM FISH ON!
I am sure that's what JMJ is feeling
This HRN hole is full of fish
|4.20.06 @ 8:00AM|#
This thread was funny.
Reading everyone having a go at JMJ is like watching a simpleton
walk into a glass door.
Again.
And again.
And again.....
dhex|4.20.06 @ 9:53AM|#
"Dhex - morality is for morons. Empirically based ethical
decision making is neither arbitrary nor moralistic. You're
outclassed here pal."
oh, ok. thanks for clearing that up.
so you're good with blood for oil, then?
you sly neocon, you!
lunchstealer|4.20.06 @ 11:00AM|#
dhex, the guy's morals resemble Bush's more than anyone else. In
his world, political ally persecuted at the workplace for their
speech is a violation of civil liberties, but if it's a political
enemy, then he's a 'lowly scumbag' who's probably up to no good.
Sounds like Bush. He's come out FOR racial profiling. Sounds like
Bush. He doesn't understand even the basic concepts of
libertarianism. Sounds like Bush.
Seriously. A guy who supports racial profiling lecturing
libertarians on how we should join with HIM to protect civil
liberties. What a tool.
|4.20.06 @ 1:21PM|#
"Actually, rob, CT may have kinda gone off the deepend, but I
thought he had a point about your 'daily kos' snark." -
lunchstealer
Hmmm... I didn't realize I'd said anything all that offensive to
Daily Kos posters. Sorry to the thoughtful posters at Kos if I said
something that hurt their feelings.
But I didn't think that generally referring to a thread as tho it
were the product of non-thoughtful posters at Kos is anywhere near
as offensive as specifically being referred to as a
"Bushbot."
That CT got all wound up maybe says something about him, maybe it
doesn't. Maybe I just caught him when he was already feeling raw.
But he went off on me like a guy who had just attacked him
personally and proceeded to call me a bunch of things that are
definitely offensive.
Hey CT, if you're reading this, I'll buy you a beer and we can both
complain about people who have swallowed - and regurgitate on
command - the BS rhetoric from both sides of the aisle. (Frankly, I
find both sides repellent... Which is probably why I find myself at
HNR, since misery loves company!)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245