The Friday Political Thread: Ron Paul's Million-Dollar Edition

David Weigel | September 28, 2007

Here's new blog for those of you care about this stuff: Campaign Standard, a thoughtful many-times-a-day briefing by Matt Continetti. (Read my 2006 interview with Continetti here.) Bob Novak's weekly report, with reporting by Timothy P. Carney, remains essential.

A brief rundown of the week...

- Hillary Clinton ran the gauntlet of five Sunday talk shows without breaking a sweat. Ben Smith speculates that her satellite-delayed booming laugh was "probably the week's main contribution to pop culture" and started "the witch meme." When I met Terry MacAuliffe in early 2007 (the weekend Obama entered the race) he told me Hillary had a "great belly laugh" that voters were going to love, for what that's worth.

- On Wednesday the Democrats stared down Tim Russert in one of the less interesting debates so far. Obama was somnalent, Edwards was saurian, Hillary was sthenic. None of the frontrunners committed to pulling "all troops" out of Iraq.

- On Thursday all but four Republicans worked out their racial issues on PBS in a suprisingly substantive debate that you didn't watch.

Larger issues...

- C.R.E.A.M. September 30 is the third quarter deadline for federal campaign fundraising. Everyone expects the newly-public-financed John Edwards to crumple up like a Shrinky Dink in a blast furnace. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder has been hounding the rest of the field and expects slightly lower numbers than last quarter from the frontrunners. Fred Thompson's expected to raise around $6 million. The Prowler reports that Giuliani, having set a $20 million goal, is going to fall short but beat the other GOP candidates anyway, with something north of $10 million.

Meanwhile, Ron Paul's fundraising machine is chugging along nicely. [UPDATE: In the hurry to get this post up I had the wrong number of days. The following numbers are correct.] A 7-day fundraising goal of $500,000 was met in three days: The new goal, according to Paul, is $1 million by Sunday. The campaign is confident that it will surpass the $2.4 million it raised last quarter. "We are going to beat it," a Paul adviser told me. "By how much is left to be seen."

- Newt Approacheth. Newt Gingrich baited reporters all week with rumors of a presidential run, and on Friday he slyly announced a new website: A prefabricated "Draft Newt" hub. If it was a ploy to win attention for this weekend's American Solutions workshops, it worked and it didn't work. It worked because, well, you're actually hearing about his American Solutions workshops. It didn't work because, as Chris Orr points out, few actual humans are attenting the hundreds of Solutions workshops.

Below the fold...

- As shadowly forces inside the California GOP watch their vote-splitting ballot initiative sputter, John J. Pitney peers into the debate between conservative and liberal wings of the party. Who's the heir to Reagan: Arnold, the hard righters, or both of them?

- John McCain talks to Beliefnet and mulls converting to the Baptist Church. He doesn't say when: I'm going to guess January 13.

- Rolling Stone remembers when Joe Trippi, John Edwards' consultant, said that taking public financing would mean "getting the shit kicked out of him" in the election. He was right!

Comments

|9.28.07 @ 7:40PM|#

A 10-day fundraising goal of $500,000 was met in five days

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this was a 7 day goal, and he achieved it in ~3.5 days.

press release about it

|9.28.07 @ 7:42PM|#

FYI: Shrinky Dink

Fluffy|9.28.07 @ 8:01PM|#

CoveAxe,

You are correct Sir! [/Ed MacMahon]

NP|9.28.07 @ 8:09PM|#

...Hillary had a "great belly laugh"...

Either MacAuliffe is a moron or he thinks we're freakin' blind.

|9.28.07 @ 8:11PM|#

From John McCain's talk with Beliefnet -

Q. A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?
A. I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.

Golly Gee, I allways thought the United States was founded as a secular nation. As did G. Washington, who was, y'know, there when it happened.

[scritch] As another name gets crossed off my list of possibles. Damn, would you say he's pandering to the Pat Robertson crowd?

Anonymo the O.D.B|9.28.07 @ 8:12PM|#

Get the money, dolla dolla bill y'all.

The \"debate\"|9.28.07 @ 8:14PM|#

The Dem debate could have been interesting if Russert and King were real journalists and had asked follow-up questions. If they'd really pressed they could have knocked at least a couple of them out of the race.

So, why didn't they?

And, why am I about the only person pointing that out?

Anonymo the Anonymous|9.28.07 @ 8:17PM|#

And, why am I about the only person pointing that out?

We're all out hiring Mexicans to point it out for us.

thoreau|9.28.07 @ 8:39PM|#

IdidntwatchtheDemocraticDebatesoididntknowthatnofollowupquestionson
illegalimmigrationwereasked.IllhavetowatchthenextonetoseetheMECHA
puppetmasterscontrollingrussertandking.

SIV|9.28.07 @ 8:46PM|#

Obama was somnalent, Edwards was saurian, Hillary was sthenic.

David,


Hey! Some of us went to public school.
I got the first two adjectives OK but I had to look up sthenic to be sure it meant what I though it did. Interestingly, Google and online dictionaries don't like your spelling of
somnalent and prefer somnolent. We amateurs don't have easy access to your vast pro journalist linguistic resources.

|9.28.07 @ 8:48PM|#

As a Christian myself, I hate this silly debate about whether the US was founded as a "Christian nation", whatever that means. Obviously, at the time of its founding, the vast majority of its citizens were Christians and the culture was heavily Christianized; I don't think many atheists could deny that.

At the same time, its legal structure was set up to explicitly give no advantage to any particular religion or lack thereof; and I don't think many fundies could deny that, either.

So, it seems to me that both sides are taking an indisputable fact and trying to use it to disprove the other side's indisputable fact.

|9.28.07 @ 8:51PM|#

SIV, what Dave lacks in spelling proficiency he makes up for with vocabulary expansiveness.

And we know he's not using a thesaurus, because you have to be able to spell the words to find synonyms for them... ;-)

|9.28.07 @ 8:54PM|#

Ron Paul did raise 500k in 3.5 days. He's currently at 770k. Check the live meter www.ronpaul2008.com.

SIV|9.28.07 @ 9:03PM|#

They got the geek thing goin' on over at NRO with
Star Trek day or weekend or something.

vsync|9.28.07 @ 9:08PM|#

J sub D, yes the United States was founded as a largely secular nation (although keep in mind that they appointed a Congressional chaplain for example). But were the states bound to this? If so, how come several prominent founding fathers went home and either advocated for or established state funding for churches?

You want to close the loophole, (1) pass secularizing state laws or constitutional amendments (2) [optional] pass a federally secularizing constitutional amendment. Keep in mind that Ron Paul advocates following the law even when he disagrees with it, unlike every other candidate, so I think that would solve your problem.

SIV|9.28.07 @ 9:11PM|#

I still challenge all you bitches to take the American Civic Literacy test

Anonymo the Anonymous|9.28.07 @ 9:36PM|#

I still challenge all you bitches to take the American Civic Literacy test

58/60 here. Missed the ones near the end about the Fed and biggest federal expenditure. Interesting quiz.

|9.28.07 @ 9:50PM|#

You want to close the loophole, (1) pass secularizing state laws or constitutional amendments (2) [optional] pass a federally secularizing constitutional amendment.

Loophole? What are you referring to? Except for a few asides from Clarence the T, there seems to be no doubt at this point that the 14th amendment incorporated the 1st amendment against the states. And while the 1st amendment doesn't require a secular nation per se, it does require a neutral attitude towards religion. How is that a loophole?

|9.28.07 @ 9:51PM|#

"...Obviously, at the time of its founding, the vast majority of its citizens were Christians and the culture was heavily Christianized; I don't think many atheists could deny that.

At the same time, its legal structure was set up to explicitly give no advantage to any particular religion or lack thereof; and I don't think many fundies could deny that, either...."

At the time of the American Revolution and the subsequent years when the constitution was written, religious bigotry, still including literally burning "heretics" alive, was rampant in Europe. In addition, a group of highly influential French philosophers, including Voltaire, were very vocally condemning both religion itself (for its often lethal intolerance) and the use of religion by governments as a means of political oppression. The authors of the Constitution were very much aware of this and in some cases were personally acquainted with the French philosophers.

/That's/ why distrust of religion is so strongly reflected in the Constitution, and rightly so.

|9.28.07 @ 10:46PM|#

/That's/ why distrust of religion is so strongly reflected in the Constitution, and rightly so.

My copy of the US Constitution, which I have on good authority to be an accurate copy, does not include any distrust of any particular religion or of religion in general. It does take a neutral stance, in that the Federal government can't promote or deny religion, or there's nothing at about distrust. I would go back to whatever store you bought your counterfeit constitution at and demand your money back.

Eric Dondero|9.28.07 @ 11:17PM|#

Ron Paul won't make it past Iowa. Hes toast. The only hope to beat Hillary is to nominate American's Mayor or old cowlips herself becomes President. How would the cynics are reason like her to become President?

|9.28.07 @ 11:22PM|#

I still challenge all you bitches to take the American Civic Literacy test

Got 55/60. Tough quiz. How'd you do, SIV? Curious how our resident trolls / leftist shills would do (though they'd likely lie and say they got 100% right).

Can someone explain to me the answer to Question #58? Thought I had a decent grasp of how our fiat money system works, but apparently some gaps.

Jackson|9.28.07 @ 11:27PM|#

Donnnndddddddeeeerrrrroooooo!!!!!

Eric Dondero|9.28.07 @ 11:33PM|#

And by the way, the Democrat candidates have confirmed their nanny stater status. They have endorsed smoking bans in all public places. Better vote for Rudi Giuliani, the only one that can defeat both them and the radical jihadists.

SIV|9.28.07 @ 11:35PM|#

prolefeed,

I got 57 out of 60.
I missed #58 as well- the correct answer rate is only slightly better than %20.

I'm an idiot I missed the first question.I got confused by John Smith and John White in VA and put it in the 16th century rather than the 17th.

My other wrong one was miss id-ing part of the Declaration as the pre-amble to the Constitution or vice/versa.

I took it pretty casually,very quickly(10 minutes), and didn't second guess any answers.
Dig around on their site , they have a lot of statistical data on results.

Jackson|9.28.07 @ 11:41PM|#

And by the way, the Democrat candidates have confirmed their nanny stater status.

How long have you been in a coma, exactly?

They have endorsed smoking bans in all public places.

Wait for it...

Though a similar law was passed by Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudolph Giuliani, which banned smoking in restaurants with more than 35 seats...

Whoops!

better vote for Rudi Giuliani

...says the guy that can't even spell the name correctly, much less keep an ounce of consistency. The Mark of Excellence, indeed.

iih|9.28.07 @ 11:50PM|#

Since this is the Friday political thread:

Hypocritical Freedom of Speech.

Talking of church and state, I was just listening on satellite radio to Fox, and it seems that there is an uproar about that "F--k Bush" article in Colorado. Hannity was mad at them for disrespecting Bush and was essentially advocating self-censorship by the student paper so that we have a "civilized" debate.

Same with O'Rielly on the San Francisco ad, also asking for a "civilized" discourse since this kind of thing is offensive to Christians. Same with Michelle Malkin on the same "fiasco". Remind me again of their position regarding the offensive-to-Muslims Danish cartoons?

And of course there is the whole offensive "Betray Us" Moveone.org ad. All those who were offended by the ad, strangely, were the same ones who were all over Muslims for their feeling offended by the Danish cartoons.

I just can't help but note the hypocrisy. As I mentioned several times on previous H&R threads, as a Muslim I found the Danish cartoons stupid (and somewhat offensive to my religious sensibilities as a civilized individual, but found the violent response by some Muslims also very stupid. I am good with the non-violent objections.

While I found the SF ad clever, I thought that it was provocative to Christian sensibilities. Still, I am all for freedom of expression -- bet I prefer smart freedom of speech even better.

Mad Max|9.28.07 @ 11:55PM|#

Eric Wormtongue, I mean Rittberg, I mean Dondero,

Let me see if I can paraphrase your remarks:

"Oh, no, don't support Paul, he's going to lose! Stop supporting him, please stop! Why not support Rudy Giulani, who repeatedly and publicly avowed his support for abortion on demand, which kills more human beings than jihadists ever did!"

Eric Dondero|9.28.07 @ 11:58PM|#

Mad Max, you know I believe being pro-Choice is key to being a libertarian. Theres no way you can be pro-life and believe in freedom.

Richard Brodie|9.29.07 @ 12:01AM|#

How would I like Hillary to become President?

Well if Ron Paul is not her opponent, then I'd rather have her than Rudy, for two reasons:

1. She would be less likely to start WWIII by nuking Iran.

2. She would be more likely to suffocate the nation with her Marxist + CFRfascist agendas, to the point where the American people will be gasping sufficiently desperately for a breath of fresh Constitutional air, so that Ron Paul or someone like him might be electable in 2012.

CFR|9.29.07 @ 12:07AM|#

Ooooooohhhh the CFR!

BURGER BUILDERS!

The IMF!


BOHEMIAN GROVE!

RENAISSANCE WEEKEND!


THE MASONS!

Richard Brodie|9.29.07 @ 12:08AM|#

As Ayn Rand might ask: pro-freedom - for whom?

You can't be anti-life and believe in freedom - for the aborted.

|9.29.07 @ 12:09AM|#

Eric,
"Ron Paul won't make it past Iowa. He's toast."
If Ron Paul or Kucinich do not make it past Iowa, then I think we are ALL toast. In some ways I am not sure which is worse Hillary or Rudy. Hillary just said that she can not guarantee that we will be out of Iraq by the end of her term. Just like Rudy. Both will likely get us into a heck of a war in the middle east and in other Moslem countries (Iran then Pakistan then Syria then... more as they get worried that they are next), that will inflame a billion people against us AND then bankrupt us in a guerilla war on a much larger scale than Iraq and Afghanistan. If it does not get one of our cities nuked, and then we nuke a few of theirs AND then...... everyone's toast.
Pray for America AND Paul and Kucinich, the only honest men running who still remember what America is all about AND it ain't nation building and pre-emptive wars.

Mad Max|9.29.07 @ 12:12AM|#

"Mad Max, you know I believe . . ."

How should I know what you believe? Even if I cared, how would I find out? By looking at your own statements about your latest belief-of-the-week?

"Theres no way you can be pro-life and believe in freedom."

Libertarians for Life hasn't gotten this piece of news:

http://l4l.org/

|9.29.07 @ 12:18AM|#

By the way I was 55 of 60.
Missing Plato's Republic was embarrassing as was "public good"
The other 3 were "just war", #27 and #58.

|9.29.07 @ 12:49AM|#

you know I believe being pro-Choice is key to being a libertarian. Theres no way you can be pro-life and believe in freedom.

go back and read the preamble to the declaration of independence. If you don't have the right to life what else matters? If you don't want children then use birth control. In the slight chance that a slip up occurs with that method then put the kid up for adoption, If you ask the baby they'd probably choose adoption over having their brain sucked out...just a guess though.

picaro|9.29.07 @ 1:03AM|#

Paul's meter has almost broached $800k now.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.29.07 @ 1:11AM|#

- C.R.E.A.M.

Cream was a great band and I had a relatively fun little rejoinder put together but my ISP sucks so I am currently relegated to dial up which is too slow to post a link to any great Cream tune.

Secondly, let's all vote for St Hill because, hell, Ron Paul, well, we only agree with 90% of what he stands for. [shakes head and spits]

Thirdly, just watched Pale Rider with my boy. can't believe it's been twenty some years already. Deevine retribution courtesy of Sam Colt just works for me. Works for That Boy too.

|9.29.07 @ 1:23AM|#

"Paul's meter has almost broached $800k now."

C'mon people, keep drinking!

|9.29.07 @ 2:06AM|#

Newt, lol. Another promoter of the Big Lie. By all means, keep splitting up that warmonger vote.

|9.29.07 @ 2:35AM|#

I love Eric Dondero. Its kinda cute how stupid he is.

|9.29.07 @ 2:49AM|#

"Ron Paul won't make it past Iowa."

Not with THAT attitude he won't! Jeez.

teh|9.29.07 @ 3:05AM|#

56/60...

Re 58:
Are there any other people out there who just never fully understand monetary economics no matter how much they read about it?

Joseph the Libertarian|9.29.07 @ 4:09AM|#

Hey, Eric Dondero:

You're not a libertarian, you're a fascist, stop polluting my philosophy, you piece of shit. If I ever see you, I'm going to stomp a mud hole in your ugly face, you stupid cunt bag!

Ron Paul is actually ABORTION NEUTRAL, he will leave it to states to decide, you douche bag.

|9.29.07 @ 4:43AM|#

Being neutral on abortion at the Federal level isn't actually being abortion neutral, because states can then implement de jure bans, like Rep. Paul's state, which is very much a pro-life one.

Also, if you asked a baby whether it prefers to be adopted or had its brains sucked out, it could not answer you because it is incapable of reasoning the question. Nevermind that in many cases we aren't actually talking about the abortion of a baby, and instead the aborting of a fetus.

The partial birth controversy I thought was important because it highlighted the necessity to define legal protection for infants, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that a fetus is a person entitled to life.

|9.29.07 @ 5:13AM|#

Nevermind that in many cases we aren't actually talking about the abortion of a baby, and instead the aborting of a fetus.

The partial birth controversy I thought was important because it highlighted the necessity to define legal protection for infants, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that a fetus is a person entitled to life.

Bradford -- your comment assumes that there is an unambiguous definition of the difference between a "person/infant/baby" and a "fetus". Care to enlighten us about this definition that everyone agrees with? Because you seem to believe, based on your other comments above, that some unborn tissues are human, and some aren't. At what point between conception and delivery does this sharp and unambiguous transition occur, and why do you consider your opinion definitive, and everyone else's obviously wrong?

pilby|9.29.07 @ 5:26AM|#

Also, if you asked a baby whether it prefers to be adopted or had its brains sucked out, it could not answer you because it is incapable of reasoning the question.

so... it's ok to suck its brains out until it's what, 4 years old? (when it can articulate that it prefers not to experience that)

|9.29.07 @ 7:20AM|#

That's 58/60 for me. Missed the 1812 War question, and the Monroe Doctrine question. Got all the economic questions right.

Re: Q58, as Fed buys back bonds, it pumps money into the system. That money supply bump has to be put into system somehow, which the banks are glad to handle.

|9.29.07 @ 8:25AM|#

45 out of 60,

Damn, everybody here scored higher than me.

I gonna have to hit the books some more. Well when I took the test it was late at night, and I took it quickly, and how many of you bitches speak 3 languages?

|9.29.07 @ 8:28AM|#

I still challenge all you bitches to take the American Civic Literacy test

59/60, but to be honest, a lot of my answers were guesses. Missed #60.

Syloson of Samos|9.29.07 @ 8:37AM|#

It is reasonable to assume that we'll have significant numbers of troops in Iraq come the 2012 election.

|9.29.07 @ 8:41AM|#

Hmm. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the pro-war libertarian doesn't like the pro-life libertarian?

Oh well...

M|9.29.07 @ 8:45AM|#

Obviously, at the time of its founding, the vast majority of its citizens were Christians and the culture was heavily Christianized; I don't think many atheists could deny that.

But many asthenists could. Although only weakly.

|9.29.07 @ 9:01AM|#

I got a 55 out of 60.. Did very good on the history questions, but I missed #60, the one on the fed buying back bonds, and 3 of the "who said what" philosphy ones.

Syloson of Samos|9.29.07 @ 9:07AM|#

I got 59 out of 60. I disagreed with a few of the "right" answers. I missed question 58.

|9.29.07 @ 9:13AM|#

My biggest disagreement with a "right answer" that I got correct was that the Constitution set up an "indirect Democracy".... It was closer than any of the other answers, but last time I checked it had actually set up a "Constitutional Republic".

|9.29.07 @ 9:21AM|#

The difference being, IMO, that in a truely "Indirect Democracy" elected officials would be able to do whatever the hell they wanted "for the good of the people".

In a "Constitutional Republic", however, these elected officials are limited in power to a very narrow set of defined perogotives, with all other decisions residing in the hands of the member states. (If I recall correctly, the US Senate wasn't even chosen by popular vote until the 17th amendment, which did not occur until the early 20th century.)

At least that's the way I see it.

|9.29.07 @ 9:41AM|#

America's Mayor?????

Did Rudy not openly and unashamedly state in a debate that our MILITARY should be specifically trained in NATION BUILDING?

Can there be a bigger idiot, even named Clinton???

|9.29.07 @ 9:46AM|#

I got a 48/60. I guessed on quite a few though.

|9.29.07 @ 9:56AM|#

Obviously, at the time of its founding, the vast majority of its citizens were Christians and the culture was heavily Christianized; I don't think many atheists could deny that.

At the same time, its legal structure was set up to explicitly give no advantage to any particular religion or lack thereof; and I don't think many fundies could deny that, either.

CRimethink, if wr want an argument, we're going to have to change the subject.

|9.29.07 @ 10:05AM|#

"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

Rudy G., 1994.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260

iih|9.29.07 @ 10:10AM|#

kwais:

I took it quickly, and how many of you bitches speak 3 languages?

I do!

I scored 45, and I am not an American. Those of you who scored around 45 or less should feel ashamed.

Regarding the latest from Rudy, check this out. Pathetic!

robc|9.29.07 @ 10:14AM|#

56/60

Of the 4 I missed, I dont get the "just war" one. I didnt think any of the answers were right, but the one they claim is right doesnt make any sense. Wouldnt all wars be just by that definition?

Or none, maybe?

How the hell do you define a "legitimate" sovereign?

SIV|9.29.07 @ 10:23AM|#

The worst reported scores by H&R commenters on the American Civic Literacy test are still better than the mean score for Harvard Seniors.

|9.29.07 @ 10:33AM|#

I still challenge all you bitches to take the American Civic Literacy test

Only missed two of 'em. Most were pretty easy though.

|9.29.07 @ 10:36AM|#

:Re 58:
Are there any other people out there who just never fully understand monetary economics no matter how much they read about it?

Yes. I'm proof.

|9.29.07 @ 10:46AM|#

Same with O'Rielly on the San Francisco ad, also asking for a "civilized" discourse since this kind of thing is offensive to Christians. Same with Michelle Malkin on the same "fiasco". Remind me again of their position regarding the offensive-to-Muslims Danish cartoons?

iih, I think we'll find most self professed libertarians consistent on this. e.g. Don't get too ipset when insulted. It may be rude, but dammit, get over it! Sticks and stones etc.

iih|9.29.07 @ 10:52AM|#

iih, I think we'll find most self professed libertarians consistent on this. e.g. Don't get too ipset when insulted. It may be rude, but dammit, get over it! Sticks and stones etc.

Yeah, I know about the libertarian position. I got used to it already and think I am better off this way (not that I would not get over it in the past -- I would just be "upset"). I was just highlighting the double standard of some of these maniacs.

|9.29.07 @ 10:53AM|#

59/60. I missed the last one about which has been the greatest expenditure over the past 20 years. Good quiz.

Asharak|9.29.07 @ 10:55AM|#

You know, I think Ron Paul is pretty out there myself, but why the hostility when Reason praises Paul on the instances where he's absolutely right, like on the drug war, for instance?

Besides, the other Republican candidates are proposing things that are no less insane than some of Paul's positions, but they're not right on anything.

iih|9.29.07 @ 10:56AM|#

But I do still believe that responsible (and informed) free speech is smarter than reckless free speech.

|9.29.07 @ 10:57AM|#

iih: Same with O'Rielly on the San Francisco ad, also asking for a "civilized" discourse since this kind of thing is offensive to Christians. Same with Michelle Malkin on the same "fiasco". Remind me again of their position regarding the offensive-to-Muslims Danish cartoons?

Unless O'Rielly and Malkin are advocating childish riots and silly lawsuits, the hypocrisy is in your own mind - which is only to be expected from someone who takes seriously the rantings of a medieval epileptic lunatic.

And of course there is the whole offensive "Betray Us" Moveone.org ad. All those who were offended by the ad, strangely, were the same ones who were all over Muslims for their feeling offended by the Danish cartoons.

That's not true. Besides, accusing a general of betrayal is akin to accusing him of treason, which happens to be a capital criminal offense.

|9.29.07 @ 11:06AM|#

Dr. Paul raised the $500,000 in 3.5 days...It has now been raised to $1,000,000. It stands at +/- $830,000........

|9.29.07 @ 11:07AM|#

Hmm. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the pro-war libertarian doesn't like the pro-life libertarian?

Ironic? I don't know if that's the right term. Inconsistent might be a better description. Principled people can disagree on this issue without turning into flaming a-holes but they rarely do. My take is more of a constitutional one. IMHO, Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision by the supremes. I'm pro choice with reservations, but believe this should be fought out in those laboratories of democracy known as the states. Also IMHO, if Roe v. Wade were overturned the republicans wouldn't like how the results play out in state elections.

|9.29.07 @ 11:12AM|#

Uhh, you guys do know that the ISI, which came out with the Civic Literacy Test, is a paleoconservative neoCatholic ogranization? I'm not knocking it, Modern Age and Intercollegiate Review are, by conservative standards, well done "academic" (not peer reviewed though I suspect) journals. But it's all romanticization of orthodoxy and agrarian traditional values which I suspect would make most libertarians here a bit less than in full agreement.

The whole test is rigged so that conservative undergrads will score better than folks at schools which teach a critical view on the conservative narrative of US history. This can be percieved right at the beginning with such questions as this:

George Washington's role in America's founding is best characterized as:
A. prudent general and statesman.
B. influential writer on constitutional principles.
C. leader of the Massachusetts delegation to the Constitutional congress.
D. strong advocate for states rights.
E. social compact theorist.

Prudent general and statesman? No editorializing there!

Or how about this:
The phrase that in America there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state appears in:
A. George Washington's Farewell Address.
B. The Mayflower Compact.
C. the Constitution.
D. the Declaration of Independence.
E. Thomas Jefferson's letters.

Every conservative religious professor likes to drill this into their students because they want them to remember that seperation of church and state (the exact phrase that is) is not in the Constitution itself.

There are lots more examples.

Asharak|9.29.07 @ 11:12AM|#

Mad Max, you know I believe being pro-Choice is key to being a libertarian. Theres no way you can be pro-life and believe in freedom.

There's no way you can support the War on Drugs and the surveillance state and believe in freedom either, yet you endorse Giuliani.
And as I've told someone else here, do you actually think the Republicans you carry water for will ever see you as anything other than a pothead liberal who just happens to want a tax cut?

Also, Roe v. Wade isn't going to be overturned any time soon, so stop whining.

|9.29.07 @ 11:15AM|#

I scored 45, and I am not an American. Those of you who scored around 45 or less should feel ashamed.

No, if I remember correctly, you're a Canuck. But I love ya anyway. BTW I scored well, but (humbly boasting) that has as much to do with my test taking skills as my knowledge of civics. ;-)

iih|9.29.07 @ 11:15AM|#

Mr. F. Le Mur:

It is my experience that whenever I respond to you, I end up getting nothing back from you. That is either because you are arrogant (I am somehow not worthy of your time) or because you are weak of mind. When you respond to my previous attempts at having a rational discourse, let me know. In the meantime, I have more important things to attend to, including a rational discourse with others on this thread.

P.S. I have my responses ready to be fired. But I won't until you decide to respectfully respond to me! In the meantime, enjoy your time in oblivion.

|9.29.07 @ 11:17AM|#

I was just highlighting the double standard of some of these maniacs.

Hey, they provide comic relief sometimes.

|9.29.07 @ 11:18AM|#

56/60. And I missed some really odd ones (Gulf of Tonkin?)

iih|9.29.07 @ 11:18AM|#

J sub D, I am not the Canuck (unless by Canuck you mean Canadian). That was Aresen I think. I am on the other side of the country (actually roaming between both countries -- and no I am not a truck driver). If I would be a fan of any team, it would be the Canadiens, the Patriots and the Red Sox!

iih|9.29.07 @ 11:19AM|#

Hey, they provide comic relief sometimes.

Sadly enough indeed.

|9.29.07 @ 11:22AM|#

The many questions on the Declaration is also a staple of conservative education (see, they like it better than the Constitution because it has the "creator" talk). And then there is this handy little gem of American civics:
Which statement is a common argument against the claim that "man cannot know things"?
A. Professors teach opinion not knowledge.
B. Appellate judges do not comprehend social justice.
C. Consensus belief in a democracy always contains error.
D. Man trusts his ability to know in order to reject his ability to know.
E. Social scientists cannot objectively rank cultures.

WTF?

And this one:
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas would concur that:
A. all moral and political truth is relative to one's time and place.
B. moral ideas are best explained as material accidents or byproducts of evolution.
C. values originating in one's conscience cannot be judged by others.
D. Christianity is the only true religion and should rule the state.
E. certain permanent moral and political truths are accessible to human reason.

Who knew that this philosophical view of the veracity of man's reasoning power (a staple of conservative natural law theory) was so central to American Civics? The test is much worse than I would have guessed when I heard on the radio that ISI sponsored it. I would say the ones who really "fail" it are any who think this is a honest test of American civics...(I got 59 out of 60 btw, I just guessed "what would a conservative say is true on this question").

Asharak|9.29.07 @ 11:23AM|#

And the thing about Giuliani is that I don't hate him like some people do. In fact, I have a grudging respect for him and I even think he was one of New York City's most able mayors. I'm also appalled by the level of hatred directed at him from sites like "Free" Republic (where Giuliani supporters have also been banned) because he thinks gays are human.
I just despise his (nanny) statism and his Orwellian contempt for civil liberties.

|9.29.07 @ 11:25AM|#

iih | September 29, 2007, 11:15am | #

Mr. F. Le Mur: ...

Touche, iih. Well (civilly) put.

iih|9.29.07 @ 11:28AM|#

J sub D: I am heeding your advice by exercising my right to "rude" freedom of speech ;-)

|9.29.07 @ 11:30AM|#

BTWW, I'm an atheist who thinks all theists are deluded. There's no need to intentionally insult somebody over it. Atheists and theists alike should try to remember that. Yeah, I cam rip up a religion as well as the next guy, but it just pisses people off to no avail.

|9.29.07 @ 11:32AM|#

I'm unsure why th hate on Guliani by libertarians myself. Is it the gun control thing? That kind of comes with being an urban mayor these days (sadly). But the man has had some pro-immigrant, pro-gay, pro-choice moments (unlike most GOP frontrunners) and he's certainly no prudish Christian Coalition type. He's pretty free market. And he did a great job of making NYC a very vibrant place again (though I guess libertarians would have to frown on his very aggressive targeting of porno shops in the city and other "Broken Windows" type strategies).

iih|9.29.07 @ 11:38AM|#

There's no need to intentionally insult somebody over it. Atheists and theists alike should try to remember that. Yeah, I cam rip up a religion as well as the next guy, but it just pisses people off to no avail.

Exactly my philosophy. My belief in the existence of God is fundamentally reason-based than anything else. Plus, religion does provide some sense of security and warmth. But that's just me.

My "reasons" are summerized in a discussion I had with someone on a previous thread. It starts here and continues down the thread.

|9.29.07 @ 11:39AM|#

Has there been any attempt by a libertarian org like Cato or the LP to take a host of libertarian positions and then rank the Presidential candidates on them? A lot of libertarian thinkers and pundits have weighed in on who the best or worst is, but I'd like to see such a quantitative approach. Anybody know of one?

iih|9.29.07 @ 11:40AM|#

MNG: But his foreign policy and Orwellian rhetoric is very scary. I hate to use the word "hate" ;-), but I really really really absolutely dislikes the guy. On the other hand, his current rhetoric is just a means to winning the nomination, and when he actually becomes president, he'll fall back to his good old self. I dunno.

|9.29.07 @ 11:44AM|#

Open weekend thread claim!

4 hours ago

YANGON, Myanmar (AP) - U.N. envoy Ibrahim Gambari arrived in Myanmar Saturday, looking to convince the military junta to end its brutal crackdown on demonstrators that has virtually strangled a people's movement to end 45 years of military rule.

Yeah, that'll make the thugs sit up and take notice! /sarcasm

SIV|9.29.07 @ 11:45AM|#

Mr Nice Guy,

Fixed it for ya

George Washington's role in America's founding is best characterized as:

A. White male oppressor
B. Hetero-sexist slave-holder
C. Patriarchal militatistic mass-murderer
D. Genocidal capitalist
E. Nothing,history is a process of mass movements

|9.29.07 @ 11:50AM|#

SIV
Of course that would be a more extreme version of an opposite ideological test, but are you arguing that the test doesn't have some clear ideological leanings of its own? Why would a American Civics test have so many questions on the objectivity of human knowledge for example? I suspect you know what's going on, you just approve.

|9.29.07 @ 11:52AM|#

SIV
Of course I should think it would be hard for you to see conservative bias, like it's hard for fish to notice water.

|9.29.07 @ 12:00PM|#

4) George Washington's role in America's founding is best characterized as:
A. prudent general and statesman.

I've got no problem with that description. None whatsoever. Hell, V. I. Lenin would likely have agreed.

|9.29.07 @ 12:02PM|#

The American Civics Literacy test strikes me as being as fair as this one:
http://www.blackconsciousness.com/
Or this one:
http://wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceChitlingTestShort.html

I did OK on the first, but terrible on the second...

|9.29.07 @ 12:15PM|#

The American Civics Literacy test strikes me as being as fair as this one:
http://www.blackconsciousness.com/
Or this one:
http://wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceChitlingTestShort.html

I did OK on the first, but terrible on the second..

Oh, bullshit. I tried to think of a better description for that post, I really did. I couldn't..

Mad Max|9.29.07 @ 12:17PM|#

Concerning Dr. Paul:

He's not "neutral" on abortion, he simply won't violate the Constitution for any purpose, not even to protect the unborn. There's plenty he can do *within* the Constitution to fight for the unborn, primarily by getting the federal government (courts included) out of the abortion-promoting business. Of course, after *Roe* goes, the main battle will be in the states.

Concerning Giuliani:

"I even think he was one of New York City's most able mayors . . ."

I can acknowledge this, but it only means that Giuliani is more patriotic than Fernando Wood, more honest than Jimmy Walker, more competent than David Dinkins, and less annoying than Ed Koch. Those aren't exactly high bars to clear.

Stu|9.29.07 @ 12:24PM|#

Ron Paul with his obsolete 19th century ideas about government and economics would turn this country into a huge corpratist plantation for the benefit of the exploiting classes. Child labour, anyone? Get eight years of Ron Paul, it would happen.

|9.29.07 @ 12:28PM|#

I can acknowledge this, but it only means that Giuliani is more patriotic than Fernando Wood, more honest than Jimmy Walker, more competent than David Dinkins, and less annoying than Ed Koch. Those aren't exactly high bars to clear.

Ouch!

SIV|9.29.07 @ 12:41PM|#

Ron Paul with his obsolete 19th century ideas about government and economics would turn this country into a huge corpratist plantation for the benefit of the exploiting classes. Child labour, anyone? Get eight years of Ron Paul, it would happen.

You are behind the curve Stu
On election day where I sometimes live they run radio ads on "Urban" radio stations saying if you don't vote the Republicans will reinstate Slavery.

Stu|9.29.07 @ 12:43PM|#

SIV I bet if this was 1850 or so Ron Paul would tell us all how he cant do something about slavery because that would be against the contsitution.

|9.29.07 @ 12:56PM|#

The sad thing is that Hilary looks like a lock in the Dem primary and anybody other than Paul in the Repub primary. If Hilary wins the general, we can look forward to some squabbles over abortion or healthcare. If Rudy-McRomney wins we can look forward to some squabbles over guns or flag burning. But WHICHEVER ONE WINS we can look forward to a president so desperate to prove their credentials on national security or defense that they won't hesitate to continue the reach of big brother into our lives.

Asharak|9.29.07 @ 1:13PM|#

I'm unsure why th hate on Guliani by libertarians myself. Is it the gun control thing? That kind of comes with being an urban mayor these days (sadly). But the man has had some pro-immigrant, pro-gay, pro-choice moments (unlike most GOP frontrunners) and he's certainly no prudish Christian Coalition type. He's pretty free market. And he did a great job of making NYC a very vibrant place again (though I guess libertarians would have to frown on his very aggressive targeting of porno shops in the city and other "Broken Windows" type strategies).

True, Rudy isn't a Bible-thumper, but his "law and order" policies were/are just as bad. He won't jail you for being gay, but he'll jail you for rolling doobies. Besides, courting the gay vote in New York City is a matter of not shitting where you eat.

And he didn't seem to include adult theatres, grindhouses, street vendors and even many mom-and-pop establishments in his support of the free market.

I also question whether his "broken windows" strategies really reduced crime in New York considering that the crime rate in the U.S. in general dropped during the 1990's.

|9.29.07 @ 1:14PM|#

Mr Nice Guy,

In regard to the George Washington question, it's asking for the BEST description of the given choices. An avowed ultra-left feminist Marxist who knows US history should recognize that the other choices are clearly false, and the "prudent general and statesman" choice is the best of the given choices, however much they may disagree with the connotation.

As for the "wall of separation" thing, you're really grasping at straws.

|9.29.07 @ 1:16PM|#

Of course I should think it would be hard for you to see conservative bias, like it's hard for fish to notice water.

Ah yes, the irrefutable "if you don't see bias it's because you're biased" argument. Haven't seen that one in a while (not)...

|9.29.07 @ 1:18PM|#

Asharak,

Don't forget Mr Giuliani's foreign policy views. Mr Nice Guy is veering dangerously close to the Donderoesque view that libertarians are just free marketers who want abortion on demand.

Joshua Holmes|9.29.07 @ 1:26PM|#

Edwards was saurian

saurian (SAW-ree-in, adj.) - of or pertaining to Sauron

Personally, I think that's more Hillary than Edwards. YMMV

|9.29.07 @ 1:26PM|#

Stu,

Maintaining slavery as an institution required a lot of govt assistance. Keep in mind, slaves only remained slaves because state and local govts would force escaped slaves back to their masters. At the Federal level, propping up slavery required a national fugitive slave law that an 1850s Ron Paul would certainly have opposed.

So, yes, I think Ron Paul would have opposed going to war over slavery, but I think his philosophy would have made slavery very difficult to perpetuate for as long as it survived. Of course, the Civil War wasn't really about slavery anyway -- four slave states fought on the side of the Union! -- but that's a discussion for another day...

|9.29.07 @ 1:28PM|#

Saurian? Lizards don't get $400 haircuts!

Jim Rongstad|9.29.07 @ 1:28PM|#

I shun Eric Dondero.

|9.29.07 @ 1:34PM|#

Crimethink and J sub D-I feel sorry for you if know so little about the conservative movement in general or ISI in particular that you don't know that this test obviously reflects their take on American civics, history, and the subject of philosophy in general (hence the bizarrely placed epistemological questions).
The test is not blatantly false of course, in fact little in it is false. But if you can't see that the kinds of questions asked are more likely to be stressed in a conservative environment or classroom, I really feel for you. I guess you think Fox is fair and balanced as well.
It's a common point and rhetorical device among religious conservative thinkers to point out that the wall of seperation language is not in the text of the 1st Amendment. A liberal version of the test would have asked a question about how the Founders were Deist or that the Constitution does not mention God in the text (except to say "in the year of our Lord").
Everything a conservative would teach his or her kid that can be found in the quiz: an abortion question, a Ronald Reagan great moment question, an establishment clause not equalling banning prayer in school question, a couple of "great Books" questions (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas), a Edmund Burke (!) question, a Catholic just war question, a "free markets are better because" question...It's not blatant of course (Ronald Reagan was _____ President ever.
A. Great
b. Greatest") but it's certainly stressing points a conservative looking at US history would...

|9.29.07 @ 1:35PM|#

57, and I found many of the questions annoying, although the test was good overall. First of all, although I got the question right, I don't think knowledge of Edmund Burke is necessary for American civics (the same is true of the Plato-Aquinas question). The test obviously over emphasizes conservative Catholic philosophers (why might that be?).

Second, the Constitutional questions are clearly politically biased. Question 30 is technically ok, but it implies that a political opinion is a constitutional fact inasmuch as it implies that "school prayer" is not forbidden by the Bill of Rights (no matter your opinion on this, it's not a matter of historical fact as to whether the 1st amendment prohibits school prayer). Question 23 suffers from a similar bias, as many people (including the Supreme Court) would argue that judicial review was implicitly established by the Bill of Rights and then only affirmed by Marbury. Thus both (a) and (b) could be considered correct answers. But of course, we know where ISI stands on that question.

|9.29.07 @ 1:36PM|#

"Maintaining slavery as an institution required a lot of govt assistance." No more so than to secure the rights of private property in general crimethink, which is exactly how slaveholders saw the institution. Remember Dred Scott featured the argument of unconstitutional deprivation of property rather prominently, an argument an 18th century Libertarian would have probably liked...

|9.29.07 @ 1:36PM|#

Argg, I meant to say "Constitution," not "Bill of Rights" when I was discussing the Marbury question.

|9.29.07 @ 1:37PM|#

Chris S. can actually see. Now J sub D, SIV, crimethink et al., can hopefully open their eyes. I know Foxnews is 24 hours, but you can change the channel you know :).

|9.29.07 @ 1:40PM|#

"But of course, we know where ISI stands on that question." Of course some of the (strangely) highly opinionated commentators here do not know this, or much about ISI obviously. And yet they pontificate on the subject...
BTW-I don't think the test is useless. College students should know the conservative-Catholic take on things as it is very influential (look at National Review). But they should know the liberal-secularist and the libertarian, and the anarchist, etc., take as well. And no one of them should hold out they are a fair measure of "American civics."

|9.29.07 @ 1:43PM|#

Having perused Mr. Dondero's site, it becomes apparent that his definition of libertarian is: 1) a conservative who is socially liberal to a moderate degree; or 2) a liberal who is fiscally conservative to a moderate degree. He is redefining centrism as libertarianism! Add to that his insistance that libertarians should be ardent interventionists.

|9.29.07 @ 1:48PM|#

Crimethink and J sub D-I feel sorry for you

If so, send checks or money order to:

J sub D Relief Fund
PO Box 3.14159...
Rational City, MI
12345-6789

I dunno about Crimethink, but I'm friggin' devastated. I'll cry on a strippers shoulder now. That vulnability thing always works with Monique.

Stu|9.29.07 @ 1:48PM|#

Regardless of what Ron Paul may think the Constitution is out of date for todays society. It was written when this nation was still agricultural, slave-holding, and racist. Only those in the libertarian fantasy world would seriously think of following that outdated document to the letter. It was not made for our modern, advanced society which requires more government intervention than the post office and the army.

|9.29.07 @ 1:52PM|#

Mr Nice Guy,

I hate Giuliani for a multitude of reasons.

Let's first start with the prosecution of Milken. The "crimes" that Giuliani charged Milken with were for accounting and reporting actions that had not been considered crimes before. In fact, throughout the securities industry, Milkens systems were thought to conform with SEC regulations. Milken's crime, however, was that he was a pioneer in "junk bonds" which permitted investors and entrepeneurs to bypass the established investment houses. These investment houses, aghast at the competition, started a propaganda campaign falsely accusing Milken was damaging the U.S. economy, whipped up public fear and uncertainty. Giuliani, being a demogogic little prick, jumped on the bandwagon, and the rest is history.

Incidentally, there was an article in soem economics journal that made a convincing case that the 1991 recession was deepened and lengthened by the financial industry's reaction to criminalizing heretofore non-criminal activity.

Government officials making up new crimes on the fly and applying them retroactively is a prime feature of despotism.

Then you have his lifelong associations with/promotion of/partnerships with corrupt people like Bernie Kerick and that child-molesting pries, his belief that "Freedom is about submission to authority," his penchant for unjustified character assasination, and populist demagogery.

I am convinced that if Rudolf Giuliani thought that raping alittle girl inpublic would help his chances of being elected, he would do it in a heartbeat. He wants power, and is absolutely lacking any system of ethics that tempers his appetities.

I've always been amazed that people who think the "war on islamofascism" is the most important thing in the world support Giuliani; Giuliani promoted Bernie Kerik to a critical post in the Iraqi occupation, setting up the Iraqi equicalent of the Gestapo. While there, Kerik wiled away his days kicking down doors in Baghdad with South African mercenaries. When he did bother showing up for work, his major accomplishment was to insult the Iraqi's he was xsupposed to be training to the point where they wanted nothing to do with him. I am convinced that Bernie Kerik played a critical part in the inability of the U.S. puppet regime to establish cotnrol of the governemnt.

This doesn't bother me, but if I were a supporter of the Iraq war, I would be very angry at Giuliani who has basically profited off of the war while helping establish the conditions for thea defeat of the U.S. military.

Fluffy|9.29.07 @ 1:53PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy -

I don't think the epistemological question reflects a conservative bias.

The correct answer is basically Bertrand Russell's answer, and it's not like he was some sort of conservative.

That particular question may not belong on a civics test, but it's not biased. OK, maybe it's biased a little against dumbasses who can't read the question and figure out the answer, but aren't ALL tests biased against such people?

|9.29.07 @ 2:08PM|#

Fluffy, well there are two epistemological questions I qouted (the second one about Plato et al is the kind that would give a Straussian a wet dream).

I've also read quite a bit of Russell and am not sure that the answer reflects his answer. His was a lot more nuanced (I remember Russell arguing that we could know relative things, like that something has twice as much mass as another). But the answer is VERY close to what conservative natural law theorists say, right? Whatcha think? And do you think that is why such an odd question is on a civics test put out by a conservative natural law organization?

tarran-I see your point, making up laws and selective enforcement is the road to tyranny. But the association with the corrupt fellows strikes me as par for the course for any long time political candidate...

|9.29.07 @ 2:15PM|#

To say that our claims to knowledge are unsupported is itself a clam to knowledge which would be unsupported. That's a common argument that conservative scholars make against their percieved horrors of "relativists." I think you would admit that it's much more popular among conservative scholars to weigh in against relativism than it is in liberal circles. Hence the inclusion of the two questions.

Russell's answer was much more nuanced because ever since Kant philosophy has had a very difficult time arguing that our knowledge truly represents reality (the thing-in-itself) rather than the thing as perceived. Of course people like Hume or Russell knew that this does not mean we all collapse into relativist chaos, rape and plunder, but many conservatives feel very threatened by such thins since they draw on appeals to certain immutable truths.

SIV|9.29.07 @ 2:16PM|#

Regardless of what Ron Paul may think the Constitution is out of date for todays society. It was written when this nation was still agricultural, slave-holding, and racist.


Stu,

In case you missed it.......


George Washington's role in America's founding is best characterized as:

A. White male oppressor
B. Hetero-sexist slave-holder
C. Patriarchal militatistic mass-murderer
D. Genocidal capitalist
E. Nothing,history is a process of mass movements


I found the link to the civics test at AnarchoCatholic
however the ISI press release was mainstream news the week before.

|9.29.07 @ 2:22PM|#

Only those in the libertarian fantasy world would seriously think of following that outdated document to the letter.

Yep, I support the government following the law of the land. I'm kinda funny that way. Certainly, there are places on this planet where the rulers feel otherwise. Zimbabwe, Myanmar, North Korea, People's Republic of China, Sudan ...

I'm what is known around here as a "small l libertarian". How would you describe your political philosophy? Just wondering.

Stu|9.29.07 @ 2:26PM|#

J sub D I'm a liberal Democrat supporting Dennis Kucinich for President. Unlike you I believe in child labor laws, safety regulations, safe regulated food and drugs, anti-trust laws, federal funding for roads, 8-hour workdays, labour unions, a high minimum wage, social security medicare and medicade. Without government control we will have corpratist control.

Stu|9.29.07 @ 2:27PM|#

And all those countries you listed are not democracies, I favor democracy and civil rights for all, including the right to a decent living.

|9.29.07 @ 2:29PM|#

Gotta disagree with you Stu. Our Constitution is a great thing. And incorporated into it is the ability to change things (Amendments). The people who wrote it probably had racist ideas when compared to how we see things today, but they incorporated principles (guarantees of republican government, due process, freedom of speech, association, etc) which would ultimately be used to undermine racism and protect all kinds of minorities. I think it is a marvel. And I agree with J sub D, of course we have to follow it. It's the law, what else should we follow?

Stu|9.29.07 @ 2:32PM|#

MNG sure I think the Constitution is outdated and I wish we would have a new convention and make a new one. Things like the Senate, electoral college, the Presidency, and 'states rights' are relics and need to be abolished. Instead we should have a unicameral, parliamentary system with proportional representation, and abolish the archiach federal system for a modern unitary one.

Our constitution was great in 1787 not so much now. I mean, not even the right to vote is gaurunteed!

|9.29.07 @ 2:35PM|#

States rights allow for little labs of expermination that often lead to wonderful innovations (including many liberal ones I bet you like). And it can protect from centralized tyranny. The Senate allows for statesmanship (I bet you liked the Senate when it blocked some of Bush's stuff that the GOP house passed quickly). I'm no fan of the elctoral college, but it is hardly an awful thing.

|9.29.07 @ 2:36PM|#

SIV, you don't need to think that George Washington was a "Hetero-sexist slave holder" to recognize that a test mentioning Burke and Aquinus but neither Madison nor Montesquieu might reflect a certain world view.

A more accurate analogy to a test with opposing biases wouldn't be one that calls G.W. a "Hetero-sexist slave holder" (straw, anyone?), but one that focuses on J.S. Mill, Voltaire, and John Dewey as critical figures in American civics (anyway, at least Dewey is actually American, which is more than I can say of Burke).

I'm not sure I've ever read a non-biased test or poll, so I wouldn't get so upset that some us find the test politically charged. That's just the nature of things.

By the way, I'll explain why I think they avoided Madison and Montesquieu another day (I should be working rather than commenting on a blog right now), but that's pretty much par for the course in Catholic Constitutional scholarship.

Stu|9.29.07 @ 2:37PM|#

MNG just think if we had a Parliamentary system like the more modern democracies in Europe we would have started leaving Iraq last November, and Bush would have been kicked out of office by a no-confidence vote.

Stu|9.29.07 @ 2:38PM|#

And so-called 'states rights' also allowed slavery, lynchings, and racial segregation to go on unmolested for decades.

|9.29.07 @ 2:44PM|#

J sub D I'm a liberal Democrat supporting Dennis Kucinich for President.

Kucinich, huh? What's the matter, isn't this guy running this year?

Stu|9.29.07 @ 2:48PM|#

LaRouche is an insane antisemite, no way Id ever vote for him. I did vote for Nader in 2000 though, thats probably just as bad on this forum.

|9.29.07 @ 2:51PM|#

I did vote for Nader in 2000 though, thats probably just as bad on this forum.

Worse. actually. ;-)

|9.29.07 @ 2:52PM|#

I'm puzzled by the American left's hatred of child-labor.

The effect of child-labor laws is to trap children within abusive families. Unable to earn a living legally, a child trapped in an abusive household faces the awful choice of staying with the abuser, running away to state-run foster care or running away to the streets.

State run foster care, while attracting many people who have good hearts, also attracts people who wish to abuse children as well, and the shortage of people willing to help out in the foster system ensures that some foster care programs will not be to ochoosy as to whom they pay to take runaways.

The last option, running away to the streets ensures that the child will be forced to participate in the illegal service economy, leading to child-prostitution and the like.

I would think that people who genuinely care about children's welfare would be opposed to any measure that limits their avenues for escaping abusive situations.

|9.29.07 @ 2:54PM|#

4) George Washington's role in America's founding is best characterized as:
A. prudent general and statesman.

Mr. Nice Guy: Anyone who has read about the job of generaling Washington did might argue about the "prudent" part -- the American Revolution came breathtakingly close to being lost several times. But, all the other answers to that question are less accurate characterizations about Washington, so "A" it is. And a few of the questions have a slant, as you point out. But, as a general indication of knowledge about civic topics (or at least test-taking ability), it seems like a decent measure of whether someone knows enough about civics or American history to be taken seriously. Would you, for example, want a president or congressperson who got maybe 20 or 30 of these questions right? Are you content that the mean score of elite institutions is well below all the people here who reported their scores? (Yes, some here might lie, and those with terrible scores might keep silent about how they did -- still haven't heard how those inerrant fonts of knowledge, joe and Dan T., did on it.)

Got a link to a better quiz about that is more neutral?

Stu|9.29.07 @ 2:54PM|#

tarran, so a runaway child should work for 50 cents an hour in the coal mines so he won't have to go to a state foster home? Thats ridiculous.

You need to read 'Oliver Twist' and 'The Jungle'.

Balloon Maker|9.29.07 @ 2:55PM|#

I got a 34/60, but i was drunk... wine drunk

|9.29.07 @ 3:02PM|#

J sub D | September 29, 2007, 1:48pm | #

I dunno about Crimethink, but I'm friggin' devastated. I'll cry on a strippers shoulder now.

There are strip clubs open at 1:48pm on a Saturday where you live? Or do you have a stripper living with you (or at least one who hasn't been booted out yet after staying the night)?

Man, talk about leaving interesting story lines hanging ...

Stu|9.29.07 @ 3:03PM|#

J sub D, what do you have against reforming our system to a unitary parliamentary system with proportional representation? It would be better for libertarians (they could actually get seats in Congress) but I guess constitution/founders worship blinds.

SIV|9.29.07 @ 3:06PM|#

I've read The Jungle and remain opposed to State regulation of food and drugs.




*link is both hilarious and disgusting

Stu|9.29.07 @ 3:09PM|#

SIV I guess you think the 'freedom' to eat doo doo meat on your burger is important then? What aobut the 'freedom' to get E coli and die? You could go to a hospital but in the libertopia-world you wouldn't have health insurance.

|9.29.07 @ 3:11PM|#

Mr. "Nice" Guy (/snark), will you concede that people who missed the following question have some significant gaps in their knowledge of history:

2) The Puritans:
A. opposed all wars on moral grounds.
B. stressed the sinfulness of all humanity.
C. believed in complete religious freedom.
D. colonized Utah under the leadership of Brigham Young.
E. were Catholic missionaries escaping religious persecution.

If you confused the Puritans with Quakers, people who advocate for religious tolerance, Mormons, or Catholics missionaries, you probably haven't studied religious history that much, yeah?

iih|9.29.07 @ 3:12PM|#

For some reason, once I read the title "The Jungle", I remembered Daniel Quinn's

iih|9.29.07 @ 3:13PM|#

Ooops...

For some reason, once I read the title "The Jungle", I remembered Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Very interesting book. Anyone read it?

SIV|9.29.07 @ 3:18PM|#

Stu,

There is plenty of contaminated food sold despite(and because of)regulation by the State.
The chicken wing guy I referenced above is still in business.

Stu|9.29.07 @ 3:20PM|#

SIV think how much worse it would be without state regulation, corporations would collude with one another to to sell the cheapest (and most unhelathy) meat possible to increase profits, like they did when this country was 100% capitalist in the guilded age. You should thank God our food is regulated by the FDA for our safety.

|9.29.07 @ 3:22PM|#

Stu,

If a child feels that working for 50 cents an hour at a coal mine is better than going to a state home, then yes, I want that child to have that option. If a child thinks that a state-home is even more horrible than a 50 cent per hour job in a dark mine why do you want to condemn her to the worse fate?

Mick Russom|9.29.07 @ 3:23PM|#

Ron PAUL! 2008.

How Bad is the Commodities Price Index, the true measure of inflation?
Sept 27 2007
CPI = 216.5
http://www.economist.com/images/20070929/TAB3.gif

Sept 24 2005
CPI = 131.8
http://www.economist.com/images/20050924/TAB3.gif

It was 100 in the year 2000.

Ron Paul has been vocal about this horrible inflation since at least 1983:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hMeNnbSqkk

You are being paid in an inflating currency. Please think about how that impacts you.

|9.29.07 @ 3:25PM|#

Stu -- you're assuming that government bureaucrats are more capable of punishing bad corporate actors than the marketplace. As I recall, when Jack in the Box had the problem with undercooked hamburgers, their parking lots were a ghost town for quite some time afterwards. Do you think that this public policing was ineffective, and that only government regulation forced Jack in the Box to change their practices? Do you think that top Jack in the Box executives are currently thinking, "If we can just get rid of those pesky government inspectors, we can relax our standards and not try our damndest to ensure our food is safe"? Or maybe, even absent any government oversight at all, they would still be scrupulous about food safety because they know another such incident would bankrupt the company -- and that everyone else in the industry learned the same lesson, and is also trying to avoid being hammered with bad publicity because it would drive customers away?

You're assuming government competance despite ample evidence to the contrary. You're assuming that stealing money from citizens to pay bureaucrats who just might be more interested in advancing their career than serving the public is a better solution than having reporters and consumers send market signals to those who screw up.

Do you see how how it's possible that what you're advocating might not work out as well as "liberals" with good intentions hope it will?

Stu|9.29.07 @ 3:26PM|#

tarran, a 10-year old doesnt have any reasoning abilities. They dont know how to negotiate, form labour unions, etc. They are perfect for exploitation by capitalist-corpratist masters. Not only that they would also drive the wages for working adults through the floor.

Im still having a hard time believing that you actually favor child labour/exploitation, a practice outlawed by every decent country in the world.

SIV|9.29.07 @ 3:30PM|#

You are right Stu. That is why all our ancestors died of food poisoning and we aren't here today.
Those evil corporations were awfully short-sighted to poison all of their customers too.

You forgot to thank the USDA.

Stu|9.29.07 @ 3:31PM|#

prolefeed, in a libertarian world jack-in-the box would be employing 12 year olds, paying them $1 an hour, buy the cheapest meat possible, and have almost no standards so they can increase their profits. Thats the only things corporataions care about, profit. They don't care about your health, the environment, or anything else as long as their bottom line increases. They will stop at nothing to make a profit including putting you and me at risk. Without government we would have privatized tyranny (see Noam Chomsky).

|9.29.07 @ 3:31PM|#

57 of 60. I was confident but wrong about what major issue the Federalist Papers addressed. In two other questions I winnowed the field down to the two most likely answers and guessed wrong. (In both cases the forgone answer was correct, so at least I didn't winnow the field down to two incorrect answers.)

Stu|9.29.07 @ 3:35PM|#

SIV before industrialization food regulation was not necessary because people prepared their own food in their own kitchens from scratch, they could monitor the safety themselves. With modern corporations and industrialization food preparation is done in factories of giant corporations so its necessary.

Thats why libertarianism might work in a pre-industrial, pre-corporate 18th century society but today it would result in corporate tyranny.

|9.29.07 @ 3:35PM|#

tarran, a 10-year old doesnt have any reasoning abilities. They dont know how to negotiate, form labour unions, etc. They are perfect for exploitation by capitalist-corpratist masters. Not only that they would also drive the wages for working adults through the floor.

That's so true. If I had to compete with a 10-year old, I'd have to accept rock-bottom wages. No employer would prefer me for any other reason (higher intelligence, longer attention span, ability to do a little calculus, etc.)

prolefeed, in a libertarian world jack-in-the box would be employing 12 year olds, paying them $1 an hour, buy the cheapest meat possible, and have almost no standards so they can increase their profits.

Right, because the nation would be clambering to eat hamburgers made by nose-picking prepubescents.

teh|9.29.07 @ 3:37PM|#

Stu,

Most libertarians are going to oppose to constitution being rewritten because when actually enforced it permanently guarantees many of the most important individual liberties (free speech, habeas corpus, etc.) that are obviously more valuable than having one percent of the delegates in some national assembly be libertarian. Individual liberty is a lot more important than proportional representation.

Were you really unaware that libertarians felt this way? (I'm genuinely curious.)

Les|9.29.07 @ 3:37PM|#

You could go to a hospital but in the libertopia-world you wouldn't have health insurance.

Why wouldn't he have insurance in a libertarian society? I think you, like most folks, think that being a libertarian means one thing.

I'm mostly a libertarian, but I believe in child labor laws, environmental regulations, and I think it should be illegal to sell or manufacture food in unsanitary/unhealthy conditions.

I think it's unlikely that corporations cause more suffering than governments and that it's wise to distrust both entities (despite the fact that the government has a greater power to harm you than a corporation does).

But that's just me. Different libertarians believe different things, though most (if not all) don't trust the government (a sentiment the government has fully earned).

|9.29.07 @ 3:38PM|#

There are strip clubs open at 1:48pm on a Saturday where you live? Or do you have a stripper living with you (or at least one who hasn't been booted out yet after staying the night)?

Detroit, MI. They have to wait until noon on Sundays, but the show srats at 11:00 AN Mon - Sat. That's what I've heard anyway. ;-)

|9.29.07 @ 3:38PM|#

SIV think how much worse it would be without state regulation, corporations would collude with one another to to sell the cheapest (and most unhelathy) meat possible to increase profits, like they did when this country was 100% capitalist in the guilded age. You should thank God our food is regulated by the FDA for our safety.

Damn, this is funny. Thank god we have the government preventing companies from colluding to sell us crappy phones with fewer and fewer features. Also, thank God Ralph Nader got Federal regulation requiring automakers to install air conditioning and cupholders in their cars.:)

Stu - perhaps you don't understand why we have an FDA, Labor Relations board and all the rest. It wasn't to protect the consumer from corrupt businesses. When you look at those movements, you see a common theme. You see established companies demanding federal regulation, ostensibly to protect consumers from shoddy products, but where the regulations will kneecap competition.

The drug companies love the FDA, because it limits competition. Archer Daniels midland loves the FDA and the Agriculture department because it keeps corn prices high while making competing food-stuffs more expensive. In the late 19th century , big business realized that big government could be used to assure their profits. They made an bootleggers/baptists alliance with the progressive movement of the time.

Take your example of colluding corporations selling crappy food. Do you think the owners and workers of the companies will want to eat the same crappy food? Of course, there wil be tests that can prove adulteration, allowing some company to start advertising that their bread has 10% less sawdust. You'll have guys like Consumer Union trumpeting their newletters and the like.

Cartels only collude successfully with government assistance. In a free market they have historically all collapsed because there is a massive advantage to the first guy who betrays or competes against the cartel.

That is why big business wants big government regulation. It ensures high profits by keeping competition low, and limits the options available to productive workers. You and Kucinich are actually water carriers for the 'corporatist capitalists' you claim to despise.

|9.29.07 @ 3:38PM|#

SIV before industrialization food regulation was not necessary because people prepared their own food in their own kitchens from scratch, they could monitor the safety themselves.

Good point. At the turn of the century, half of us bought food from the other half. And that other half had no profit motive, so they kept their wares spic and span.

|9.29.07 @ 3:39PM|#

Stu, corporations don't behave because of government, that's just stupid. The fear of losing customers is the only real check on corporate behavior. Government doesn't tell me I can't use the absolute cheapest material for my products, but I pay a little more to make sure I don't piss off my customers.

And how high a wage would you set? $10.00/ hour? $20.00/ hour? Why not $100.00/hour? When governemt interferes in mutual contracts for labor, it is usually the least advantaged that get fucked.

SIV|9.29.07 @ 3:40PM|#

Mick,

You are being paid in an inflating currency. Please think about how that impacts you.


I actually think about that too much and it pisses me off to no end(my assets are largely cash and bonds as well). I wish more people were concerned but the heavy debtors and the wealthy are benefitting (so far) from the policy.

Fluffy|9.29.07 @ 3:41PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy:

You're right, Russell says something subtly different: when the objection is raised that our senses are unreliable, he points out that the only reason we know our senses to be unreliable is because of the use of our senses. [Which would seem to imply that our senses are in fact reliable after all, natch.]

But however finely we cut our distinctions, it's a multiple choice test and the other answers are, frankly, stupid, and have nothing to do with epistemological questions at all. So a reasonably well-educated person should reach the right answer by the process of elimination, even if they have no familiarity with Russell or the positivists or with natural law theory. That's all I was really saying.

It does seem like an odd question for a civics test. Maybe it's some kind of "push poll" civics test to undermine relativism?

|9.29.07 @ 3:42PM|#

Stu -- Read about Adam Smith's invisible hand lately (or ever)? Yes, corporations only care about profit -- and thereby benefit humanity despite that not being their intention. Fast food places have a heck of a time finding people who will work for the minimum wage, and often pay more than that. If they offered $1 per hour, do you seriously think they would get enough takers to staff their restaurants? Do you really think teenagers value their free time at $1 per hour? Do you really think that my 13 year old, who wanted to earn a few bucks, was better off because laws passed by liberals took that choice away from her? Do you really feel that people are better off if politicians and bureaucrats decide for them what is best for them, and systematically take away your choices of which they disapprove? Do you support the draft, the WoD, immigration controls, etc. because someone else thinks they know better than you what's best for you (or, more likely, what's best for society in the abstract, and let's not pay attention to pesky individuals)?

|9.29.07 @ 3:43PM|#

State run foster care, while attracting many people who have good hearts, also attracts people who wish to abuse children as well, and the shortage of people willing to help out in the foster system ensures that some foster care programs will not be to ochoosy as to whom they pay to take runaways.

Tarran, I'm too lazy to call it all up, but foster care in Michigan is an unmitigated disaster, No screening, no oversight, no accountability. It makes this growm man cry.

Stu|9.29.07 @ 3:44PM|#

tarran in a corporate-dominated world with a small government the media would be wholly owned and operated by the same corporations that own the fast food chains, so any information about rotten food would be supressed by the corporate media. And the corporations at the turn of the century did sell crappy meat to consumers many people died from sickness and the labor conditions inside the meat-packing plants were horrible. Why do you think it would be any different today?

The federal minimum wage should be set a high enough rate so one person working a full time job with a family of four will be above the poverty line.

|9.29.07 @ 3:46PM|#

prolfeed-I agree that someone should do better than the Harvard students on this test if they want to be a good citizen. I think its skewed but as I said not incorrect stuff, and better to know it than not. I think this test is a decent one:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/

Stu-I have multiple problems with the English system you adovcate and for Kucinich. My main one is his position on gun rights:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Gun_Control.htm
This guy can't even trust citizens to be able to defend themselves from criminals and the government, so he must not be much for freedom...But then since you don't care much for our Constitution you probably don't see the (I think plain) wisdom in it's 2nd amendment...

Stu|9.29.07 @ 3:49PM|#

prolefeed, do you think its a coincidence that the standard of living in this country rose dramtically after labour unions were legalized, regulations and anti-trust laws enforced, and immoral business practices outlawed? The American middle class is the creation of the modern welfare state, it could not exist without it.

Since 1980 though the welfare state has been shrinking, and with it the American middle class. Wages are stagnant while the rich become richer, and corporations ship off jobs to China, India, and Mexico. Most average working people now have to work two jobs just to make ends meet while CEO profits are off the charts.

|9.29.07 @ 3:56PM|#

Stu, if you can't correlate artificially high wages with outsourcing jobs, then there isn't much hope for you.

|9.29.07 @ 3:57PM|#

You're assuming that stealing money from citizens to pay bureaucrats who just might be more interested in advancing their career than serving the public...

You left out the bribes.

Stu|9.29.07 @ 3:58PM|#

James Ard we simply shouldn't trade with those nations like China and India that use slave labour to undercut our working men and women. A high tarrif on all products from such countries would solve the problem of outsourcing. Once they figure out they should also treat their workers like human beings and not slaves we can start trading with them again. If they want to have access to our market we should make them do it on our terms. Its not fair our working men and women are undercut by slave labour.

Stu|9.29.07 @ 4:00PM|#

Do you really think a wage that enables a working man to be able to feed, clothe, and house his wife and children is 'artificially high'? I'd call anything below that 'artificially low'.

|9.29.07 @ 4:04PM|#

Once they figure out they should also treat their workers like human beings and not slaves we can start trading with them again. If they want to have access to our market we should make them do it on our terms. Its not fair our working men and women are undercut by slave labour.

Hmm, sounds familiar. Oh yeah,

WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE! YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS!

|9.29.07 @ 4:08PM|#

Do you realthink a wage that enables a working man to be able to feed, clothe, and house his wife and children is 'artificially high'?

Do you really think that dumbfuck who can't get my order right at Burgers 'R' Us deserves a raise? Sheesh!

|9.29.07 @ 4:09PM|#

prolefeed, do you think its a coincidence that the standard of living in this country rose dramtically after labour unions were legalized, regulations and anti-trust laws enforced, and immoral business practices outlawed the Mafia became more powerful, tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea and Vietnam, and AIDS became an epidemic?

stu, I'll call your confusing coincidence with causation, and raise you with equally ludicrous snarky examples.

Labor unions aren't a bad thing in and of themselves -- libertarians generally don't object to people banding together to negotiate with their employer -- but the government regulations giving labor unions an unfair advantage over employers hurt the economy. You'll note that foreign countries with really strong laws favoring labor unions tend to have suckier economies than ours.

Anti-trust laws benefit corporations trying to prevent pesky startups from challenging their market share. A perusal of the origin of these laws reveal they were pushed by manufacturers, railroads, etc. who were being ruined by competition allowed by laissez-faire policies.

Immoral business practices outlawed -- no doubt you are referring to the War on the Law of Supply and Demand (oops, war on drugs), selling scary-looking rifles to law-abiding citizens, Prohibition, minimum wage laws that price teenaged minorities out of the labor markets, etc. Yes, I bow down and thank my liberal overlords daily for all the sweet, sweet morality they inflict upon me daily.

SIV|9.29.07 @ 4:15PM|#

MNG,

The citizenship test is both too easy and less relevant(flag stripe questions/immigration forms).
From your perspective it did over-emphasize religious freedom and referenced the notorious chickenhawk fundamentalist evangelical trial lawyer Patrick Henry.

|9.29.07 @ 4:16PM|#

Do you realthink an articically imposed wage that enables a working man to be able to feed, clothe, and house his wife and children teenaged minority child to be priced out of the market and become chronically unemployed, and working men too if the artificial wage is high enough is 'artificially high'?

Why, yes I do -- once the hidden caveats in your statement are bared for public scrutiny.

|9.29.07 @ 4:19PM|#

You're assuming that stealing money from citizens to pay bureaucrats who just might be more interested in advancing their career than serving the public...

You left out the bribes.

They're called "campaign contributions". But they're strictly regulated to stifle political free speech and squeeze out challengers to entrenched incumbents, so nothing to fear.

|9.29.07 @ 4:21PM|#

Since 1980 though the welfare state has been shrinking

HAHAHAHAHA! Good one, Stu.

Oh, wait, were you serious?

Stu|9.29.07 @ 4:23PM|#

Prolefeed, we need 100% manditory public financing. Publically financed campaigns limited to four weeks would strengthen third parties, end corporate influence, and end the eternal campaign. No more Presidential elections starting right after the person is sworn in. Four weeks, and thats all. Thats basically how it works in Europe.

|9.29.07 @ 4:26PM|#

I love Eric Dondero. Its kinda cute how stupid he is.

No joke! Just google searching his name turns up hours of comedy relief. I live in Atlanta and for the last 4 months I've been looking for a Republican that supports doesn't dislike Rudy. I still haven't found one. In fact, most Republicans here in Atlanta speak of him as if his last name was Clinton.

RE: Stu

I appreciate your courage posting comments on a website where the most common reader response to your postings will be to laugh. Not because it's a laughing matter but because we can remember thinking those same misinformed thoughts when we were 14 years old. As you get older you'll start to realize that corporations derive their power from the government. In fact, Ron Paul's views on government are a much greater threat to corporate America than the views of your man Dennis. Dennis may mean well but the powers he wants the federal government to use for good will eventually be exploited by the powerful for their gain. There is no way around it. I challenge you to give me one example of how a corporation could exploit anyone or gain any unfair advantage without the government as a weapon. Why do you think that corporations support both big government Democrats and big government Republicans? If a Ron Paul presidency would benefit corporations, why aren't they supporting him for president?

What's ironic is that Dennis has a better opinion about Paul that you do.

Ron's about to hit 900K!

Asharak|9.29.07 @ 4:29PM|#

Stu, I don't like seeing working-class people get screwed over either, but you still don't realize that government is part of the problem rather than the solution. Other posters have even explained state/corporate collusion to you and you obviously didn't read that they had to say because you keep posting the same cookie-cutter socialist talking points.
You claim that workers would get the shaft if government didn't exist even though our existing government long allowed it to happen in the first place, and still does to a certain extent.

Furthermore, Noam Chomsky is an anarchist (or at least an anarchist sympathizer), so I think it's odd that you're using his name to defend your positions.

Asharak|9.29.07 @ 4:29PM|#

get=getting

The Wine Commonsewer|9.29.07 @ 4:30PM|#

Since 1980 though the welfare state has been shrinking, and with it the American middle class. Wages are stagnant while the rich become richer, and corporations ship off jobs to China, India, and Mexico. Most average working people now have to work two jobs just to make ends meet while CEO profits are off the charts.

Tell ya what Stu, you can hop in the WayBack and chug on back to Idyllic 1980, but I won't be joining you. That's because I already struggled through the Jimah Cahtah Malaise and it wasn't all that shit hot. Actually, you can have my share. And that hot dam disco.......

Asharak|9.29.07 @ 4:31PM|#

that=what, durrr.

|9.29.07 @ 4:35PM|#

Most average working people now have to work two jobs just to make ends meet while CEO profits are off the charts.

Totally, dude. My second job is as a freelance hyperbole writer, but assholes like you keep ruining the market. Thanks, dickwad.

|9.29.07 @ 4:37PM|#

Eric likes Rudy for non-political reasons. They both have a lot of wives and like to wear dresses. They are twins.

iih|9.29.07 @ 4:40PM|#

Iranian parliament just listed CIA, US Army as terrorist organizations here. Sort of reminds me of children in kindergarten.

|9.29.07 @ 4:49PM|#

Ron's about to hit 900K!

I'm not a rich man, but a smidgen of that was squeezed out of me. RP's not ideal, but in the real world, who's better?

|9.29.07 @ 4:52PM|#

Given the CIA actions in Iran in 1954 (paying agitators to incite riots, assasinations and the like) I think the Iranians can make a great case.

Remember that General who had served on Reagan's security council who attacked the 'War on Terra' as being a ridiculous war on a tactic?

According to him, the Reagan administration tried to come up with a definition of terrorism that would describe its salient feature (incitement of fear in an attempt to influence political decisions) without including the U.S. as a sponsor of terrorism. They couldn't come up with one. Every definition they tried was either uselessly watered down, or, if it had teeth, included U.S. government policy. So they quietly gave it up.

What the hell do people think 'Shock and Awe' means?

iih|9.29.07 @ 4:57PM|#

tarran: Interesting. Didn't know that regarding the Reagan admin. and the WOT.

|9.29.07 @ 5:04PM|#

MNG sure I think the Constitution is outdated and I wish we would have a new convention and make a new one. Things like the Senate, electoral college, the Presidency, and 'states rights' are relics and need to be abolished. Instead we should have a unicameral, parliamentary system with proportional representation, and abolish the archiach federal system for a modern unitary one.

Our constitution was great in 1787 not so much now. I mean, not even the right to vote is gaurunteed!

Lucky for you being clueless isn't a capital offense. What juvenile garbage.

Asharak|9.29.07 @ 5:10PM|#

Stu-I have multiple problems with the English system you adovcate and for Kucinich. My main one is his position on gun rights:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Gun_Control.htm
This guy can't even trust citizens to be able to defend themselves from criminals and the government, so he must not be much for freedom...But then since you don't care much for our Constitution you probably don't see the (I think plain) wisdom in it's 2nd amendment...

Kuicinich's stance on guns is my main gripe with him, too. I don't know how this is supposed to help him get more support from the blue-collar workers he claims to speak for. Curiously, his ideological kin (and Grandpa Simpson of the Democratic Party) Mike Gravel has a far better position on gun rights.

|9.29.07 @ 5:13PM|#

Prolefeed, we need 100% manditory public financing. Publically financed campaigns limited to four weeks would strengthen third parties, end corporate influence, and end the eternal campaign. No more Presidential elections starting right after the person is sworn in. Four weeks, and thats all. Thats basically how it works in Europe.

Stu,

I understand that this seems attractive in the abstract, but who determines which candidate gets public funding (and thus which candidate is allowed to run)? Don't you think the people in charge of designing and implementing such a system (political incumbents, by necessity) would exploit it to entrench their own power? There are plenty of countries where political incumbents choose who gets to runs for elections: Iran, Egypt, Russia (unofficially), China, etc. Your example, however, is way off the mark -- this is most certainly NOT "basically how it works in Europe." Please provide me one single example of a European country under a 100% mandatory public financing system.

|9.29.07 @ 5:18PM|#

Given the thoroughness with which "Stu" is name-checking all the items on the libertarian pet peeve chart, I wouldn't be surprised if he's sitting under a bridge waiting for a goat, if you know what I mean.

|9.29.07 @ 5:24PM|#

You've got a point, crimethink. On the other hand, I appreciate substantive arguments from trolls, even if they're just trolls. Our resident trolls at H&R, like "edward," typically just write "you libertarians are hopeless retards," or some brilliant variation on that theme.

|9.29.07 @ 5:25PM|#

The difference between Shock and Awe and terrorism is that Shock and Awe is done in the service of freedom, while terrorism is done in the service of oppression.

|9.29.07 @ 5:27PM|#

It's always funny to me that the people who shun state's rights and want a strong central government are usually the same ones that are surprised and aghast when a strong central government turns against an ethnic group in a region (Sudan) or refuses to grant automony to a province (Chechnya).

Nephilium|9.29.07 @ 5:28PM|#

Stu,

Some of your comments are the most frightening things I've read in a long time...

Study some basic economics, and read up on Kucinich's fantastic job as mayor of Cleveland. That idiotic mental midget is supposed to represent me now... Gods... I need a drink every time I think about that...

Nephilium

SIV|9.29.07 @ 5:31PM|#

Crimethink,


You are likely right about Stu. Along with the fake Dondero comments way up above they must be keeping the REASON intern busy drumming up hits and page views.

C'mon bitches, how much do you know about American Civics? Take the quiz

|9.29.07 @ 5:31PM|#

I'm not a rich man, but a smidgen of that was squeezed out of me. RP's not ideal, but in the real world, who's better?

Same here... on both donating and how ideal a candidate Paul is. Although, despite the government's best attempts, I'm no poor man either. I wouldn't used the word squeezed though as I was happy to help.

Also, continuing on the conversation iih and tarran are having. How many are old enough to remember Bush 1 saying "I will never apologize for the United States of America-I don't care what the facts are" in response to the shoot-down of a Iranian commercial flight that killed nearly 300 people? In my opinion, all governments (that includes both Iran and the U.S.) are the worst types of terrorist organizations and as long as we have governments, we will have terrorism. If you really want to end terrorism (force as a political tool), the first step is to abolish all governments.

The difference between Shock and Awe and terrorism is that Shock and Awe is done in the service of freedom, while terrorism is done in the service of oppression.

This is an example of much too subtle sarcasm. If it wasn't for the absurdity of the statement, I would've thought you were being serious. You could benefit from a sarcasm tutorial or two.

|9.29.07 @ 5:33PM|#

Actually, you can have my share. And that hot dam disco.......

TWC, I hate to be contrary (not really), but compared to Hip Hop disco looks musically adventurous and sophistcated.

|9.29.07 @ 6:06PM|#

TWC, I hate to be contrary (not really), but compared to Hip Hop disco looks musically adventurous and sophistcated.

C'mon J-sub (that's your new rapper name), there's plenty of good hip-hop....

They're even rapping about Ron Paul now.

Talib Kweli consistently puts out good music.

And this is just hillarious.

The new Pharoahe Monch album isn't too shabby either. At least listen to the first 3 tracks (might have to watch a 15 second ad first).

Enjoy!

|9.29.07 @ 6:24PM|#

Franklin, I saw a book in the library recently titled "Why Do White Kids Listen To Hip Hop?". I immrdiately muttered "because it pisses off their parents, you moron!" and moved on. The more things change...

The ancient Greeks complained about the younger generation, and how dare we fail to fail to carry on that venerated tradition?
Kids today, they suck!

|9.29.07 @ 6:28PM|#

Prolefeed, we need 100% manditory public financing. Publically financed campaigns limited to four weeks would strengthen third parties, end corporate influence, and end the eternal campaign. No more Presidential elections starting right after the person is sworn in. Four weeks, and thats all. Thats basically how it works in Europe.

stu, Chris S. did a good job of ripping apart your illogic about the public financing thing, so I'll let that stand. Now, about the limiting presidential campaigns to four weeks -- think about how that would be accomplished. Fines or jail terms for anyone who publicly declared their intention to run for president? Really? You want everyone to be forced to pull a Thompson and do a wink, wink, not really running quite yet, but if I were here's what I'd be for shuffle for a year plus? You want no public candidates forums until after some people have already received their absentee ballots and have voted? Do you seriously think that government can even conduct a primary election and then a general election in four weeks, considering the time needed to print ballots, file nomination papers, etc.? Do you really elections to be skewed even more to whoever has the most money and name recognition?

D00d, have you ever run a political campaign? Because you don't seem to have a clue about the realities of how the process works, and the incredibly bad outcomes of your authoritarian suggestion.

iih|9.29.07 @ 6:33PM|#

J sub D: You're in Detroit and not a fan of Eminem? :-) I used to live in Ann Arbor, by the way, the city I spent most time in in the US (a few years)--went to Michigan -- Go Blue!

iih|9.29.07 @ 6:46PM|#

Franklin:

While having small government is a highly desirable thing, but difficult to attain (just look at the challenges that Ron Paul is facing), no government is may not be desirable and is almost impossible to attain. If one country abolishes government, it will be the object of territorial interest by other governments.

|9.29.07 @ 6:50PM|#

stu -- almost forgot about the massive voter fraud that would occur if the presidential general election started two weeks before inauguration day, thus making it impossible to file any legal challenges whatsoever to the results

oh, and forget about absentee ballots. No time for that, especially since the government would have to rely on the government monopoly on first-class mail to mail the ballot after they were sent to the printers, and printed, and given mailing labels, and mailed, and voted on, and mailed back, and then counted ...

|9.29.07 @ 6:50PM|#

J sub D: You're in Detroit and not a fan of Eminem? :-) I used to live in Ann Arbor, by the way, the city I spent most time in in the US (a few years)--went to Michigan -- Go Blue!

No, iih, I'm not an Eminem fan, but for local talent, Iggy and the Stooges are making a comeback! The wolverines really look like they suck this year, so I'll thank you not to mention them again. ;-) Ann Arbor is a beatifol town, BTW.

iih|9.29.07 @ 6:59PM|#

J sub D:

Ann Arbor is a beatifol town, BTW.

In Champaign, Ill., (my stop after AA -- hey can you guess what I do for a loving?), students for some weird reason would wear these Muck Fichigan t-shirts, and, the really funny one: "Ann Arbor was a whore". They really did not like Michigan. And, yes, they are screwing up pretty badly this year -- but the Notre Dame game was good. But, hey, I now have my Pats, and they are doing great. Of course, there is a big Michigan connection: QB Tom Brady.

|9.29.07 @ 7:00PM|#

RON PAUL is going to raise over $1x10^6 in under a week!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

His campaign has said this quarter will top the last one when he shocked the political establishment. Given that they were also reporting record fund raising around the Iowa straw poll, I think he will top $5,000,000 - maybe more!

The establishment can laugh all they want. But nobody in the big game can ignore piles of cash.
Ron Paul is in it to win it!

RON PAUL 2008
HOPE FOR AMERICA
BE PART OF IT

iih|9.29.07 @ 7:10PM|#

J sub D: obviously I meant "living" and not "loving" -- duh!

KoWT|9.29.07 @ 7:34PM|#

Ron Paul's website's is looking denial-of-serviced

Dondero'd better have an airtight e-alibi

:emoticon:

Mad Max|9.29.07 @ 7:35PM|#

"They're even rapping about Ron Paul now."

That particular rap video confirms all the worst things I've heard about hip-hop. I hope to God that Dr. Paul didn't approve it. It even uses the I-word: Illuminati. There's also a reference to "herb," as in smoking some sort of herb. Dr. Paul wouldn't want to punish herb-smokers, but that doesn't mean he would celebrate such acts like this video does.

A much better Ron Paul video is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8

|9.29.07 @ 8:01PM|#

Pauly Paul's over $940,000. Red. Hot. I really hope he breaks a cool million with a full day to spare. That would make a great news item.

I hope Sean Hannity's grinding his teeth to nubbins right now.

|9.29.07 @ 8:06PM|#

As much as I love Ron, running for President is like voting: It just joins "the wave" in the wrong direction.
Don't vote. Don't run.
Let democracy self-destruct along the lines Bryan Caplan has laid out.
Peaceful anarchy is the way to go.

|9.29.07 @ 8:06PM|#

I got 60/61. I transcended the quiz.

|9.29.07 @ 8:06PM|#

Well, looks like I missed all the fun huh? FWIW, I got a 59/60 on that civics quiz SIV gave the link to. The question I missed was about the Federal Reserve and the bonds.

I'm happy they asked about John Locke, but I was disappointed there was nothing about Montesquieu, Madison, or the Federalist papers but something about Edmund Burke. Don't get me wrong, I like Edmund Burke but he didn't have the kind of influence on our system of government that the other three gentleman had.

iih|9.29.07 @ 8:07PM|#

The Ron Paul rap music was actually not that bad.

In the part of the clip that Mad Max sent with Cavuto, does Cavuto look scared asking Paul a question about the economy because he knows that if he overstates something RP will rip him apart?

America should be proud of a man like Ron Paul.

Mad Max: By the way, who's song is this in the RP clip? Do you happen to know?

SIV|9.29.07 @ 8:17PM|#

Cesar,

Damn near everybody misses that question.
I assume they change the test every year,if not more often, so the material you feel is lacking might be on other versions of the test.

So did you get the impression it is a Konservative Katholic Konspiracy as Mr Nice Guy charged?

|9.29.07 @ 8:21PM|#

Why would anyone drop out after Iowa, when the rest of the primaries are only a few weeks later and have way more delegates at stake?

|9.29.07 @ 8:21PM|#

So did you get the impression it is a Konservative Katholic Konspiracy as Mr Nice Guy charged?

Well, my father is Episcopalian and my mother is a very devout Catholic. He agreed to raise me as a Catholic before he married her, but now I am a convinced atheist. I still have a Catholic background however, so if the test was biased in that direction it could explain why I did well. I didn't sense that it was, though.

I still would have preferred to see a question about Montesquieu or the Federalist Papers, though.

|9.29.07 @ 8:21PM|#

Cesar -- I think the question about the Federal Reserve and the bonds has no right answer listed, or at least it makes a raft of hidden assumptions. If, for example, you hold $100,000 in bonds, and the Federal Reserve buys your bonds, there are all kinds of things you could do with the money. You might blow it all on a high-end Mercedes. You might go buy more privately issued bonds. You might buy stocks. You might loan it to a bank in return for interest. You might give it all away to charity. You might blow it all on blow, hookers, and booze. To conclude from all these possibilities that the primary net effect will be an increase in private banks getting money from these bond holders and then lending that money is only true if you make certain unstated assumptions about how the investors getting paid for their bonds will likely use that cash.

At best, I'll admit it could be construed as the least incorrect of the choices for answers given.

|9.29.07 @ 8:27PM|#

Correction, I wish there was a question about Madison. Madison is very important, he basically took Jefferson's ideas and made them practical instead of taking them to their logical extreme. There was a question about the Federalist Papers, though a very basic one.

|9.29.07 @ 8:30PM|#

SIV -- I wasn't raised as a Catholic -- I was raised by a fundie Protestant and an agnostic bordering on atheistic father. I did marry a Catholic, but we don't discuss stuff like what's on the test, and she's more of an agnostic in denial about not really being a Catholic anyway.

And most of the answers I got right didn't come from the sucky public schooling I was subjected to, but from the education I acquired by my own private reading.

I am a right-lib, which some might construe as kinda like conservatism, so perhaps that would explain the 55/60 thing, but I dunno -- left-libs here are reporting doing well on the test too.

Mad Max|9.29.07 @ 8:41PM|#

"Mad Max: By the way, who's song is this in the RP clip? Do you happen to know?"

All I know is what's on the YouTube site - if they don't give the credits there, my guess is as good as yours.

SIV|9.29.07 @ 8:46PM|#

FWIW I identify my religon as Heathen.No religous upbringing and crap public school education so any association with Catholic thought is purely coincidental(or unconciously synchronistic). I will ,however, serve as Pope if the College of Cardinals elects me next time.Libertarianism is a "right wing" ideology.

|9.29.07 @ 8:53PM|#

SIV, it never crossed my mind you would have a Catholic upbringing growing up in the very protestant territory of the deep south!

|9.29.07 @ 8:57PM|#

SIV,
If elected, I would not serve.
Even if I could get some nookie from the copius nuns/administrators, I would want to throw off those ridiculous raiments and be FREE!

SIV|9.29.07 @ 9:04PM|#

Lots of Catholics here and not just the IllegalMexicans!The South was originally settled with great religous diversity.We have more "hard line" Protestants (Baptist, Pentecostals, Evangelicals)than elsewhere.

David,

I want to exercise my "infalibility"!

Mad Max|9.29.07 @ 9:04PM|#

"SIV, it never crossed my mind you would have a Catholic upbringing growing up in the very protestant territory of the deep south!"

Ever heard of Flannery O'Connor?

http://mediaspecialist.org/bio.html

Ever heard of Scarlett O'Hara? Yeah, O'Hara is a Baptist name if I ever heard one.

|9.29.07 @ 9:23PM|#

SIV,
You make an interesting point.
The doubloon (or some other Spanish coin) was the coin of the realm throughout the South for more years than my hillbilly kissing cousins (I'm a native of the Nashville area) are willing to admit.

P,S, Does infalibility have anything to do with erectile dysfunction?

|9.29.07 @ 9:26PM|#

Mad Max-

I always have assumed the deep south, outside of Louisiana was more protestant while the northeast was more Catholic. General assumptions have exceptions of course.

|9.29.07 @ 10:38PM|#

$1 Million!!

There you go, Ron Paul.

|9.29.07 @ 10:43PM|#

Peak online contribution rate was about $10,000 per hour yesterday, and a bit more this afternoon and evening when the Ron Paul campaign topped the 1M$ in one week goal.

Man, those cleverly coded web-bots are sure loyal...

DroneMonk|9.29.07 @ 10:44PM|#

Let it be noted:

w/ 25 hours and change remaining in Ron Paul's week long fund raiser, the amount listed on his website has crested the 1 million dollar mark.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

|9.29.07 @ 11:05PM|#

Ron Paul, whatever the outcome of this primary season, allow me to thank you profusely for making it interesting. If it's a Rudy/Hillary election I'll really need the memories of having hope for liberty.

|9.29.07 @ 11:18PM|#

iih said:

While having small government is a highly desirable thing, but difficult to attain (just look at the challenges that Ron Paul is facing), no government is may not be desirable and is almost impossible to attain. If one country abolishes government, it will be the object of territorial interest by other governments.

I never said achieving society without government is likely or even possible. I was just stating something that would have to be done if the goal of eliminating terrorism were ever to be achieved. I doubt I'll see a stateless society in my lifetime which, in one way, is a good thing. Because before we can see the good of no government, we're going to have to experience the absolute worst of government. And, as bad as things are now, it's nowhere near the worst government can do.

As for your worry about invasions from foreign governments, it's a valid question but it's not that different from the question of how would the economy survive without the government. Stefan Molyneux does a good job answering it in article 4 of his Stateless Society series. It can become a long post so it's easier to provide a link instead.

Mad Max said:

That particular rap video confirms all the worst things I've heard about hip-hop. I hope to God that Dr. Paul didn't approve it. It even uses the I-word: Illuminati. There's also a reference to "herb," as in smoking some sort of herb. Dr. Paul wouldn't want to punish herb-smokers, but that doesn't mean he would celebrate such acts like this video does.

Of course it wasn't approved by the Paul campaign. It's a song made by a Paul supporter and an example of the type of individual action that has played a huge roll in the growth of RP's campaign. I'll admit that the thought that a secret organization called the "Illuminati" is running the world is quite silly but you'd be amazed at how many people believe it. The thing is, most of those people aren't into hip-hop so I don't understand how it "confirms all the worst things" you've "heard about hip-hop". As for celebrating the act of smoking marijuana, what type of music do you listen to? I can't think of one type of popular music that hasn't had a song that celebrated drinking alcohol and/or smoking weed and/or [insert vice here]. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of negative aspects of popular hip-hop music but the two things you mentioned that "confirms all the worst things" you've "heard about hip-hop" aren't exclusive to hip-hop.

Ron's at $1,014,607.76

iih|9.29.07 @ 11:22PM|#

Franklin:

Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading them. A stateless society is a beautiful dream, and there is no harm to try to reach to the stars -- peacefully that is.

By the way, the goal is now $1.2M.

|9.29.07 @ 11:23PM|#

Come on, everyone knows crimethink and I gamed the fund raising with our clever libertarian gold-standard Ron Paul magic!

|9.29.07 @ 11:27PM|#

iih said:

By the way, who's song is this in the RP clip? Do you happen to know?

It's Aerosmith. Sweet Emotion.

Jon|9.29.07 @ 11:35PM|#

Well he has topped $1 million now in less than 7 days. How's that for a fundraiser? Vote for Ron Paul!

iih|9.29.07 @ 11:36PM|#

Franklin:

I am not entirely convinced that Molyneux's article 4 (do you mean question 4? -- you provided links to the same page, may be you wanted to link to something else) is feasible. Regarding the example he cites (assuming this is what you were referring to):

I buy a tract of land and build a community on it. I then only lease the houses to people who are willing to sign a contract that they will not build nukes in their basement. (This could extend to any sort of weapon ownership, and is an extension of standard condo agreements.) Presto, I have a completely voluntary society with no nukes in the basement - or no handguns at all if I choose. No need for a government, policemen or the NRA. This way, everyone gets to live with the social rules they want - and the most efficient societies will flourish, just as companies in the free market do now. There is absolutely no reason why social rules should not be subject to the same market forces as everything else in the economy - everyone benefits through a multiplicity of choice and the principles of efficiency!

What if one of the residents in my land violates the contract, I try to kick that person out, and, not only does he refuse, but also uses or threatens me with his weapon against me. Who is going to resolve such a dispute. Isn't it obvious that citizens of the land have to have an (private?) arbiter (i.e., a court) and a (private?) police to avoid my rights being violated by the gun holder?

OK, may be the assumption is that I do not lease my piece of land except to people I trust would not violate the no-weapon rule, how do I know that he will not suffer from some future mental illness that causes him to violate the contract?

It's Aerosmith. Sweet Emotion.

Thanks!

iih|9.29.07 @ 11:39PM|#

Fanklin:

The other possible underlying assumption is that the land owner owns a weapon and acts as the police and governor of his land.

Nephilium|9.29.07 @ 11:57PM|#

iih:

Well... I haven't read the articles (but I also haunt /. ) but what about something along the lines of the judicial system of Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein? Individuals act as judges and draft nearby people as the jury. The plaintiff and defendant both agree to the judge, and the judge takes a fee from both?

Mind you, I still see the need for an actual judiciary and executive branch.

Nephilium

|9.30.07 @ 12:05AM|#

RE: iih

It is entirely possible to settle disputes fairly in a stateless society. How about, if after you read the entire series of articles (they're all linked in the 4th article), you still have the same question, you'll let me know and we can talk more. Somehow though, I have a feeling you'll find your answer.

iih|9.30.07 @ 12:06AM|#

Nephilium:

I really do not see, given the current state of humanity, how such a scenario would be feasible. And I think we, you, Franklin, and I, are mostly in agreement that there is a lot that humans would have to endure before people would be accepting of and ready for a stateless society.

iih|9.30.07 @ 12:16AM|#

Franklin:

I will indeed read the articles -- at least for the intellectual value -- and I think I will be able to see and appreciate the rationale, but I do expect to see loopholes (one that I expect is that, in such a philosophy, the rationality and goodness of humans are implicitly assumed, but I think that both pre-modern and modern human history indicate otherwise).

One of the causes of a major shift towards smaller governments, I believe, is the emergence of alternative energy sources and the extinction (?- I can't think of the right word; I am too tired now) of oil. So it is not all going to be emergence of really big and cruel government that will lead the way towards stateless societies.


A fair stateless society is a beautiful dream indeed.

|9.30.07 @ 12:24AM|#

I still challenge all you bitches to take the American Civic Literacy test

For what it's worth I scored 57 out of 60. I missed the one about public goods, the one about a just war, and I mis-read the choices on the one about real income decreasing for various groups.

M|9.30.07 @ 12:34AM|#

Lizards don't get $400 haircuts

Some come close.

|9.30.07 @ 12:49AM|#

Didn't think it was possible for a politician to move me to tears, but this (previously posted) video did it:

A Republican Playing Aerosmith Music In a Campaign Ad!

What is the second band in this video?

iih|9.30.07 @ 1:14AM|#

prolefeed:

Yes, I am interested in knowing what the second and last band is. That is not Aerosmoth, is it?

|9.30.07 @ 1:58AM|#

iih:

They sure don't sound like Aerosmith. Surprised there are so many people here who don't recognize Aerosmith -- I guess I'm the old guy here.

No idea who the other bands are, but I'd like to find out.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.30.07 @ 2:01AM|#

Franklin, I don't even like rap but that sounded pretty good.............

|9.30.07 @ 2:09AM|#

iih said:

I think I will be able to see and appreciate the rationale, but I do expect to see loopholes (one that I expect is that, in such a philosophy, the rationality and goodness of humans are implicitly assumed, but I think that both pre-modern and modern human history indicate otherwise).

Actually iih, it's quite the opposite. It's the fact that humans can be irrational and bad that no one group of them should be given a monopoly on the use of force. Any forceful action you can imagine an individual taking in a stateless society, can also be committed by government. The only difference is that you can defend yourself against an individual, defending yourself against the state is illegal. It's the view that we should have or need governments that is the utopian view. The view that somehow, if we put the right people in charge and give them the powers they need, society will be better off.

Also, the second song sounds like Coldplay's Fix You. The first song is definitely Sweet Emotion.

iih|9.30.07 @ 2:17AM|#

I did not know that Ron Paul was on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me. Check it out!

iih|9.30.07 @ 2:25AM|#

Franklin:

I think I'd appreciate that perspective -- that not one single group of people, government in this case, should be given such a monopoly.

Yes, I think it is Coldplay. I wouldn't have slept well without knowing whose song this is. Thanks!

|9.30.07 @ 5:15AM|#

"Ron Paul is actually ABORTION NEUTRAL"

That would be news to Ron Paul, I'm sure. He's never equivocated at all on the issue: he's anti-abortion. The fact that he correctly states that abortion is not a federal issue doesn't change the fact that he opposes abortion.

-jcr

Fluffy|9.30.07 @ 8:16AM|#

At the moment when an individual or group of individuals employs force, it becomes the state.

Most "stateless society" theoretical set-ups I've seen simply give the state a different name. If there's a person or persons who will stop the guy with the gun in iih's example, they are the state. They might not be the state forever, and they might switch places with other people occasionally, but they are the state.

|9.30.07 @ 9:16AM|#

"C'mon bitches, how much do you know about American Civics? Take the quiz"

Tools shouldn't call anyone bitches...

When I was in college up North ISI would sponsor lectures, so I know what they are all about. But heck, no excuse for folks like SIV, you can just wikipedia it for Pete's sake:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercollegiate_Studies_Institute
"The organization is considered to be paleoconservative with Roman Catholic affiliations."

It's like one of the first sentences, so even SIV can get to it.
Of course the absence of unorthodox folks like Madison and Montesqiue, but the strange prescence of Burke, Aquinas and the questions implying a restricted view of religious freedom in the Constitution, on the veracity of human reason, etc., in an American Civics Test for crying out loud, is just due to the changing nature of the test year to year, and not due to the fact that such a test makes sense given the core values of the organization that wrote it. No, SIV's beloved conservative organizations would never, ever, lead a gullible person like himself around by the nose (SIV thinks, hmmm, my nose has been awful sore lately...).

|9.30.07 @ 9:25AM|#

"If it's a Rudy/Hillary election I'll really need the memories of having hope for liberty."

I dunno, I'm still waiting to see an objective quantitative ranking of the Presidential candidates by a legit libertarian organization, but I really think that if you listed their positions out and checked them alongside traditional libertarian positions Rudy would outpace the other frontrunners (Mitt "whatever the religious right wants I'll do" Romney, John "bipartisan-the worst of both parties" McCain). I'm wary of Rudy for the same reason as Kucinich, he's suspect on gun rights (which I think are crucial). But I think he's currently hip to that...And Hillary is probably the least liberal of the Democratic frontrunners (Obama and Edwards being the others). Of course it would be crazy for someone not to vote their conscience in the primaries (whether that be Paul for libertarians [face it, it has been a longtime since someone who talks the libertarian talk so explicitly has run] or even Kucinich for folks like stu [I don't see stu as a troll, there ARE people out there who believe that and discussions with people like that are good for everyone]).

|9.30.07 @ 11:16AM|#

That would be news to Ron Paul, I'm sure. He's never equivocated at all on the issue: he's anti-abortion. The fact that he correctly states that abortion is not a federal issue doesn't change the fact that he opposes abortion.

The fact that I'm pro choice also doesn't change the fact that this is not a federal isste. Let the states decide.

|9.30.07 @ 11:19AM|#

Get ready for the RON PAUL LOVE'R-UTION

Ron Paul is going to change the American Political landscape.

|9.30.07 @ 11:37AM|#

A fair stateless society is a beautiful dream indeed.

Free donuts for everyone would be nice, too. As soon as you throw a third person into the mix, "stateless society" goes right out the window. It's the nature of the beast. Since government is an unavoidable evil, our efforts should be geared to limiting its influence as much as is reasonable and possible. IMHO anarchy, defined as the lack of laws or law enforcement, is neither possible or desirable. Yeah, it would be great if we could all sit around the campfire, sing Kumbaya, and not attempt to dominate/coerce one another. If you believe that it is possible, I want some of those drugs you're ingesting. A break from reality would occasionaly be appreciated.

|9.30.07 @ 12:23PM|#

I just donated $25. I saw my name on the "thank you" board a few minutes later. How cool. I do wonder though, why their counter shows the amounts he's raised to the pennies. Don't people normally donate in whole dollars?

Nephilium|9.30.07 @ 12:33PM|#

sage:

Maybe people are throwing their two cents in?

Sort of like every local tax check I ever mail in has a teabag in it... (stupid local taxes, pay the city I work in, and the city I live in.)

Nephilium

Guy Montag|9.30.07 @ 12:40PM|#

A bit off topic:

There was an Atheist Convention in Crystal City yesterday. Did reason send anybody to cover it?

I found out about it from Christopher Hitchens yesterday.

|9.30.07 @ 2:33PM|#

56/60 on the cultural literacy quiz. I missed #19 on Plato's Republic (it's a republic?), #31 of philosophers' views of society, #36 on just wars and #50 on central planning. (I misread the last one.) #58 took a minute; I had to really think how the money was flowing.

A well-done quiz which required some thought on some questions. I'm pretty liberal and I wasn't bothered by any conservative slant.

Edward|9.30.07 @ 2:36PM|#

Back on topic, one thing you can say about Ron Paul that you can't say about any other candidate, Democrat or Republican: even if all the other candidates were killed in a plane crash, Ron Paul would quickly sink to the bottom of a new batch of nominees. Libertarians know how to back a loser.

|9.30.07 @ 3:02PM|#

I don't know, Edward. I think you could say the same thing about Gravel, Keyes or Kucinich.

|9.30.07 @ 3:26PM|#

Edward I thought you were done here?

|9.30.07 @ 3:43PM|#

BTW for those that haven't heard Newt Gingrich says hes not running, supposedly because McCain-Feingold says he can't run and be in charge of "American Solutions" at the same time.

Edward|9.30.07 @ 3:53PM|#

Cesar,

The latest farewells have been from someone using my name.

But look, only a tiny minority of Americans favor abolishing all the government agencies Ron Paul wants to abolish. Most don't even know about his more extreme positions. Truly, the more ordinary people know about Ron Paul, the less likely they are to support him. Maybe if he were a tiny bit charismatic, but look at him. He looks like a fucking Fuller Brush salesman.

Loonies and kooks, on the other hand, continue to rally around him. He calls himself libertarian, and otherwise intelligent libertarians start treating him like some sort of hero. So people think, wow, libertarians are loonies and kooks and so fucking stupid they probably couldn't grab their asses with both hands. Ron Paul can't win shit, but he can do a lot of shit to the libertarian image.

Here's my strategy for libertarians: urge people not to vote at all. If voter turnout is low--and it usually is--libertarians can plausibly claim credit for it. Then people think, wow, those libertarians are pretty smart; let's hear what they have to say. Then you don't start mouthing off like Ron Paul about the gold standard and other moronic crap. You give them the libertarian positions on drugs and other reasonable libertarian stuff and have some hope of getting a hearing.

Leave the Messiah shit to the religious loons.

|9.30.07 @ 4:24PM|#

I dunno, I'm still waiting to see an objective quantitative ranking of the Presidential candidates by a legit libertarian organization, but I really think that if you listed their positions out and checked them alongside traditional libertarian positions Rudy would outpace the other frontrunners

Talk about damning with faint praise!

Anyway, please don't confuse positions with principles; most of the candidates in either party have made a career of saying whatever it takes to acquire enough votes to obtain political office, and wriggling out of, or just flat-out ignoring, their campaign pledges after the election, when the time comes to govern.

Edward|9.30.07 @ 4:40PM|#

horsewithnonick,

The only way libertarians can remain faithful to their principles and at the same time not end up not back hopeless losers like Ron Paul is to stop participating in electoral politics.

Edward|9.30.07 @ 4:41PM|#

Sorry,...at the same time not end up backing hopeless losers...

iih|9.30.07 @ 4:44PM|#

J sub D:

A fair stateless society is a beautiful dream indeed.

Well I said it is a dream -- though, I believe, it may someday be (probably 100s of years from now).

Edward|9.30.07 @ 4:50PM|#

J sub D

Beautiful dreams have a nasty way of becoming ugly nightmares. Ask any Marxist.

Mad Max|9.30.07 @ 5:04PM|#

Ron Paul Revere

(apologies to the Beastie Boys)

Now here's a little story - I've got to tell
If Edward doesn't like it, he can [work for Dell]
It started way back in history
At Duke Ron Paul got his MD
Lemme tell you something about Paul's career
He served in Vietnam, he had no fear
Then riding across the land - scalpel in hand
His medical skills made him in demand
The country's condition was sad to see
He decided to do something politically.
The sun was beating down on the Texas flats
Texas voters heard him, thought he was phat.
They sent him to Congress - he didn't have to lie
Defending the Constitution is what made him so fly.

He made speeches - he was well versed
On how this country's going from bad to worse.
The Constitution in his hand - truth pouring from his lips
His voice was hoarse, his throat was dry - but he never made a slip
Statists say, "can I get some?"
[money and power, that is]
Paul said, "You can't get none!"
Had a chance to run
The establishment he stunned
He's quick on the draw - he has brains in his head
Let me paraphrase some of the stuff he said:

"Now my name's Ron Paul - lemme give you a thrill
By listing all the federal programs I'll kill.
This country was founded for free people without fear,
*You* run this land, you understand - do I make myself clear?
The government's job isn't suppressing sin
Protecting life and liberty is where it should end and begin.

"You have the right to guns and brew
What you do with them should be up to you.
The decision must be yours, because you're free
Just don't take anyone else's life or liberty."
Some say, "I'll support you, but you really hadn't oughtta
Be against abortion." "I oppose such slaughter,"
Replies Dr. Paul, "I'll tell you flat,
Abortion is murder, and that's that."

So now he'll run - he won't take your guns
Now with his opponents let's have some fun.

Mayor Giuliani - that is his name
To be the country's boss is the theme of his campaign
He says freedom is what it's not:
Submitting to government "discretion" - thanks a lot!
He says, "you can't cut and run when things get hard
(I'm not referring to my marriage, but to the Iraq War)."

Fred Thompson - do we know this kid?
Into our TV screens this guy just slid.
He says, "I'm a serious candidate, don't think it's funny
That I'm a front-runner and raising money."
A lawyer and a lobbyist - my oh, my!
Hold onto your wallets and watch out for this guy.

Of Paul's other rivals, let's discuss one more
The woman some people strangely adore:
"I'm Hill C. and I get respect
Your cash and your liberty is what I expect."

The other candidates are a d____d disgrace
Ron Paul's the only decent one in the race
These despoilers of our liberty must be stopped
Upside the head they must be whopped
The Constitution we must uphold
(And the currency must be based on gold).

Edward|9.30.07 @ 5:22PM|#

Here's a story that's sad to tell
About a horrible, nasty political spell
That was cast on one Mad Max
And hundreds of others
Libertarian children and fathers and mothers
Ron Paul was their curse
He emptied their purse
And all they could do
Was write doggerel verse!

|9.30.07 @ 5:33PM|#

He emptied their purse
And all they could do
Was write doggerel verse!

Speaking of do, I think I smell doodoo...as in Donderdoodooooooooooooooooo!

Mad Max|9.30.07 @ 5:51PM|#

Edward,

You couldn't find a rhyme for "Mad Max"? Battleaxe, anthrax, gives trolls heart attacks?

|9.30.07 @ 5:58PM|#

"Mad Max, you know I believe being pro-Choice is key to being a libertarian. Theres no way you can be pro-life and believe in freedom."

you can believe whatever you want, but that's just stupid (disclaimer: i am pro-choice fwiw).

if you believe the freedom of the fetus to live is greater than the freedom of the carrier to kill it, you are pro-life. that says zero about libertarian cred, so to speak, or about your commitment to freedom overall.

|9.30.07 @ 6:00PM|#

Edward,

You couldn't find a rhyme for "Mad Max"? Battleaxe, anthrax, gives trolls heart attacks?

Or the incredibly obvious, sad sacks.

|9.30.07 @ 6:15PM|#

whit, I'm pro choice but don't perceive it as a cornerstone of libertarianism. Principled people can, and do, disagree on the issue.
Pro-lifers have many valid nonreligious points to make on the issue.

|9.30.07 @ 6:17PM|#

Edward, firstly we have the right to back anyone we please. Secondly, a libertarian candidate in a major party primary is a big step forward, even if he doesn't win the nomination he can move the Republican Party (however slightly) closer to a libertarian world view on certain issues. Its the same reason liberal Dems support Gravel or Kucinnuch, or ultra-right religious conservatives support Keyes.

BTW, what scares you about wanting to abolish many federal departments? Do you honestly think we need a Department of Agriculture or Department of Education on the federal level?

Edward|9.30.07 @ 6:18PM|#

No rhyme was needed for Max. You obviously understand verisification no better than you understand politics.

|9.30.07 @ 6:24PM|#

In fact, Edward, do you think there are any federal departments that need abolitioning at all? If so, name it.

|9.30.07 @ 6:54PM|#

Edward you poor schmuck
How empty your life must be
Stick with licking balls

|9.30.07 @ 6:58PM|#

In fact, Edward, do you think there are any federal departments that need abolitioning at all? If so, name it.

This isn't Edwaed, but the question is just irresistible. here 's my take -

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.

|9.30.07 @ 6:59PM|#

J sub D-

Thats identical to what I'd abolish. As for the Defense department, I'd cut its budget in half at least.

|9.30.07 @ 6:59PM|#

Oops, make that "isn't Edward"

|9.30.07 @ 7:04PM|#

As for the Defense department, I'd cut its budget in half at least.

Subtract Itaq operation costs, then cut 25-30% of the remainder. But we can negotiate on this! ;-)

|9.30.07 @ 7:07PM|#

As for the quality of verse, "We are not amused!"

Quiet_Desperation|9.30.07 @ 7:10PM|#

Scored 47, but on reviewing the wrong answers there we're two where I just plain old clicked wrong, so I'm claiming a 49. :) That's better than ALL of the universities, at least.

Fluffy|9.30.07 @ 7:11PM|#

You know, I don't think we should attempt to return to the gold standard either, for various reasons, but I really don't see how you can call it "moronic".

Until about a century ago the only currencies which had ever functioned even remotely well were metals-based. The metal currencies that were debased and the paper currencies that weren't backed by metals all eventually fucked over their issuers and the societies that used them. Our paper-only currency has done quite well, all things considered, since Nixon's time, but while that may be enough time to declare the experiment a qualified success, it's not really enough time to declare the previous system [with its millenia of standing] "moronic".

|9.30.07 @ 7:14PM|#

The more Edweird and Donderooooooo try to tell us RON PAUL is doomed, the more afraid of the Love'r-ution they must be.

RON PAUL '08

Mad Max|9.30.07 @ 7:28PM|#

"As for the quality of verse, 'We are not amused!'"

So, does that mean you *don't* want me to try and get my Ron Paul rap anthologized in the Great American Poets series?

Mad Max|9.30.07 @ 7:29PM|#

What about the Oxford Book of English Verse?

I can give that Tennyson beeotch a run for his money.

Pat|9.30.07 @ 7:29PM|#

Ron Paul: "Repeal the whole war on drugs" video.

|9.30.07 @ 7:33PM|#

HHS but not Commerce? WTF? When we are all dead from tainted food and drugs we won't be buying many securities...

I see this every now and then on this site, let's eliminate the FDA. That strikes me as so insanely nuts that it amazes me human beings believe it. Can you guys explain this one? I hope it is better than "well companies would never release tainted food and drugs because it would hurt their bottom line in the future." Let's skip the fact that companies have, in fact, done this throughout history, but that's like saying companies would never launch a ship on an Atlantic crossing that did not have enough lifeboats.

The average consumer, indeed the extraordinary consumer, would not be able to keep up with who has tainted the food/drug (think of the changes of company names, subsidaries, etc., and how many products from how many companies we buy food and drugs from [I actually just came from Kroger's and I count over 55 companies in the bags I brought home]). The lack of information there makes a market solution laughable doesn't it?

|9.30.07 @ 7:41PM|#

I've been reading some anti-trust stuff recently. What is the libertarian line on anti-trust laws? On the one hand I know libertarians revere competition so they should hate restraint of trade practices, on the other I know they hate government enforcing things like that.

A company which has a great deal of a market share can really influence the entire market. Wal-mart can say to producers who have huge contracts with it "hey, we want you to package these things in sets of 6, not 4" and if they do not do it, and lose their Wal-Mart contracts, they can be at such a serious disadvantage to competitors that they could very likely go under. So if Wal-Mart could legally go to their major producers and say "hey, don't deal with store A or we will pull our contracts" they could really quash a great deal of competition. So this strikes me as a perfect example of how if government does not prevent these things, we actually lose the benefits that a market gives us (competition).

|9.30.07 @ 7:51PM|#

MNG-

Corporations love to be regulated because it prevents new, smaller competitors from coming into the market. Don't you realize that?

Even Wal-Mart the big bugaboo of liberal Democrats is endorsing national healthcare. Not a coincidence.

|9.30.07 @ 7:53PM|#

Jeez MNG, we're talking departments, not every function that is embedded in them. Abolishing the DHS doesn't mean killing the FBI and the Coast Guard either. If you want to go through every government agency, it's going to take a while, and everybody's ox is going to get gored.

iih|9.30.07 @ 7:55PM|#

MNG:

Can't we all (or at least many of us) decide not to buy the product from Wal-Mart as a means to protest the pricing or quality of the product? Wouldn't then Wal Mart make a product that we like?

P.S. I detest shopping at Wal Mart by the way-- even if my life depended on it, I won't go in there (I am a bit exaggerating though).

Vermont Gun Owner|9.30.07 @ 7:56PM|#

Fluffy, What is up with this comment?

| September 28, 2007, 8:01pm | #
CoveAxe,

You are correct Sir! [/Ed MacMahon]

I am curious because I know an Edward MacMahon, who is a political science professor...

|9.30.07 @ 8:03PM|#

Mr Nice Guy

Since if you ask 1000 self-described libertarians what libertarianism is, you will get 250 different answers, there is no widely agreed position on anti-trust.

However, hard-core extremists like myself are opposed to anti-trust laws. So long as a business is not using violence to prevent competition, we feel that they should be perfectly free to conduct their business affairs how they see fit.

Furthermore, anti-trust law depends completely on subjective and arbitrary assignments of what constitutes a market and what does not, what constitutes monopoly and what does not. Invariably anti-trust prosecutions have hurt consumers rather than helping them when attacking companies that have earned their market share through free market competition. This is because these companies have universally attracted customers through having the best quality/price ratios, and the regulators' corective actions have compelled customers to do business with people who give them a worse deal.

The only time anti-trust laws seem to help is when they are applied to true monopolies. A true monopoly is one that owes its market dominance to governments outlawing competitors from entering the market. A classic case would be AT&T, which lobbied successfully in World War I to be granted control over their competitors networks by the government, and produced shoddy expensive service to its customers until the government protection was partially done away with. However, one does not need anti-trust laws to do away with duch monstrosities. We just need to eliminate government licensure of businesses.

This is a pretty good lecture on the subject:
http://mises.org/mp3/MU2003/MU03-Dilorenzo-4.mp3

and so is

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/block/block9.mp3

|9.30.07 @ 8:04PM|#

That list i linked to at 7:53 PM is a good place to send your tax and spend friends, republicans and democrats alike. We libertarians should all visit once in a while to keep us pissed off (as if we need help for that).

|9.30.07 @ 8:08PM|#

I'd say "Fuck WalMart" but but Target, K Mart, Safeway, Meijers, Kroger and many others are working their asses off, 24/7 to do just that. I ain't worried about 'em!

|9.30.07 @ 8:12PM|#

The CIA should definitely go, I might get shit for saying this but it really is the closest thing we have to a terrorist organization. After what they did in Iran, Chile, etc, and all the screw ups over the years they need to go.

The FBI probably not, there needs to be some kind of organization for tracking interstate crime.

The ATF would be gone in a Cesar administration.

|9.30.07 @ 8:13PM|#

In other news, RP is at ~1.14 megabucks for the week. He can make some noise with that.

iih|9.30.07 @ 8:17PM|#

Back in MI, I thought Kroger's was sort of a global thing (I apathetically went there), and I am relieved to see that it really does not exist much elsewhere. Super Stop and Shop in the NE does not tick me off that much. Canadian stores are much neater. The French touch makes it classy ;-)

|9.30.07 @ 8:17PM|#

Cesar, alcohol, tobacco and firearms are lumped together because tthey're all so much frriggin' fun! ;-)

iih|9.30.07 @ 8:18PM|#

Go Cesar! I'd vote Cesar (except that I am a disenfranchised tax-payer).

|9.30.07 @ 8:20PM|#

Go Cesar! I'd vote Cesar (except that I am a disenfranchised tax-payer).

And I'm not 35, and am not egotistical enough to be a politician.

Cesar, alcohol, tobacco and firearms are lumped together because tthey're all so much frriggin' fun! ;-)

Did you ever see "Beavis and Butthead Do America"? I don't know if you're the right generation for that, but at the end of the movie Bill Clinton makes them honorary agents of the ATF. They say, "So we're like, in the department of Beer, Cigarettes, and Fireworks? huhuhehehe, cool!"

|9.30.07 @ 8:21PM|#

I'd vote Cesar (except that I am a disenfranchised tax-payer).

A situation that CAN be rectified, you know.

iih|9.30.07 @ 8:24PM|#

A situation that CAN be rectified, you know.

Yep, and I am in no rush. At least Cesar would have been 35 by then :-)

|9.30.07 @ 8:30PM|#

I am curious because I know an Edward MacMahon, who is a political science professor...

Ahh, today's youth (slowly shakes head). On The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson, Ed McMahon was his sidekick, and unless I'm mistaken, the line is from the Carnak the Magnificent sketches. Funny stuff.

Fluffy|9.30.07 @ 8:31PM|#

Vermont Gun Owner -

Johnny Carson's sidekick Ed MacMahon used to exclaim that when he would suck up to Johnny. I just was trying to show that I was posting in my Ed MacMahon voice. He's been off the air so long that I am probably spelling his name wrong.

Mr. Nice Guy -

With regard to the FDA, I wouldn't mind a body - even a government-sponsored body - that reviewed drugs and then issued a seal of approval to let consumers know what drugs had been deemed "safe". I just don't think they should be able to prevent the sale of the drugs that they either don't approve and haven't gotten around to approving yet.

To me it's simply an autonomy issue that trumps utility: I have money, Dr. "X" has a drug, we want to trade. My money, his drug, nobody else's business. I'd stick to the approved treatments myself, but the people who don't want to should not have to.

|9.30.07 @ 8:38PM|#

iih, It's a damned big decision. My sister agonizued a long time before becoming an Aussie. It was right for her though. Hardly anyone in the family calls her "that traitorous bitch" anymore. :-)

|9.30.07 @ 8:55PM|#

"I just don't think they should be able to prevent the sale of the drugs that they either don't approve and haven't gotten around to approving yet." Fluffy-what about all the dumbasses out there who will give the drug in question to their kids? Kids don't get to make those decisions and wouldn't know how if they did...

"This is because these companies have universally attracted customers through having the best quality/price ratios"
Well what about the example I gave? Wal-Mart or any really big company, or combination of companies, could really crush any competition by telling those who do lots of business with them to not deal with competitors or they will pull their contracts. Many companies exist who simply could not make it if such a large client pulled their contracts. They would have every incentive to join in not dealing with a competitor who may very well have a superior product but who will not find distributors, advertising space, etc., for that reason. iih's suggestion that we consumers just punish Wal-mart would never work I think. Do you know all the companies who currently do large volumes of business of Wal-mart (or any given company)? Even if you did how would you know they wre entering into these combinations to restrict trade?

Cesar-I think you're right that often big companies love regulation because they can better comply with it. But most big companies wouldn't love anti-trust regulations, it's kinda aimed at them after all and is actually designed to help smaller competitors, so this may not fall under the general rule.

|9.30.07 @ 8:59PM|#

off topic, but what were the books rp recommended for guiliani?

iih|9.30.07 @ 9:02PM|#

J sub D: Wait, were you suggesting that I leave (and avoid paying taxes) or become a US citizen? I thought you meant the latter. I for one do not feel urged one way or the other. I am playing it by ear. The status quo is good enough for me.

FWIW...

Quite honestly, being in the North East is great --culturally and environmentally-- on either side of the border. Politically, both sides have problems. In many ways I feel freer in Canada than in the US, but Canadian taxes and socialized medicine are big negatives. Governments in Canada are small in most other respects (Canadian DoD?). On the American side, the increase in American Nationalism is a bit discomforting. A Belgian friend of mine was appalled, when she was visiting a couple of years ago, at the sight of so many flags on cars, roads, stores, etc. She said that, to her, it was too fascistic for her taste.

Canada has somehow reached a middle solution between North European Socialism and American capitalism and open markets.

As for my original-original homeland --Egypt-- that is an entirely different story. Things are quite weird over there. Many have compared it to pre-revolution Iranian society, with its decadence, corruption, government power, rise of fundamentalist (albeit seemingly peaceful) religious powers (the Muslim Brotherhood). As far as I am concerned, there is nothing for me to do there. A person with my qualifications and education will be very unfairly treated over there. Talk about brain drain.

|9.30.07 @ 9:05PM|#

off topic, but what were the books rp recommended for guiliani?

Not being a smartass here, but what were they?

|9.30.07 @ 9:05PM|#

iih-

I have a friend from Morocco who lived in France then moved here. She said that in France if she went into a store and bought something, the person at the cash register would make her open her purse. When she asked, they would say "Arabs are thiefs" or something. I can't imagine something like that happening here without a lawsuit!

|9.30.07 @ 9:09PM|#

iih,
of course I was encouraging citizenship. We can always use another intelligent citizen with a sense of humor. There's so few of us.

iih|9.30.07 @ 9:12PM|#

I can't imagine something like that happening here without a lawsuit!

That is very true. But sometimes racism is unspoken, and I think we all know that there is a lot of unspoken racism around us. I have only experienced it very little (mainly when my name is involved in the transaction). Believe it or not, I have rarely been stopped for "random searches" at airports (and I do fly very frequently) or crossing the border. On three occasions, they picked the 80 year grandma standing in front of me for the random search but not me!

One other thing, in many ways, Canadian on average come across as being closer to libertarianism than Americans --strangely enough..

iih|9.30.07 @ 9:13PM|#

iih,
of course I was encouraging citizenship. We can always use another intelligent citizen with a sense of humor. There's so few of us.

I am truly humbled ;-)

Fluffy|9.30.07 @ 9:13PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy -

I think you have to keep in mind that Wal-Mart could really only do that ONCE.

Very rapidly a situation would develop where Wal-Mart would be the sole retail outlet for the suppliers they still utilized, and where the other suppliers left in the market preferentially dealt with the other retailers. It wouldn't be safe to try to serve both Wal-Mart and the others because you'd have to assume that the rug would be pulled out from under you at any moment.

Wal-Mart is big and powerful, but they aren't big enough and powerful enough to maintain their position while selling nothing but glorified "house brands". In a mature retail environment, for many products the product needs to be in many stores to be credible to the consumer.

I think you also have to keep in mind that while Wal-Mart would now be free to engage in pre-Sherman activity to leverage its market share to its own advantage, the suppliers would be able to do the same. What if the ten largest producers of DVD's said to Wal-Mart, "We've decided that we're sick of this 'Don't sell to anyone else' shit you keep trying to pull, so we're not going to give you any DVD's to sell this Christmas." Wal-Mart needs products to sell.

|9.30.07 @ 9:16PM|#

iih, Whatever you decide, good luck. Really. Egypt's immediate future doesn't look promising at all. I'm an outsider, but I think Mubarak had a chance to go down in history as a great man, an admired statesman. Now I'm thinking he's a tyrant who's afraid to let go of power. Sad.

iih|9.30.07 @ 9:32PM|#

J sub D, a week ago I learned from an "insider" that almost all of the $4B+ income of the Suez goes directly to the President's "Office". I.e., it gets spent on his palaces and estate. That is why I always say that the US should stop its aid to Egypt -- such a waste.

iih|9.30.07 @ 10:27PM|#

Looking back -- that was one heck of an interesting thread. I am putting it in my "favorites".

|9.30.07 @ 10:36PM|#

"What if the ten largest producers of DVD's said to Wal-Mart, "We've decided that we're sick of this 'Don't sell to anyone else' shit you keep trying to pull, so we're not going to give you any DVD's to sell this Christmas."
Wal-Mart needs products to sell."

fluffy: This could happen, but in the short term it would be in the interest of any one of the ten to screw the others and sell their DVD's at Wal-Mart. This of course is why workers are at such a disadvantage against employers, it only takes a few to look after their own self-interest in the short term to cut the throats of the others. As any economist could tell you concerted action is very hard...

"Very rapidly a situation would develop where Wal-Mart would be the sole retail outlet for the suppliers they still utilized, and where the other suppliers left in the market preferentially dealt with the other retailers. It wouldn't be safe to try to serve both Wal-Mart and the others because you'd have to assume that the rug would be pulled out from under you at any moment."
I don't think so. Anyone who turned down the lucrative market at Wal-mart would be at a competitive disadvantage. They sell at Wal-mart because it makes them money to do so. Would they stop selling there, and making money, because they fear that Wal-mart will one day ask them to not sell to anyone else? They could then have either the sure very lucrative Wal-mart exclusive contract or possible contracts with Wal-mart competitors. Most companies would choose the former, especially since they would (at least in the short term) care less about the third party competitors of Wal-mart...Remember, I'm not saying Wal-mart is putting the screws to the supplier, in fact they'd love getting volume business with someone like Wal-mart. It's the potential other customer who can find none of the major brands to sell who is the victim of the combination to restrain trade. Oh, and the consumer of course...

|10.1.07 @ 12:05AM|#

MNG, if you're still reading, this is why many libertarians don't think anti-trust laws are a good idea. Dominant companies eventually mess up\, and lose their dominance. I think the decisions Microsoft has made with Vista are going to crack the door open on the OS market.

SIV|10.1.07 @ 12:13AM|#

For those who only mess around in H&R comments at work I'm going to spam this link one more time...........


I challenge all you bitches to take the American Civic Literacy test.

Challenging and fun.The Harvard Seniors mean score is less than %70 and they perorm the best of American institututions of higher learning.
H&R commenters are all reporting better scores.

|10.1.07 @ 4:07AM|#

# SIV | October 1, 2007, 12:13am | #
# For those who only mess around in H&R
# comments at work I'm going to spam this
# link one more time...........


# I challenge all you bitches to
# take the American Civic Literacy test.

# Challenging and fun.The Harvard Seniors
# mean score is less than %70 and they
# perform the best of American institututions
# of higher learning.
# H&R commenters are all reporting better
# scores

I got 90%. I got my education from Cal Berkeley (Go Bears!), Cal Poly SLO (Go Mustangs!), and the School of Hard Knocks. I'll put that up against a Harvard degree anytime.

Fluffy|10.1.07 @ 8:43AM|#

Mr. Nice Guy -

"I don't think so. Anyone who turned down the lucrative market at Wal-mart would be at a competitive disadvantage."

The problem Wal-Mart would run into is that production isn't instant and doesn't come from air. You need to invest in production capacity and a logistical train, an inventory of supplies, etc. And Wal-Mart wouldn't be a safe customer to build towards once they demonstrated that at any moment they could demand that you drop 65% of your market to keep their 35%.

Some suppliers would choose the single large customer and would build out their production capacity to Wal-Mart's 35% of the market. Others would tell them to screw and would build out their capacity to the other 65%.

Some suppliers would roll the dice and sell to both, and by doing so would in fact gain a competitive advantage - until either Wal-Mart decided to pull their "restraint of trade" trick or the other pissed-off retailers tried to pull a counter-boycott. As soon as that happened, the dice-rolling suppliers would be fucked and their investment on their capacity would be pissed away.

|10.1.07 @ 10:09AM|#

I got 58/60, and I is stupid!

|10.1.07 @ 2:34PM|#

As I said earlier, I scored 57/60 or 95% - and I've never attended college. I ain't really smart - I just read alot. ;-)

M|10.1.07 @ 7:10PM|#

As any economist could tell you concerted action is very hard...

Which is additionally why the RP donations are so gratifying to watch grow: concerted action toward individualist passion.

At a mere 50/60, I learned much from this thread. Thank you.

Mardi Gras Mask|10.3.07 @ 7:03AM|#

Ceramic Mardi Gras Mask, Voodoo Dolls, Pat O'Briens, Hurricane Mix, Tabasco, Tony Chachere's, French Quarter Souvenirs, Mardi Gras Beads. Wholesale Ceramic Mardi Gras Masks, Mardi Gras Party Supplies, Mardi Gras Party, Painted Mask, Favors, Balloons, New Orleans Mardi Gras Souvenirs, and Novelty Gifts for all of your Mardi Gras Party Event and Convention needs! If you're into Mardi Gras or looking for Wholesale party favors or Wholesale New Orleans Mardi Gras party supplies, you've come to the right place.

Nola Imports - "Wholesale Mardi Gras Mask" "Ceramic Mask" "Mardi Gras Beads"

mardi gras glossary