Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Friday Political Thread: Magic Subliminal Cross Edition
The Christmas holiday falls on Monday and Tuesday, so this will be a long, languid, weekend. Occasional updates will probably appear on this thread.
Quote of the week...
"You can call me a one-issue candidate if you'd like, as long as
you realize my issue is the survival of this country as we know
it."-
former presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, whose website is now an anthology of
horrified news articles about his success pushing hard-line
immigration doctrine on the GOP
The week in brief...
- Polls showed the Democratic race frozen after Barack Obama's mini-surge while the Republican race was tugged in a million directions: McCain up in New Hampshire, Romney recovering in Iowa, Paul staying strong in South Carolina, and Rudy losing his national lead.
- Just about every presidential candidate launched a TV ad to capitalize on the Sol Invictus.
- The Dec. 16 Tea Party fundraiser was a success, raising $6 million in a day for Ron Paul. Naturally, coverage of the campaign focused on whether he thought Mike Huckabee was a fascist and why there's a photo of him and the bad guy from American History X. Wonder what Tim Russert will ask Paul this Sunday?
- Mike Huckabee worried that Gitmo was too damn pleasant. ("He didn't say damn.")
- Congress banned the incandescent light blub.
Seriously.
Larger issues...
In Dodd We Trust. Most people who run from the Senate, if they weren't already useless, soon become so. Neither Obama nor Clinton has gotten much done this year that wasn't for the camera. (Anyone remember Clinton's proposal to cap the number of troops in Iraq to stop the Surge?) Sam Brownback was never less productive then when he was flying to Iowa to fill one-thirteenth of the chairs at rec centers. The exceptions to this, this year, have been John McCain, who actually left the trail at points to turn his flamethrower on anti-war Senate Democrats, and... Chris Dodd. The only resounding note of his campaign all year has been Dodd's pledge to "restore the Constitution." This week he did that, chucking a wrench into the Senate gears to delay a vote on FISA reform until next year. And the crowd went wild! Jim Henley switched his Democratic endorsement from Battlin' Bill Richardson to the man from Connecticut.
It’s not fair that Richardson lacked the ability to do what Dodd did yesterday - hold the Senate hostage for liberty!!!!!1!eleven!1! - but, as we libertarians say all too often, life isn’t fair. The Dodd came through. Respect the Dodd. Respect the Dodd - with cash.
Dodd's not going to win the presidency, as Shawn Macomber discovered after some time getting Dodded on the trail. (It hurt. It hurt real bad.) But there's substantial bloggy momentum for a Dodd coup against Harry Reid. It's not hard to believe he'd want Reid's job. Thirteen years ago he ran for it and lost by one vote.
Below the fold...
- Chris Beam boards the Ron Paul Blimp, as does Charles Frohman. It sounds cold.
- Jonah Goldberg reels from Hillary Clinton's Christmas ad, the purest distillation yet of Liberal Fascism.
- Bob Moser watches Hillary and Barack battle it out for black votes.
- John Bresnahan and Martin Kady get ready for the Democrats to bail on anti-Iraq War politics.
- Kevin Poulson wonders if Hillary Clinton is still obsessed with digital T&A. (She is.)
There was only one possible choice for Politics and Prog this
week. My only worry is what the second-most obvious yuletide hit
is... but the way things're going the Religion of
Secularism will ban Christmas next year, so no sweat!
robc|12.21.07 @ 6:36PM|#
I had something I wanted to post earlier but was waiting for this thread and now I dont remember. Anybody have any idea?
Episiarch|12.21.07 @ 6:52PM|#
Anybody have any idea?
Did it involve something thousands and thousands of years ago, and
there was much defecation?
Peter|12.21.07 @ 7:04PM|#
The one thing that made me love Tancredo, in spite of all his
many faults and foibles, was his answer to a question to a Youtuber
at the Cnn debates. He asked if the government was going to get up
off its ass already with the Mars mission and commit to sending a
man there soon. After Huckabee gave a very optimistic and
pandering, "I want to do it for the glory and the technology it
would engender ... you know, just like Kennedy" with his trademark
smooth son-of-a-preacher-man style, Tancredo said what I was dying
to say.
Essentially he said that with all this talk this evening about
cutting spending and wasteful programs, how can anyone stand here
with a straight face and say that he is going to send a man to
Mars. If you want to know what program I'd like to cut, it's that
one right there, the 500 billion dollar one.
Not a lot of true blue red-blooded American hero types have the
guts to say, "fuck the space program". For that, I salute you, Mr.
Tancredo.
|12.21.07 @ 7:12PM|#
I don't know if Pauls assessment was a fair one or not but Huckabee does have a picture with a flag guitar strap and now he has the commercial with the subliminal cross. Add to that he quotes the beatles devilish conspiracy theory saying Paul is dead three times in a row. What is next? Will he now say Paul lives after dieing on the cross three days later? Hmmm makes me wonder.
Eric Dondero|12.21.07 @ 7:20PM|#
Breaking...
John Hospers, the Libertarian Party's first Presidential candidate
has just endorsed Wayne Root for President.
ThirdPartyWatch.com and LibertarianRepublican.blogspot.com are
carrying the story.
TLB|12.21.07 @ 7:31PM|#
1. Obviously, those who are intellectually honest realize that
Tancredo has been right all along about this issue. Just two
examples of the dangers involved: example 1,
example
2.
2. It's been a long year for those suffering from prog-related
symptoms, so enjoy this very strong
antidote.
3. Finally, here's my very special Christmas gift to
everyone at Reason.
|12.21.07 @ 7:33PM|#
And last time around Hospers backed G. W. Bush.
That pretty much discredits anything he has to say about
presidential candidates.
Sad, at one time he was a brilliant philosopher and a fun guy to
share a meal with.
Captain Ahab|12.21.07 @ 7:39PM|#
Arrr ! Me thinks President Ron Paul won't harry
the
heathens of Nippon for hunting the humpback whale.
Seer|12.21.07 @ 7:40PM|#
You missed that biggest story today. Rush Limbaugh went after Huckabee. His boom may be busting soon.
|12.21.07 @ 7:44PM|#
John Hospers, the Libertarian Party's first Presidential candidate has just endorsed Wayne Root for President.
Wow! I mean, wow! I don't know what to say except Big Fucking
Surprise.
W.A. Root is the frontrunner for the LP
Nomination.
Though I will give Hospers credit for backtracking with regard to
GW
Bush and the War in Iraq.
BTW, Wayne Root asks only a
few very nuanced points WRT the war, chief among them:
*Admit the war is a disaster.
*Admit post-war planning was a disaster.
*Admit it's a civil war in Iraq- and our boys do not belong in the
middle of a civil war. Our troops are not policeman.
|12.21.07 @ 7:50PM|#
So what does Hospers have to say for himself? Did Cheney use his command of the dark force to make Hospers endorse Bush?
|12.21.07 @ 7:54PM|#
NoStar,
Not having read the Root endorsement, I don't know how Hospers has
rectified that, umm, oversight in 2004.
|12.21.07 @ 8:10PM|#
"Just about every presidential candidate launched a TV..."
Through a window?
(Of course not. That would not sit well with voters.)
Ruthless
Brandybuck|12.21.07 @ 8:25PM|#
Hospers endorses Root. The Paul campaign is doomed! Doomed I tell you!
|12.21.07 @ 8:40PM|#
I get my xmas gifts from Hillary:
http://www.avclub.com/content/videocracy/3412
Thanks Nation Debt!
Joshua Holmes|12.21.07 @ 8:40PM|#
I don't understand how John Hospers could endorse Wayne Root for President when Rudy was right there. Some libertarian Hospers is!
|12.21.07 @ 9:17PM|#
The good news is that I've been libertarian (peaceful anarchist
nowadays) since before it was cool?, and, while I've heard of
Hospers...?
Is he like Lyndon LaRouche? Harold Stasson?
I'm thinking: Move along here. Nothing to see.
Jesse Walker|12.21.07 @ 9:24PM|#
The interesting thing about the Hospers endorsement is that he left the LP for the GOP long, long ago (way before 2004). I guess he doesn't care for any of the Republican candidates this time.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.21.07 @ 9:31PM|#
Merry Christmas,
Happy Hanukkah,
Joyous Festivus,
Happy Eid ul-Adha (sorry I'm a day late),
and a Happy New Year!
to the Reason readers of all and no religions!
Eric Dondero|12.21.07 @ 9:34PM|#
Would you all have rather Hospers backed Badnarik?
C'mon!
A great many of us Mainstream Libertarians were all prepared to
back Gary Nolan or Aaron Russo for President. Then the LP stupidly
picked jerkoff Badnarik!!
What a disaster!
The guy never even graduated college, and then he lied about
it.
Never been elected dog catcher.
Drove around without a license or auto insurance and bragged about
it.
This is Presidential material?
I'm not so sure Hospers chose to endorse Bush in 2004, more so send
a signal to the Libertairan Party:
STOP NOMINATING NOBODY NO NAME CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
Eric Dondero|12.21.07 @ 9:37PM|#
This does indicate that Wayne Root's got some momentum. He was
on Fox News just last week, and now this.
I'm seeing formerly skeptical diehard LPers now coming around on
Root. I think at this point, you gotta say, he's got a pretty good
shot at the LP nomination.
Kubby and Phillies may be on the downslide.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.21.07 @ 10:24PM|#
Ali: no problem, no problem at all!
Peace on earth! Good will to all men!
and Christmas every day!
|12.21.07 @ 10:25PM|#
I just saw Paul on C-Span and he spoke about how he disliked the
CIA because it started wars and because of its clandestine nature,
and then he commented about how we have to keep a very wary eye on
the FBI and warrantless detective work.
Holy shit, that was great. Why didn't you guys tell me Paul talked
like this regularly? I've pretty much NEVER seen a major politican
talk with such sensible wariness of our federal law enforcement
agencies.
|12.21.07 @ 10:28PM|#
I will say this, Paul's state rights attitude would, in my opinion, increase law enforcement abuses on many readers of this site. The incorporation of much of the Bill of Rights to the states by the Warren Court was a huge blow for individual rights in relation to law enforcement, one that I think that many states, especially Southern ones, would frankly have never recognized. From what I understand of Paul's position on federalism he would chuck that. So goody for his amazing comments on federal law enforcement agencies, boo to his stance that would empower state and local cops to do all kind of crappy things.
Ali|12.21.07 @ 10:38PM|#
MNG- But by the constitution the president has no authority or
say as to what states do. It would be left to the residents of each
state to struggle to fix things.
Anyhow, welcome to the e3VOLution!
You may like this:
http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Woods/Woods9.mp3
http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Woods/Woods10.mp3
|12.21.07 @ 10:43PM|#
Why didn't you guys tell me Paul talked like this
regularly?
Sorry, we thought everyone already knew Paul wants to seriously
downsize the unconstitutional bits of the federal government (you
know, most of it). Our bad.
Merry Christmas!
|12.21.07 @ 10:45PM|#
Ali
That's my concern: minorities in States may not be as bad off as
minorities in relation to the Federal Government, but they are
still pretty bad off. Best that we have certain minimum rights
guaranteed to all citizens, and that the federal courts enforce
these rights even against the states. As long as policy does not
encroach on these bare minimum rights then each state could
struggle for itself.
In theory I guess libertarians could be pro-incorporation, but I'm
guessing Paul is not.
|12.21.07 @ 10:47PM|#
prolefeed
Merry Christmas yourself.
I'm not sure its obvious that the FBI and CIA are unconstitutional
(not that much they may enforce at any given time may be
extra-constitutional). After all there are distinctly federal
crimes (terrorism, interstate kidnapping or extortion rackets for
example)that would need combating even in Libertopia.
Ali|12.21.07 @ 10:49PM|#
Rights are reaffirmed by the constitution and are a given as a birthright. Any US person (citizen?) can go to the courts (including federal) to regain these rights if a state violates them. No?
Seer|12.21.07 @ 11:19PM|#
MNG, let me tell you the problem with trying to impose
libertarian beliefs at a federal level onto states: it only lasts
as long as the nation wants libertarianism. If you keep the current
system where the federal government does whatever the hell it
pleases then we're only free as long as libertarians hold
majorities, and then we're fucked again when liberals or
conservatives win.
By taking a state's rights aproach you re-inforce into the system
that the goverment has things that it's not allowed to do. You set
clear, well-defined limits on Federal power. And then you hope for
the best in your state.
It isn't perfect, but it's better than trying to impose
libertarianism, because that way encourages the idea that the
federal government can impose the popular ideology of the day, when
in fact, the goal of libertarians is to ultimately make it so that
our rights aren't dependent upon the masses.
|12.22.07 @ 2:16AM|#
MNG -- Agree that the FBI and CIA may be constitutional, but Ron
Paul has made it clear he'd try to make them stop actions that are
unconstitutional.
Of course, the reality is that the President is heavily constrained
by Congress and the judiciary, so the reality of a Ron Paul
Presidency (ignoring that unlikelihood of that happening in the
first place) would be a slew of overriden vetoes, plus a lot of
infighting as he tried to downsize the bureaucracy by hiring
freezes, etc. It might not be anywhere as big a change as people
here think, but basically the federal government would be limited
to, at most, whatever the 1/3 most fiscally prudent members of
Congress could agree on -- at least, until the impeachment
proceedings started.
It would be a lot of fun to watch the buggers scramble, yeah?
robc|12.22.07 @ 8:12AM|#
It would be a lot of fun to watch the buggers scramble,
yeah?
This, right there, is the best reason to vote for Ron Paul. For
pure amusement power, a Paul presidency would be the greatest thing
ever. Heck, can you imagine the fun within the GOP if Paul is
leading in delegates after Feb 5?
|12.22.07 @ 8:34AM|#
The Boston Globe sent out questionnaires to each of the
presidential candidates on the subject of signing statements and
executive power in general.
Mitt Romney, of all people, outs himself as the biggest dictator.
No surprise, Ron Paul and Chris Dodd come out looking like the best
small-r republicans.
It's on the front page of www.boston.com right now. Here's the link
to the story.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/22/candidates_on_executive_power_a_full_spectrum
Eric Dondero|12.22.07 @ 9:05AM|#
Check this out...
The NY Times is admitting that all those stories about Rudy
Giuliani and his girlfriend traveling at taxpayer's expense were
"false."
Wonder if all those Rudy Bashers here at Reason who jumped on the
story will now similarly admit their mistake?
Pretty bad when ultra-liberals like the Times turn out to be more
honorable than libertarians and Reason-oids.
|12.22.07 @ 9:22AM|#
Seer, I commented here last week that Rush was going to derail Huckabee. I am considering stealing your handle.
|12.22.07 @ 9:40AM|#
'was reading this Harry GWB Reid interview - trying to finger
out exactly what quantity is represented by "quite a bit, but not
very much". Politicians is very smartly.
from:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/reid_12-21.html
RAY SUAREZ: Well, at the beginning of this year, the Democrats
returned to the majority after 12 years in the minority. You and
Speaker Pelosi announced a very ambitious agenda. Now that one year
has passed and you look back, how has it gone?
SEN. HARRY REID: Well, we've been able to accomplish quite a bit,
but not very much, certainly not as much as I wanted to. I'm kind
of frustrated, like the American people.
robc|12.22.07 @ 10:08AM|#
Dondero,
Serious question...considering the general level of validity I
apply to the NYT (ranging from none at all to assuming anything
they say is a lie), why should I believe them when they claim
stories are false?
BakedPenguin|12.22.07 @ 10:23AM|#
joe - thx for posting the link, that was informative. McCain
seemed a bit more about the rule of law and Romney a lot more about
the rule of men than I thought they'd be.
Edwards: "I'm not Bush!" No shit, jackass. And I hope Dodd or even
Richardson make it to a Veep slot for the eventual (D) nominee,
though I'm not sure how much good they could do there.
Brickbats to Rudy Thumpabee for ducking, although in my case, the
only one I'd have ever considered would be Thompson.
Guy Montag|12.22.07 @ 11:16AM|#
A very strange conversation with a strange fellow last
night.
Some guy in Crystal City, claiming to be the Iowa campaign manager
for Sen. McCain, stated that the McCain Christmas ad has been out
for "months". Granted, I dismissed McCain as a RINO well over 4
years ago, so I was not tracking when his ads came out, but I can
not find a refrence to the Cross ad from before 20 Dec. 2007. Could
one of those campaign guys be talling a big fib or something?
Also, the resident supporter of Dr. Paul had to go around in
circles about their being some distinction between National
Socialists and Fascists. Sorry, the disctinction is that the latter
is just s symbol for the former. BTW, nobody was accusing Dr. Paul
of being a National Socialists, but his fan frequently gets accused
of it (usually a big stretch as a joke whenever he advocated
regulation of business).
Oh, the McCain guy became a frothing maniac when waterboarding was
mentioned and when he discovered yet another person who does not
like his candidate.
|12.22.07 @ 12:15PM|#
Dondero,
When it comes down to Dr. Ron Paul vs. Hillary Rodham-Clinton, who
will you vote for?
Ho! Ho! Ho!|12.22.07 @ 12:58PM|#
my mother in law got me a subscription to reason magazine for christmas! WOO HOO!
Fluffy|12.22.07 @ 1:11PM|#
The NY Times is admitting that all those stories about Rudy
Giuliani and his girlfriend traveling at taxpayer's expense were
"false."
Dondero, can you post ANYTHING without lying like a two dollar
whore?
The NY Times did NOT conclude that Giuliani did not travel
with his girlfriend at the taxpayer's expense. Everyone concedes
that, including the candidate. The Times merely concluded
that Giuliani hadn't really tried to hide the expenses when he
charged them to city departments other than the mayor's
office.
Giuliani traveled with his mistress at the taxpayer's expense to
have fun in the Hamptons. And his mistress got taxied around the
city and got her dog walked by NYPD officers at the taxpayer's
expense. Can't you get even the simplest things right?
Neu Mejican|12.22.07 @ 1:30PM|#
Quote of the week:
"They do not create revolution; what they do create is anarcy; and
the difference between these is not a question of violence, but a
question of fruitfulness and finality. Revolution of its nature
produces government; anarchy only produces more anarchy...You can
only knock off the King's head once. But you can knock off the
King's hat any number of times. Destruction is finite; obstruction
is infinite: so long as rebellion takes the form of mere disorder
(instead of an attempt to enforce a new order) there is no logical
end to it; it can feed on itself and renew itself for ever."
-G.K. Chesterson, What's Wrong with The World? pg.
114.
http://www.openlibrary.org/details/wrongwiththe00chesuoft
Brandybuck|12.22.07 @ 2:07PM|#
Wonder if all those Rudy Bashers here at Reason who jumped on the story will now similarly admit their mistake?
Brandybuck|12.22.07 @ 2:08PM|#
Let's try that one again...
Wonder if all those Rudy Bashers here at Reason who jumped on the story will now similarly admit their mistake?
I have never "bashed" Mr. Giuliani regarding his girlfriend. On the
other hand, his quote about freedom being about submission to
authority is worthy of all ridicule from all libertarians! Or did
the NYT say they made that one up as well?
|12.22.07 @ 2:14PM|#
"They're less consequential than the little lizards who scurry
beneath my feet and who I occasionally (accidentally) squish with a
crunch."
Well, to be fair, if the rule of law were popular among
conservatives Romney would be for it (providing the position he
were running for at the time was one where conservative voters made
up a majority).
As for Rudy, I saw Judith Nathan for the first time and can say
this about that: he has the hottest potential first lady that I
have seen. Va-va-voom!
BakedPenguin|12.22.07 @ 2:26PM|#
MNG, this is somewhat disturbing, but it contradicts your hypothesis.
robc|12.22.07 @ 2:30PM|#
BakedPenguin,
Arent first ladies constitutional required to be born in the US?
And is she 35 yet? I know she hasnt lived in the US for 14
years.
BakedPenguin|12.22.07 @ 2:46PM|#
robc, are you joking? I mean, it's not like she'll inherit the office.
robc|12.22.07 @ 2:58PM|#
BakedPenguin,
Do you really need to ask? I will point out that Madison waited
until Dolly was 41 before becoming President. They only had a 17
year age difference though.
I mean, it's not like she'll inherit the office.
Thats not what Hillary thinks.
robc|12.22.07 @ 2:59PM|#
Ali,
That means Blair is giving up his (and his wife's) claim to the
thrown. :)
robc|12.22.07 @ 3:01PM|#
the thrown.
This is what happens when you dont have royalty, spelling goes
right out the window.
Ali|12.22.07 @ 3:04PM|#
That means Blair is giving up his (and his wife's) claim to
the thrown. :)
I do find it strange though that he would (a) convert at all (I
assume from protestantism), and (b) convert to Catholicism. For
(a), I mean he's a politician, no? When did politician think of
making drastic religious conversions? Regarding (b), and I do not
mean any offense to Catholics on this thread*, but does not that
tell us something about the statism of Blair? I guess we all
already know that he is a statist, but this sheds some new light on
it.
* One of the bigs things I personally find objectionable about the
Roman Church is the emphasis on hierarchy and the infallibility of
the Pope. Same goes for Shi'ism.
BakedPenguin|12.22.07 @ 3:22PM|#
robc - Well, you could have been seriously drunk. Erm... yeah, I
should have known better.
Ali - do you see a correlation between Catholicism (or Shia Islam)
and statism? I ask because I don't think there is anything
necessarily more pro-freedom about Protestantism or Sunni
Islam.
Ali|12.22.07 @ 3:29PM|#
BakedPenguin-
May be not, but in both Shiism and Catholicism there is this
emphasis on "church" and its "church" structure. They are both
highly centralized. On the other hand, protestantism and sunni
Islam are very decentralized and there is no real religious
hierarchical structure. I can't speak much for the other religions,
but Islam does not have any structure. If you believe in God, there
is only you and Him -- no intermediaries, you do not have to go to
a priest/imam for forgiveness, and there is most certainly no
emphasis on the glory of the state, etc. Regarding the latter, I am
not sure if you are aware of the struggle in Islam between
achieving status (as individual or state) for the sake of being
powerful, or for defending what you stand up for.
|12.22.07 @ 3:31PM|#
Baked- Holy smokes Dennis has excellent powers of choice in at
least one area!
In reference to Catholicism there has been a long time thesis about
its connection to authoritarianism (see Max Weber the Protestant
Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). Most of the arguments I
have seen focus on the stifling, moribound regimes of Spain and
Portugal (perhaps the most heavily Cathoic nations in Europe for
centuries) compared to the dynamic regimes in England and Holland
(the Protestant stalwarts). They also argue that Catholicism has
inherent components that support authority (the Church as mediator
between God and man, papal infallibility, and the hierarchy of the
Church) and that Protestantism has inherent components that promote
individuality (the priesthood of all beleivers, for example).
Having said that, there were/are certainly many authoritatian
Protestants and many libertarian minded Catholics...
Ali|12.22.07 @ 3:32PM|#
Also regarding the "glory of the state", I strongly object to those Muslims who keep speaking of the glory of the Islamic Empire. I think they miss the point, just as those "Caliphs" and Muslim Emporers missed the point when they invaded other territories for the sake of expanding their powers as opposed to actually defending against the dangers posed by their adversaries. That is why I condemn many of the Islamic expansions for they were done for the want of power and a stronger Islamic state.
BakedPenguin|12.22.07 @ 3:46PM|#
I'd previously heard the idea of Protestant individualism being
a necessary precursor to the idea of individual liberty in the
West. I think it could have played a part, but I still believe that
some amount of secularism is even more necessary for freedom.
I think Protestantism allowed freedom in Western Europe for a
different reason - that the schism between Protestantism and
Catholicism meant that realm of religion had to be restricted, and
those with heretical ideas often couldn't be summarily dealt with
as they had in the past.(Yes, I know this is an
oversimplification).
I say this not as an argument against religion per se, but
rather as an argument against religion playing a role in political
life. Islamic civilization was at its greatest when it was, I
believe, more secular. How would most Islamic governments treat
someone who wrote "A loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and you"
today?
|12.22.07 @ 3:51PM|#
BakedPenguin
I think the fact of the break itself was a big factor, so I agree
there. I also think it was the secular elements in Protestantism
(one of the things they did in England was burn relics and other
such things and try to "rationalize" Xtnianity) that would be the
stimulus to freedom and progress, so I think I agree there too.
Ali|12.22.07 @ 3:55PM|#
How would most Islamic governments treat someone who wrote
"A loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and you" today?
I am not sure about exactly what you're referring to, but I can say
this. I do not think that any of the existing governments in
majority Islamic countries are "Islamic". Iran is a
"Shiite Islamic" government, though I remember hearing something on
NPR that referred to a strong sense of separation of Mosque and
State in Shiism up until the Khomeiny revolution, when many Shiite
religious leaders objected to the use of religion by the new
government, but I am not fully aware of the details.
BakedPenguin|12.22.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Ali, my knowledge of Islam is limited. I know the Q'ran is quite
similar to the Old testament, and that Shia and Sunni split because
of a dispute over who the true successor to Mohammed was, and not
much more.
When earthly power is at stake, I don't believe it's the tenets of
a religion that truly matter, because they will be distorted for
the purposes of those who seek power. You have said on other
threads there is a severe injunction against suicide in Islam. That
there are still suicide bombers is a result of the distortion.
There is nothing unique about this behavior to Islam, or even
religion.
My point about Khayyam is
that were he to write and publish today, there are many countries
where he could suffer severe punishment, or threat of death. I was
thinking of the Gulf nations, but you're right, his own birthplace,
Persia, would likely have a grim fate for him. Also, when I said
"Islamic governments" I meant any government that views part of its
job as the enforcement of religious decrees. Malaysia
would qualify.
|12.22.07 @ 4:29PM|#
Ali
Cherie Blair is already a Roman Catholic.
It's actually all in the article.
Ali|12.22.07 @ 4:33PM|#
BakedPenguin-
Ah, I see and agree. Regarding Khayyam, I think he would have done
well in Dubai, Qatar and Oman. Probably not in KSA or Iran. I
admire Dubai a ton (though they do have to work on their treatment
of foreign workers)!
I am slowly coming to the belief that (not that I had believed
otherwise before --just a matter of not thinking of it much in the
past) sharia can not be enforced by a centralized government. Any
just application of Sharia, if the members of a Muslim community
elect to do so (as long as they do not interfere with established
laws of the land, or if they have autonomy over the land they
inhabit), they have to do it subjectively and locally. Otherwise
abuses of the principles of Islam and of the individuals
participating are bound to occur.
Now what I just said could put me in trouble with the Islamists,
but quite frankly I do not care about them!
Ali|12.22.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Isaac, Oh and by the way, this is "iih" if you have not been following H&R recently. All thanks to, oddly enough, Dondero!
Eric Dondero|12.22.07 @ 4:39PM|#
NoStar, if it comes down to Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton I will vote Libertarian, no matter who the Nominee is -- hopefully Wayne Root, but even if I have to hold my nose and vote for Kubby or Phillies. (I actually like both Steve and George on a personal level. George has been on my show, and he's quite a genuine sincere fellow - though his views on foreign policy are absolutely atrocious.)
Ali|12.22.07 @ 4:40PM|#
Oh my God! I should have mentioned a $1,000,000! instead I mention Eric and 1 minute, lo and behold, he shows up! Darn, I just lost myself a ton of money!
Eric Dondero|12.22.07 @ 4:40PM|#
More breaking news...
Now up at MainstreamLibertarian.com:
2006 Libertarian candidate Bob Smither may switch to Republican,
and run for the Tom DeLay seat for Congress. It's being reported by
at least one reliable Texas news website.
Ali|12.22.07 @ 4:45PM|#
Eric:
Pollster John Zogby: "Ron Paul: He's going to do better than anyone
expects. Look to Paul to climb into the double-digits in Iowa. Why?
He's different, he stands out. He's against the war and he has the
one in four Republicans who oppose the war all to himself.
Libertarianism is hot, especially among free-market Republicans and
20-somethings. And he's an appealing sort of father figure. He's
his own brand. All he needs to do is beat a couple of big names in
Iowa, then New Hampshire is friendlier territory. After all, the
state motto is "Live Free or Die."
Article here.
Eric Dondero|12.22.07 @ 7:32PM|#
Ali, Florida Quinipiac poll, Ron Paul...
2%!!!!!!
That's Two Percent. As in the number (2).
10 months of campaigning and Ron Paul is at 2% in Florida.
Why is it that Floridians dislike Ron Paul so much?
And why is it Californians dislike him too? Can't seem to climb out
of the 3% hole in Cali.
Eric Dondero|12.22.07 @ 7:33PM|#
Ali, just a guess here, but would Zogby's alleged ties to CAIR
have something to do with his allegiance to the
Anti-War/Pro-Palestinian Ron Paul?
Just a guess.
Ali|12.22.07 @ 7:42PM|#
Eric,
Could be!
I am not a member of CAIR and don't know exactly what they are up
to (I do receive their emails though), but why are they bad? I am
sure you can elucidate.
Ali|12.22.07 @ 7:53PM|#
And what is wrong with being pro-Palestinian anyways? It does not automatically mean that being pro-Palestinian is to be anti-Israel! You know, there are people out there who do not believe, it seem like you, that it is a zero sum game. Ron Paul does not. I do not. Do you?
Mr. Nazi Guy|12.22.07 @ 8:39PM|#
Ali, Florida Quinipiac poll, Ron Paul...
2%!!!!!!
So where is the rest of the Florida Nazi vote going?
|12.22.07 @ 10:10PM|#
"Ali, just a guess here, but would Zogby's alleged ties to CAIR
have something to do with his allegiance to the
Anti-War/Pro-Palestinian Ron Paul?"
Yeah Donderdo, CAIR used their wide influence to bump the
(according to you) anti-Semite Paul from 2 to 3%.
Are you just trying to be an ignorant *sshole or what?
Ali|12.22.07 @ 10:18PM|#
MNG-
And the funny thing is that Muslims overwhelming don't want Paul!
They are split between Hillary and Obama (and no Dondero, not
because he is Barak Hussein Obama). I once
suggested to an (intellectual) Muslim that he votes Paul and got
nothing back but a look of disgust on his face and as if I were
crazy.
Guy Montag|12.23.07 @ 8:04AM|#
Gold Standard folks: just remember it is much harder to light
your bigh giant cigars with silver or gold than it is with paper
money.
Don't singe your tophat.
Eric Dondero|12.23.07 @ 8:24AM|#
Ali, Barack Hussein Obama will be our first ever Muslim President. Are you excited about that prospect?
Fluffy|12.23.07 @ 8:38AM|#
Obama would be preferable to any Republican candidate other than
Paul.
You're just so locked in to your "liberty caucus" battered wife
mindset that you can't see the simple fact that when two candidates
walk up to you and say,
Candidate One: "I will raise your taxes 3%,"
and
Candidate Two: "I will leave your taxes the same but will detain
people in secret prisons and torture the shit out of them, while I
spy on your email and voice traffic to make sure you don't complain
about it too much,"
Candidate One is better for libertarians than Candidate Two. This
is simply beyond dispute by anyone who isn't a fucking
psychopath.
BakedPenguin|12.23.07 @ 9:12AM|#
...the funny thing is that Muslims overwhelming[ly] don't want Paul!
Then you have a lot of work to do.
Guy Montag|12.23.07 @ 9:44AM|#
ED,
B. Hussein Obama happens to be Christian, if we are speaking in the
present tense and much of the past.
Ali|12.23.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Guy-
B. Hussein Obama happens to be Christian, if we are speaking in the
present tense and much of the past.
That is true.
Plus, Eric, Muslims can't be voting Obama because he is "Muslim".
If anything the idea of a Muslim claiming NOT to be Muslim to seek
power would be abhorring to most Muslims as a matter of principle.
Hypocrisy in Islam is one of the worst sins. Just saying.
But why then are they leaning Obama? Because he is the least of all
the evils out there from their viewpoint. I, however, think that
Paul is the only good out there.
|12.23.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Eric Dondero, Rudi Guiliani will be our forty-fourth white,
Christian president.
Does that idea excite you? A perfect 44 for 44 run?
No? Then how about laying the fuck off Ali?
|12.23.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Ali,
It's going to take a long, long time for the GOP to dig itself out
of its hole among Muslim Americans.
That's ok. For the next forty years, we're going to get to read
National Review writers explain that "Democrats would never win a
race without the support of women, African-Americans, Jews, Latinos
and Muslims," as opposed to just "...women,
African-Americans, Jews, and Latinos..."
Ali|12.23.07 @ 11:52AM|#
joe-
No? Then how about laying the fuck off Ali?
Haha! Thanks!
It's going to take a long, long time for the GOP to dig itself
out of its hole among Muslim Americans.
The days when the GOP would get 80% of the Muslim and Arab vote
(e.g., in 2000) --anywhere between 2.5M and 5M people-- are long
gone. It will take a lot of Dem screw ups to repel them away from
the DP.
That's ok. For the next forty years, we're going to get to read
National Review writers explain that "Democrats would never win a
race without the support of women, African-Americans, Jews, Latinos
and Muslims," as opposed to just "...women, African-Americans,
Jews, and Latinos..."
Haha... very true. You probably hear Jay Severin. That is exactly
his kind of line of argument (though he only says African Americans
and Latinos. Now he has one more reason to attack Dems -- that they
are Islamofaschist huggers).
|12.23.07 @ 12:36PM|#
80%?
Really?
I knew Bush won them, but 80%?
It will take a lot of Dem screw ups to repel them away from the
DP. Hm, good point - they'll probably be back on Team Red by
2016.
Haha... very true. You probably hear Jay Severin.
I recall one GOPer talking head who actually explained that
"blacks, women, and minorities" vote for Democrats, while "ordinary
people" vote for Republicans.
Ali|12.23.07 @ 12:41PM|#
joe- Yes, I can't find the exact reference now but I am pretty
sure of it. In 2004, it was literally 0% support for Bush!
I recall one GOPer talking head who actually explained that
"blacks, women, and minorities" vote for Democrats, while "ordinary
people" vote for Republicans.
What a repulsive way of thinking. In fact, it reflects that talking
head's own internal racism.
Ali|12.23.07 @ 12:45PM|#
... let me add that he won them on social issues, "humble
foreign policies", and on repealing congressional acts that Muslims
and Arabs viewed as being directed directly at them. Of course,
other than social issues, Bush screwed them on the other two
things.
So to ask them to support a Republican, from Texas(!) is almost
asking the impossible. But I think that some of them are rethinking
about what the Dems will actually do. They overall distrust the
system.
|12.23.07 @ 5:35PM|#
What "congressional acts that Muslims and Arabs viewed as directed directly at them" are you thinkin of, Ali?
SIV|12.23.07 @ 7:22PM|#
joe,
Hillary Clinton may break the Democrat Party lock on the
African-American vote. If she does it couldn't be blamed on a nicer
gal.
Kolohe|12.23.07 @ 8:32PM|#
Political thread commentary, international desk:
PPP apparently victorious with a plurality in the Thai
parliamentary election.
This is good news. While I think I personally would probably be
more politically aligned with the coup and its political
allies(yes, seriously), it is good that the voters have rebuked
such a seizure of power. And its good that the junta has allowed
this result to occur even though it is obviously against their
interests.
Now, the true test is whether the junta will intervene against the
PPP forming a government. They are undoubtedly going to do behind
the scenes stuff; the question if they will do something more
visibly like arrest Thaksin again, or physically prevent the
parliament from meeting.
Ali|12.23.07 @ 9:03PM|#
joe, there were a few laws from before 2000 that go back to the
80s and 90s (often for good reasons, as in the 92 WTC attack).
While I personally see that there should be laws to counter
terrorism, some Arabs saw it as an infringement on their civil
liberties.
I am not against some sort of racial profiling at airports etc, but
I think that there should certainly be guarantees and checks and
balances on those who carry out racial profiling.
|12.23.07 @ 9:04PM|#
SIV, you are so deluded.
The Republicans are always just about to crack that 12% line,
aren't they?
Tell the truth: have you ever looked a single poll that breaks down
the opinions of Democratic voters about the candidates by
race?
Even one? Ever? Tell the truth.
BakedPenguin|12.23.07 @ 10:00PM|#
Kolohe - didn't Thaksin get his support by basically buying
rural voters? IIRC, he had very anti-urban policies. (The article
you linked to mentions the PPP didn't do well in Bangkok).
That said, a military coup was not the answer.
Kolohe|12.23.07 @ 10:39PM|#
BakedPenguin-
Possibly, (or even probably). Like I said, I basic agree with what
the junta stood for politically.
Except for the whole "let's seize power though a military coup"
thing. This is why I'm glad they lost.
I would love for this to play out as a Allende -> Pincohet ->
political pluralism dynamic under a Feiler Faster Principle, and
with a hell of lot fewer deaths and 'desaparecidos.'
Clamping down on corruption is vitally important for this to work
in in the medium and long term. In the short term, however, the
ball is now in the junta's possession, and for the time they must
give it up on downs.
|12.24.07 @ 1:24AM|#
joe -- thanks for the link on the answers about presidential powers. As usual, the folks trailing in the races gave the best, and most humble answers about the limits on presidential powers -- Dodd, Richardson, Paul, and McCain. Romney was terrible, but the worst answers were the non-answers IMO by Giuliani, Huckabee et. al. -- slightly better to admit to having a voracious desire for power than to feel you don't need to condescend to even answer such a vital question.
|12.26.07 @ 12:40PM|#
On further thought, I don't think it's at all surprising that Romney was the worst. He's the one with the biggest background in the top tiers of the private sector economy, and CEO's and other corporate chieftains are used to a level of executive power that would make Henry VII blush.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245