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
Strange Things Done In the Midnight Sun
While one pack of paranoiacs plunges into hysteria over Barack Obama's past left-wing associations -- a phenomenon that may have reached its nadir with No Quarter's breathless revelation that the young Obama sought the endorsement of the mild-mannered Democratic Socialists of America -- a similar witchhunting lunacy is brewing in some quarters of the left. Max Blumenthal and Dave Neiwert published a story in Salon yesterday that's positively breathless in tracing Sarah Palin's relationship to the Alaska Independence Party.
The article is filled with innuendo and unsupported assertions. On learning that some of Palin's 1996 campaign literature described her as "the Christian candidate," for example, Blumenthal and Neiwert assert confidently that this was a "subtle suggestion" that her Lutheran opponent was really Jewish. The authors also make a lot of the AIP's sympathy for southern separatists, implying that the group has a racist core. They don't mention that the pan-secessionist party is also friendly to Lakota separatists, Hawaiian separatists, Puerto Rican separatists, and crunchy-granola Vermont separatists -- all of which impies that it's not whiteness but devolution that drives the organization.
But enough about the AIP. What does the Salon story tell us about Palin? Basically, that she and a few right-wing populists (a) worked together on some gun-rights issues, (b) worked together on some property-rights issues, and (c) uh...well, they were together, man.
This is what "Ayers! Ayers! Ayers!" sounds like in Salonese.
Mike Laursen|10.11.08 @ 2:48PM|#
The best thing that could happen to the U.S. right now would be for it to break up into about half a dozen or so smaller countries. The government of our one-giant country is too distant, unaccountable, and imperialistic.
|10.11.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Well, what else the point of identifying yourself as the
Christian candidate? This is a Christian nation, founded by
Christians on the principles of Christianity.
Everyone here is a Christian, unless you're one of those...
others.
Rosei O\'Donnell|10.11.08 @ 2:52PM|#
The AIP is just as bad as the Weatherman, just like Christian fundamentalists are just as bad as Al Qaeda.
William Ayers|10.11.08 @ 2:54PM|#
Geez, you set off a few bombs and kill afew cops and suddenly everyone gets all upset. Man up, people!
|10.11.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Well, what else the point of identifying yourself as the
Christian candidate? This is a Christian nation, founded by
Christians on the principles of Christianity.
Everyone here is a Christian, unless you're one of those...
others.
Well, that's one possibility. Another is that you want to announce
that your political program is intended to promote Christianity
(however defined).
BDB|10.11.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Nobody cares, because in less than a month she will be a Final Jeopardy! question and little more.
|10.11.08 @ 2:57PM|#
How many millions did Ayers steer to Obama?
As many as he could, I hope. That man's got a lot of good works to
carry out if he wants to make up for his past.
|10.11.08 @ 2:58PM|#
Geez, you set off a few bombs and kill afew cops and
suddenly everyone gets all upset. Man up, people!
Just don't try to buy your plastic explosives in Alaska, Billy. Bad
scene up there.
More Fun With Mortgages|10.11.08 @ 2:59PM|#
We'll see if the press can hush this up till after the
election:
(5) One favor political Chicago claims Obama did for the
Giannoulias family was in 2006 when, out of the blue, 29 year old
Alexi Giannoulias, with no experience, and without ever having
voted before, decides to run for State Treasurer of Illinois. Also
out of the blue, Barack Obama endorses Alexi Giannoulias for State
Treasurer. This was a SHOCK to everyone in Chicago - and
Giannoulias would have never become State Treasurer without Obama's
help. In political circles here, it has always been believed that
this endorsement was bought years ago with that sweetheart mortgage
deal Broadway Bank arranged for Obama to buy his town
house.
William Ayers|10.11.08 @ 3:00PM|#
That man's got a lot of good works to carry out if he wants
to make up for his past.
Make up for what? We should have done more!
Mike Laursen|10.11.08 @ 3:01PM|#
Nobody cares, because in less than a month she will be a
Final Jeopardy! question and little more.
Yeah, although she should at least be able to get a book deal and
an AM radio show out of it.
|10.11.08 @ 3:01PM|#
In political circles here, it has always been
believed...
Well, I guess that's that, then.
|10.11.08 @ 3:02PM|#
Make up for what? We should have done more!
Bzzt. Thanks for playing, but the correct answer is "We should have
done more to end the war."
Hope you like Turtle Wax.
|10.11.08 @ 3:04PM|#
I don't think she's a good enough speaker to kinda rise up into
the airspace of even the right-wing media.
Say what you will about Limbaugh and Savage and Glenn Beck, those
people are quick on their feet, clever, and talented. Also.
BDB|10.11.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Does anyone see Palin (assuming the voters of Alaska don't rise up into her airspace) making it past Haley Barbour, Bobby Jindal, and Mark Sanford in 2012? I'll give her until the Iowa Caucuses.
Elemenope|10.11.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Denial-Anger-Bargaining-Acceptance? Is that
right?
You forgot "depression/sadness". Goes between bargaining and
acceptance.
BDB|10.11.08 @ 3:06PM|#
No, not even the caucuses. I think she'll be finished by the Iowa Straw Poll.
Kolohe|10.11.08 @ 3:06PM|#
They don't mention that the pan-secessionist party is also
friendly to Lakota separatists, Hawaiian separatists, Puerto Rican
separatists,
Well, both the Hawaiian and Puerto Rican secessionist movements
have a significant, perhaps even predominate, racial component. I'm
not familiar enough with the Lakota one to make any judgments.
|10.11.08 @ 3:12PM|#
BDB,
Maybe she'll get better over the next three years, and come back as
a strong campaigner.
And also too, unlike Dan Quayle, she's built up a strong following
among the party faithful.
But...naw. It's going to be Jindal. He's just too smart and able.
Not to mention, the Republicans are all going to tell themselves
that Obama only won because he's black, so the appeal of running
someone from a minority group against him will be overwhelming. She
might be the VP candidate again, though.
BDB|10.11.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Personally I'd like to see Jeff Flake take McCain's Senate seat and run a below-the-radar campaign that could surprise in Iowa or New Hampshire.
gmatts|10.11.08 @ 3:14PM|#
The only thing worthwhile that Max Blumenthal has done was to
have asked Michelle Malkin to sign a picture of a Japanese
internment camp.
I doubt that Palin has spent much time contemplating the times when
"it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political
bands which have connected them with another".
BDB|10.11.08 @ 3:14PM|#
"You forgot "depression/sadness". Goes between bargaining and
acceptance."
Well, He of The Thousand Screen Names is still in the second
stage.
Elemenope|10.11.08 @ 3:15PM|#
"Joe Greene, for The Midnight Sun."
If you get the reference, you are a geek.
gmatts|10.11.08 @ 3:16PM|#
"But...naw. It's going to be Jindal"
I heard he's an A-rab though. His real name isn't even Bobby! He's
hding something.
|10.11.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Maybe she'll get better over the next three years, and come
back as a strong campaigner.
And also too, unlike Dan Quayle, she's built up a strong following
among the party faithful.
Nay, nay. She's headed to Sergent Shriver territory at best.
Mike Laursen|10.11.08 @ 3:21PM|#
I don't think she's a good enough speaker to kinda rise up
into the airspace of even the right-wing media.
Yeah, I suppose you're right. I guess its just a ghost-written book
or two, selling mostly on conservative websites and Christian book
stores.
|10.11.08 @ 3:22PM|#
J sub D,
Maybe, but I'll note one difference. Sargent Shriver was an old
hand in 1972. Palin's still a rookie, so there's the possibility of
growth.
Sarah Palin: the Clay Buchholz of Republican politics. Send her
back down to the minors and see what happens. Let's just hope they
didn't wreck her career by bringing her up too early.
BDB|10.11.08 @ 3:24PM|#
My prediction is that everyone on the right dumps on her November 5th, blaming her for the loss.
|10.11.08 @ 3:25PM|#
No, BDB, they'll blame McCain.
Palin has been absolutely shameless in pushing the
Ayers/Wright/scary meme, while McCain has not. He's already taking
flak for it from his side.
If only he'd said HUSSEIN more - that's going to be the line.
BDB|10.11.08 @ 3:27PM|#
"If only he'd said HUSSEIN more - that's going to be the
line."
Oh Christ, I hope not. What a stupid rationalization.
BDB|10.11.08 @ 3:28PM|#
I mean they've been doing that for a week, to the point where their rallies have turned into ten minutes hate, and they still haven't moved in the polls! If anything, McCain has moved *down* slightly.
Kolohe|10.11.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Kolohe -
Lakota - Native American tribes. Used to be called the
Sioux.
I should have said I'm not familiar enough with the tenants of
their separatist movement. I remember a reason post a few months
ago which made them seem pan-ethnic enough.
Ah here it
is
"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and
all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our
country are free to join us,",
Seems nice enough. Don't agree, and don't think much of their
chances, but I respect their position.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|10.11.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Lakota - Native American tribes. Used to be called the
Sioux.
I thought the Lakota were one of two distint groups of Sioux. The
other being Dakota.
Yeah like the states, which were named after them...
|10.11.08 @ 3:32PM|#
Palin won't get any blame. The moderate, isle crossing, free speech squelching, global warming alarmist media whore will get all of the blame.
ed|10.11.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Jesus H. Christ, who the hell cares? The election is ovah. Ovah!
Stick a fork in McCain and his silly henchwoman and start thinking
about what you're going to say once Hussein™ has moved into the
Black House.*
*You know it's coming. I'm Ed, and I have approved this
capitulation.
-|10.11.08 @ 3:38PM|#
I'm sure this will show up all over the media:
Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis,
as HUMAN EVENTS learned from the letter shown in full text
below.
McCain's letter -- signed by nineteen other senators -- said that
it was "...vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps
to ensure that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]...operate in a safe and
sound manner.[and]..More importantly, Congress must ensure that the
American taxpayer is protected in the event that either...should
fail."
Sen. Obama did not sign the letter, nor did any other
Democrat.
Of course, that won't stop Obama from claiming the subprime mess is
McCain's fault because he deregulated something totally unrelated
to the fiasco Dems created.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973
|10.11.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Hope all you libertarian snarkers enjoy your snarking while you can. In the coming People's Republic of Hope and Change, snarkery that is not strictly PC will be a prosecutable hate crime as it's becoming in Canada and the UK. And don't think the First Amendment will protect you, because The Messiah is going to be able to appoint three Supreme Court nominees who will be rubber-stamped by the coming filibuster-proof Democratic majority. Un-PC snarking will be equated to crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Be sure to get all that snarking in by January 20th.
|10.11.08 @ 3:43PM|#
I say she's done. I agree with BoB(lmao) that she will take the
fall(not willingly) so that McCain can ride off into the sinset
with honor and stuff.
She abandoned her Alaska base for McCain and I expect she'll be
fired up there early next year. IMO her political career is over at
every level.
Asharak|10.11.08 @ 3:45PM|#
Well, both the Hawaiian and Puerto Rican secessionist
movements have a significant, perhaps even predominate, racial
component. I'm not familiar enough with the Lakota one to make any
judgments.
Which is precisely why it was hypocritical of McCain to make
Reverend Wright an issue and then pick Palin as his running mate.
Like I said, it would have been smarter to go after Obama on his
tax and gun-control proposals more.
BDB|10.11.08 @ 3:46PM|#
I'm convinced after reading JohnL. It will be the 1990s all over again, just like MAX HATS said.
|10.11.08 @ 3:47PM|#
I don't get the equivalence between the two. On the one hand you have Wright whom Obama claimed as a spiritual mentor up until it became inconvenient and on the other hand you have Palins association with groups that some are trying very hard to paint as racists organizations.
|10.11.08 @ 3:48PM|#
ten minutes hate ... lmao. However, one should not be displeased to see passion of some sort emanating from the electorate ... after x number of years of slow-sap apathy from tha proles. We do retain the right to scream when being plowed in the cornhole!
|10.11.08 @ 3:49PM|#
I'd like to offer a subtle distinction between the opposing views. While people at Salon are making the associations on the left, it is the republican candidates for vice president and president who are making these assocations on the right. To make a truely realistic comparison, Obama would have to be bringing up this crap at stump speeches. While there is bad stuff occurring on both sides, it appears to me that the McCain campaign is significanly worse and more at fault in this instance.
thoreau|10.11.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Look at who's doing better: The guy with the inspiring speeches.
Say what you will about Obama's rhetoric and policies and whatever
else, but he plays up hope, and he wins.
McCain should cut the divisiveness, talk about national greatness
in inspiring terms, and see what happens. I don't think he'll win,
but he'll do better, and some of the ugliness will dissipate.
Asharak|10.11.08 @ 3:56PM|#
Hope all you libertarian snarkers enjoy your snarking while
you can. In the coming People's Republic of Hope and Change,
snarkery that is not strictly PC will be a prosecutable hate crime
as it's becoming in Canada and the UK. And don't think the First
Amendment will protect you, because The Messiah is going to be able
to appoint three Supreme Court nominees who will be rubber-stamped
by the coming filibuster-proof Democratic majority. Un-PC snarking
will be equated to crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Be sure to
get all that snarking in by January 20th.
Yeah, that's right, JohnL, everyone who doesn't support
McCain/Palin is automatically pro-Obama. Moron.
Oh, and in McPalin's America, we can look forward to more no-knock
drug raids as well as taxes on health insurance for the time and
angry mobs of freepers yelling "Traitor!" and "Kill him!" whenever
somebody dares to be critical of Il Hockey Mamma.
|10.11.08 @ 4:04PM|#
First then came for the snarkers
Won't any of you assholes stick up for me?
(banging on door)
It's the Obama Thought Police! Help!
(loads shotgun)
|10.11.08 @ 4:05PM|#
JohnL in 1992:
Hope all you libertarian snarkers enjoy your snarking while you can. In the coming People's Republic of the Man from Hope, snarkery that is not strictly PC will be a prosecutable hate crime as it's becoming in Canada and the UK. And don't think the First Amendment will protect you, because Bubba is going to be able to appoint three Supreme Court nominees who will be rubber-stamped by the coming filibuster-proof Democratic majority. Un-PC snarking will be equated to crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Be sure to get all that snarking in by January 20th.
Seriously after the last 8 years, you really think the Republicans
are exemplars of small government and liberty? Give me a fucking
break. Last I checked the past administration, with a Republican
Congress (led by the current Republican presidential candidate)
severely limited political speech. But Obama's the one threat to
liberty. Fortunately, I haven't pissed off any of Palin's friends
or family, or she'd try to get me fired.
BDB|10.11.08 @ 4:05PM|#
We're going to
IOWA!!.
Seriously, wtf? Libby Dole and Chambilss is in trouble and McCain
is doubling down in a state he has no chance of winning in and with
no down ticket races of any importance.
Bingo|10.11.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Obamstalin? Stalbama? Obamao Zedong? I don't know what to replace my Bushitler with :(
|10.11.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Maybe they're worried that he'd harm down-ticket races. Bring out the Obama voters.
Asharak|10.11.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Seriously after the last 8 years, you really think the
Republicans are exemplars of small government and liberty? Give me
a fucking break. Last I checked the past administration, with a
Republican Congress (led by the current Republican presidential
candidate) severely limited political speech. But Obama's the one
threat to liberty. Fortunately, I haven't pissed off any of Palin's
friends or family, or she'd try to get me fired.
Bingo.
Obama's one term as President likely won't be any worse than what
we've already put up with(notwithstanding a Lonewacko type trying
to assassinate him and thus leading to more extensive anti-terror
legislation).
BDB|10.11.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Watch the right wingers all of a sudden begin to care about stuff like the President being able to declare people "enemy combatants" and imprison them without cause. Nevermind that they didn't care when Bush was building up those powers. Fucking morons.
Bingo|10.11.08 @ 4:18PM|#
It will really be hilarious when the Obama-or-Chimp emails to start circulating.
BDB_sucks|10.11.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Watch the left wingers all of a sudden begin to not care about stuff like the President being able to declare people "enemy combatants" and imprison them without cause. Nevermind that they whined endlessly when congress was building up those powers. Fucking morons.
Bingo|10.11.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Barrack Hu$$ein Obiden Jong Il is declaring American citizens to be enemy combatants! Stop the unconstitutional abuse of presidential power... renew your National Review subscription today!
BDB|10.11.08 @ 4:23PM|#
"Barrack Hu$$ein Obiden Jong Il is declaring American citizens
to be enemy combatants! Stop the unconstitutional abuse of
presidential power... renew your National Review subscription
today!"
That will take about four months.
And the The Nation will be talking about how necessary said powers
are.
|10.11.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Obama Nation/Abomination....coincidence?
They'll pry my snarks from my cold, dead, err...
Asharak|10.11.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Hi TallDave. Stay classy!
He is a rather pathetic and craven little man, isn't he? What else
can you say about a guy who's still deluded enough to believe that
the same people who threw Tommy Chong in prison for selling bongs
are compatible with libertarianism?
Elemenope|10.11.08 @ 4:30PM|#
And the The Nation will be talking about how
necessary said powers are.
I somehow doubt it. The Nation, say what you will about
them and I could say plenty, they are pretty consistently
anti-authoritarian and they have a hard-on for the fourth, fifth,
and sixth amendments.
The American Prospect, on the other hand, that I'd
buy.
|10.11.08 @ 4:57PM|#
Hey guys, I'm a Randian. That means I get to look down on and feel superior to you "libertarians" precisely the way you all do to Democrats and Republicans.
alan|10.11.08 @ 5:02PM|#
Asharak | October 11, 2008, 3:27pm | #
Lefiti=Edward.
Yeap, but I haven't seen him use either one of those or the MK2 one
on this board for at least a month. it would be nice if he didn't
come back. What a POS.
First they came for the snarkers, and they got their asses
handed back to them.
|10.11.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Regarding those Lakota separatists, there have loads of support
in the ultra-left sects like the Revolutionary Communist Party of
Bob Avakian and even loonier micro-sects like the Revolutionary
Anti-Imperialist Movement-Denver,
http://raimd.wordpress.com/
Why We Say… Fuck the Troops! « Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist
...
Jul 2, 2008 ... Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement- Denver ·
Contact RAIM-Denver
http://raimd.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/why-we-say-fuck-the-troops/
KKKolumbus Day 2008: Fight Racism and National Oppression
October 7, 2008 - raimd
alan|10.11.08 @ 5:09PM|#
evolutionary Communist Party of Bob Avakian and even loonier
micro-sects like the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist
Movement-Denver,
http://raimd.wordpress.com/
Never heard of them. Are you sure they are not just a bunch of guys
who bought a fax machine and generated a little publicity for
themselves like The Union of Concerned Scientist?
alan|10.11.08 @ 5:13PM|#
BTW, The Union of Concerned Scientist, they happen to be on my
mind because I made a batch of General Tso sauce and I put it over
a couple of pounds of chicken thighs and breast and smoldering on
slow in my pressure cooker for the last three hours. I'm going to
transfer them to the grill and BBQ those bastards.
When I make overly rich Chinese food I think of those anemic
saps.
shecky|10.11.08 @ 5:54PM|#
No wonder Obama's been palling around with Ayers. After all,
Ayers wrote
"Dreams from My Father". So sayeth anonymous
freepers youtube rednecks NRO's Andy
McCarthy.
Say it louder, McCarthy, so everyone can hear. I want to
believe.
|10.11.08 @ 6:06PM|#
sheck,
The most unbelievable line from that post is the following, "If he
wins, Obama will be my president, and as I'm not a MoveOn Democrat
who'd rather tear down my country than see a president I opposed
succeed." If anyone actually believe McCarthy, who has spent the
last week frothing at the mouth about how Obama is a commie left
wing extremist, won't spend most of the next 4 years trying to tear
down Obama, I have a grip of CDOs to sell you.
|10.11.08 @ 6:40PM|#
No wonder Obama's been palling around with Ayers. After all,
Ayers wrote "Dreams from My Father".
In Kenya.
|10.11.08 @ 6:41PM|#
I hear the book used to have a different title, but they won't release the real galleys.
Boston|10.11.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Now maybe Obama has a backlog of writing fom Columbia or
Harvard that signal great literary promise, but he not only hasn't
shared it, he's assiduously hidden traces of it.
- McCarthy
So now candidate now have to give over their old papers from
college? And not doing so is hiding it? Welcome to crazy world.
(god i hated those commercials)
|10.11.08 @ 6:57PM|#
WOW this kinda puts a interesting kink into the story.Congressman Lewis says McCain is channeling George Wallace
Orange Line Special|10.11.08 @ 7:28PM|#
Uh oh. Looks like Max Blumenthal
is disfavored by the Orange Line faction. (My discussion of the
article appeared a couple days ago here)
Also, when I said "libruhtarians for socialists!" before, I was
joking. I wasn't expecting Reason to be soft on groups like the
DSA.
However, what I was expecting was that Reason would ignore the fact
that Barack Obama was a
member of a party that called themselves 'socialist
democratic'
P.S. If BHO wasn't worried about his past affiliations, why did he
change his website? Yes, that's right: BHO sent part of his
website down the ol' memory hole as soon as yet another of his lies
was revealed.
P.P.S. Does the Kochtopus have some sort of deal with BHO or
something, or are they just being useful idiots?
Justen|10.11.08 @ 7:49PM|#
Ah it's nice to be reminded occasionally that the ultra-liberal fringe 'journalists' are still out there, fighting fire with fire. Too bad their flaming conservative archenemy, the Murdochian Empire, is a Goliath to their David and they're short more than a few stones.
|10.11.08 @ 7:54PM|#
Isn't it usually redundant to refer to 'Democratic socialists',
post-Bill Clinton? The bailout bill had, what, 75% support from
Congressional Democrats? Exclude the southern Blue Dogs, and you're
probably talking closer to 90% of the remainder. And I'm guessing
closer to 100% of the Illinois Congressional Democratic
caucus.
Of course, as the bailout bill shows, almost half of the
Republicans in Congress are closet socialists, too.
Re this: While one pack of paranoiacs plunges into hysteria
over Barack Obama's past left-wing associations -- a phenomenon
that may have reached its nadir with No Quarter's breathless
revelation that the young Obama sought the endorsement of the
mild-mannered Democratic Socialists of America
OK, I'll bite: name just ONE thing in the linked article from "No
Quarter" that isn't completely true and factual. Anyone?
* crickets chirping *
I'd say the lack of objectivity lay in Jesse Walker's snide
characterization of the article, said article seeming to be a
pretty even-handed disclosure of info that might be relevant in
discerning what crap Obama might inflict on us if he gets in
office.
But hey, can't ruin Reason's black-leather jacketed cosmotarian
cool image by pointing out that Obama isn't particularly
libertarian, and giving specifics.
Elemenope|10.11.08 @ 7:55PM|#
If BHO wasn't worried about his past affiliations, why did
he change his website?
Just to mess with your head, Wacko. All for you!
SIV|10.11.08 @ 7:58PM|#
brotherben,
Down here in GA we greatly respect John Lewis' courage and
leadership on Bloody Sunday March 7, 1965.He is a true hero for his
contribution to the civil rights movement.We tend to give him a
pass for his later embarrassing actions and statements as a member
of Congress.
Justen|10.11.08 @ 7:59PM|#
@Asharak: dom't worry, we get no-knock police raids regardless. Biden loves 'em (you know, as long as they're 'used responsibly' or whatever).
Elemenope|10.11.08 @ 8:00PM|#
prolefeed --
The bailout has zip, zero, and nada to deal with socialism. A
"socalist bailout" would have taken that 700 Billion and just cut a
check for $2,300 to every man, woman and child in the US. Massive
redistribution of wealth for the benefit of the little people, and
all that.
A bailout of the very top of the capitalist class (the invested
class, the bourgeois, or whatever the fuck you want to call them)
and their corporate creatures (banks, investment houses, etc.) is
surely *something* anti-free market Capitalist, but that something
isn't *socialism*.
SIV|10.11.08 @ 8:06PM|#
El,
"National Socialism"? Socialism all the same.
Whatever,I find it telling that you think "real socialism" is
somehow beneficial to the "little people".They suffer under it like
everyone else.
Kolohe|10.11.08 @ 8:08PM|#
OLS Dec 1, 07:
There's a difference between illegal aliens and criminal aliens, and I strongly suspect that the workers were just the former and not the latter. And, of course, he's not "anti-immigration".
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007282.html
OLS Sep 29, 2008:
As it turns out, this was part of ICE's annual Operation Community Sweep where they go after gangs. Cynthia Dizikes of the Los Angeles Times offers straightforward coverage here. Solomon Moore of the New York Times offers straightforward coverage here. I'm going to guess that the vast majority of their readers won't notice what's missing from both. If the raids were of, say, a sweatshop both sources would wave about sympathetic "victims" of the raid in order to support sweatshops and illegal activity. The LAT and the NYT might want to do that in cases like this, but if so they probably realize that would be going too far. (The LAT article does quote New Jersey Union City police department chief Charles Everett as saying something sanctuary city-like).
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/008062.html
So there is a difference between illegal aliens and criminal
aliens. Except for when there is not. Or the MSM should not
conflate illegal aliens and criminal aliens. Except they should
treat gang members like people working in a chicken plant.
BDB|10.11.08 @ 8:10PM|#
OLS is a sick, disturbed little fuck. I don't know why you bothered to go into his archives.
Kolohe|10.11.08 @ 8:11PM|#
A bailout of the very top of the capitalist class (the
invested class, the bourgeois, or whatever the fuck you want to
call them) and their corporate creatures (banks, investment houses,
etc.) is surely *something* anti-free market Capitalist, but that
something isn't *socialism*.
hmm, well they're 'nationalizing' the banks, and 'socializing' the
losses. But what to call it? :)
MAX HATS|10.11.08 @ 8:11PM|#
Whatever,I find it telling that you think "real socialism" is somehow beneficial to the "little people".They suffer under it like everyone else.
The socialists!! They're everywhere!!!!!
Kolohe|10.11.08 @ 8:15PM|#
OLS is a sick, disturbed little fuck. I don't know why you bothered to go into his archives.
Kolohe|10.11.08 @ 8:17PM|#
whoops again-
was just waiting for the tb/bos game to start. It was preferable to
listening to the tbs 'sports' folks
(Their braves games used to be pretty solid with the cross-deck
with the radio network. But their 'national' talent now stinks)
Ed|10.11.08 @ 8:24PM|#
Um...I hate the be the grammar Nazi but shouldn't the word "impies" be "implies?"
Sea of Liberty|10.11.08 @ 8:28PM|#
Does anyone know of a website that talks about free minds and
free markets?
Possibly one in Alaska? Or maybe Canada?
Bingo|10.11.08 @ 8:39PM|#
Er, Ed, not Sea of Liberty. I just got back from a beer and bike festival so my mind is not quite as clear as it could be.
Elemenope|10.11.08 @ 8:47PM|#
Whatever,I find it telling that you think "real socialism"
is somehow beneficial to the "little people".They suffer under it
like everyone else.
What ON EARTH would make you get that out of my comment?
I imagine it helps you somehow to project kindergarten ideologies
and heresies upon your interlocutors, but it will not help you
understand anyone better.
|10.11.08 @ 8:47PM|#
Everyone but me is a socialists.
Him, him, him, her, him, and him. All of 'em. Socialists.
Damn socialist just splashed me driving by. Socialist.
Hey, lady, get your socialist dog off my lawn. I don't want to have
clean up his socialism.
Cripes, this has given me the biggest head-socialism.
Elemenope|10.11.08 @ 9:05PM|#
hmm, well they're 'nationalizing' the banks, and
'socializing' the losses. But what to call it? :)
Cute. However, "half of socialism" isn't socialism at all, just as
"half of capitalism" isn't really capitalism at all. The phrase
"privatize profits, socialize losses" has been kicked around quite
a lot lately, but pointedly the ideology behind it is some sort of
economic chimera. It is not socialism (which has fairly particular
parameters) and it is not capitalism (ditto). And while it steals
from parts of each, it itself is something different in kind from
its ideological progenitors.
SIV|10.11.08 @ 9:30PM|#
What ON EARTH would make you get that out of my
comment?...........
Massive redistribution of wealth for the benefit of the little
people, and all that.
Socialism is collective ownership and control of capital for the
benefit of the State.The half about egalitarianism is just the
sales job
for those "little people".
Kolohe|10.11.08 @ 9:51PM|#
LMNOP-
Just googling around, I found this list on
wikipedia to be interesting.
I think whomever wrote it was onto something with his division into
following independent parameters:
1) 'Hands off' vs 'Hands on'
2) 'Private' vs 'State' vs 'Communal'
Elemenope|10.11.08 @ 10:02PM|#
Kolohe --
Interesting stuff to digest; I'm not sure I buy the entirety of the
taxonomy, I think mainly because I think that outside of theory
(i.e. in reality) many of those aspects are not truly independent
axes.
Of all the heterodox economic philosophies I've read, this is the one I
find most fascinating.
BakedPenguin|10.11.08 @ 10:23PM|#
LMNOP - the actual economy closest to that model was probably Yugoslavia.
Kolohe|10.11.08 @ 10:51PM|#
LMNOP-
The article talks about it starting with 19th/20th century
catholics, but to me most of the ideas are congruent with a
Jeffersonian Republic. His big thing was the small independent land
owning freedom loving farmer. For that matter Adam Smith preferred
the model of many small business craftsmen vice a few large
commercial organizations.
And although the Jefferson Republic was quickly subsumed into more
Hamiltonian notions (despite the federalists quick withering as a
political force), wide distribution of real property (and other
means of production) was the hallmark of the growth of the United
States. I believe it is the decisive element in both 1) the
anglospherian dominance of North America (vice France or
Spain/Mexico), and 2) the emergence of the United States as an
economic juggernaut.
Kolohe|10.11.08 @ 10:53PM|#
My 11th grade history teacher would be upset if I did not quote
him accurately:
"the small independent self sufficient land owning
freedom loving farmer"
Mike Laursen|10.11.08 @ 11:29PM|#
I'm going to transfer them to the grill and BBQ those
bastards.
All I had for dinner were leftovers. :-(
Mike Laursen|10.11.08 @ 11:33PM|#
My prediction is that everyone on the right dumps on her
November 5th, blaming her for the loss.
Nah, the right will suddenly remember that McCain never was a real
conservative. All the memories that they're repressing right
now.
Mike Laursen|10.11.08 @ 11:36PM|#
BHO sent part of his website down the ol' memory hole as
soon as yet another of his lies was revealed.
McCain wins the memory hole contest.
|10.12.08 @ 12:01AM|#
Kolohe | October 11, 2008, 10:53pm | #
"the small independent self sufficient land owning freedom loving farmer"
I prefer Mencken's take on The Husbandman,
which is closer to the truth.
Elemenope|10.12.08 @ 12:06AM|#
And although the Jefferson Republic was quickly subsumed
into more Hamiltonian notions (despite the federalists quick
withering as a political force), wide distribution of real property
(and other means of production) was the hallmark of the growth of
the United States. I believe it is the decisive element in both 1)
the anglospherian dominance of North America (vice France or
Spain/Mexico), and 2) the emergence of the United States as an
economic juggernaut.
Hence my interest. I think the most succinct, non-snarky, one
sentence insightful critique of Capitalism was Chesterton's: "Too
much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few
capitalists."
Jesse Walker|10.12.08 @ 12:18AM|#
I'd say the lack of objectivity lay in Jesse Walker's snide
characterization of the article, said article seeming to be a
pretty even-handed disclosure of info that might be relevant in
discerning what crap Obama might inflict on us if he gets in
office.
can't ruin Reason's black-leather jacketed cosmotarian cool image
by pointing out that Obama isn't particularly libertarian, and
giving specifics.
This was, I'll note, a response to a post mostly devoted to
defending Sarah Palin and some right-wing Alaskan populists. There
are readers who pay attention to the things you write, and there
are "readers" who follow their own script. Welcome to Lonewacko
territory, Prolefeed.
Here on Planet Earth, reason has criticized the
Democratic nominee heavily for the "crap Obama might inflict on us
if he gets in office." But we base our criticisms on his platform,
and not on dubious extrapolations from the political alliances he
formed in Chicago.
SIV|10.12.08 @ 12:21AM|#
Mike,
I haven't seen anyone on the Right claim McCain is any kind of
"conservative".He was supposed to be the only republican who had a
remote chance of winning in 2008. I'm beginning to think any
Republican candidate could have won if he opposed and demagogued
the "bailout".
Elemenope|10.12.08 @ 12:27AM|#
Welcome to Lonewacko territory, Prolefeed.
Regardless of what posting crimes Prolefeed has committed, that is
never called for!
Lonewacko isn't some kind of standard deviation from the normal
troll. He is the abomination whose existence would have most
reasonable Christians question the existence of God.
Here on Planet Earth, reason has criticized the Democratic
nominee heavily for the "crap Obama might inflict on us if he gets
in office." But we base our criticisms on his platform, and not on
dubious extrapolations from the political alliances he formed in
Chicago.
Kudos for that. But regardless of how even-handed you are, you will
never please either side.
Mike Laursen|10.12.08 @ 1:23AM|#
I haven't seen anyone on the Right claim McCain is any kind
of "conservative".
I'll have to take your word for it. I check in on conservative
radio shows once in a blue moon to see what they are blovating
about now. I have to admit in the recent financial crisis, they
seemed to be more interested in blaming Democrats than talking up
McCain.
|10.12.08 @ 1:58AM|#
"But we base our criticisms on his platform, and not on
dubious extrapolations from the political alliances he formed in
Chicago."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
|10.12.08 @ 2:00AM|#
*Whoosh*
That's the sound of a decade of relevant political history shooting
down the memory hole.
Jesse Walker|10.12.08 @ 2:55AM|#
Oh, I'm all for considering the relevant political
history.
Do you know what the DSA is? It's roughly equivalent to the
Kinnock-era British Labor Party. Not my cup of tea, obviously, but
not the "radical past" advertised by No Quarter either.
Yes, you might learn something about Obama from his interest in
acquiring the group's endorsement. You won't learn it, though, if
you're more interested in drawing sweeping conclusions from the
fact that he found it advantageous to reach out to some
self-described socialists in one of the few American political
environments where that might earn a man more votes than it would
cost him.
Similarly, you can learn some interesting things about Palin from
her cooperation with the AIP. Mostly good things, to judge from her
work with them on gun rights and property rights. But nothing to
justify hyperventilating about racists and terrorists.
Incidentally, the silliest thing about the Obama stuff is the
breathless rhetoric from some quarters about how the DSA is the
American affiliate of the Socialist International. Until recently,
the SI had two US affiliates; the other one was Social
Democrats USA, whose members have included such hard-core leftists
as Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Elliot Abrams. Meanwhile, the most
sweeping free-market reforms to be adopted in the last half-century
were arguably the ones put into place in the '80s by the New
Zealand Labour Party, the local affiliate of -- you guessed it --
the Socialist International. I say this not to defend the DSA,
which doesn't espouse anything akin to those New Zealand policies,
but to point out just how meaningless the Socialist International
affiliation is in sussing out Obama's politics. It's being
mentioned because the organization's name sounds scary, and for no
other reason.
|10.12.08 @ 2:58AM|#
The bailout has zip, zero, and nada to deal with
socialism.
OK, let's see if I've got the LMNOP definition of socialism
correct:
Socialism is the government taking over or controlling huge chunks
of the economy, oftentimes by nationalizing industries, either by
fiat or by confiscating taxes or inflating the currency or taking
on massive debt or all three and buying up those industries --
unless people who liberals loathe get a chunk of the this largesse,
in which we'll call it something else, we have no idea what, but by
god socialism couldn't possibly involve benefiting the rich or the
well-connected or the politically powerful at the expense of the
poor except for all those historical examples where it in fact
fucking DID, because in our world socialism is GOOD for the common
man, and ignore all those starving kulaks and the mass famines
under the Great Leap Forward and the killing fields in Cambodia and
all the other instances pretty much ever time it's been tried and
carried out to its bitter logical end, because it hurts to think
about these inconvenient truths.
Is that in the ballpark of what YOU mean by socialism? Or would you
care to give a more PC version of this awful ideology?
/snark
|10.12.08 @ 3:23AM|#
This was, I'll note, a response to a post mostly devoted to
defending Sarah Palin and some right-wing Alaskan populists. There
are readers who pay attention to the things you write, and there
are "readers" who follow their own script. Welcome to Lonewacko
territory, Prolefeed.
To be fair, Jesse, the bulk of the article where you talked about
Palin was reasonable and interesting stuff, which is why I didn't
talk about that. I apologize if I didn't point that out, but hey,
that part didn't get my dander up.
I did, however, pay attention to what you wrote. I did, in fact,
post your actual words, which I did read -- twice -- and then talk
about how what you wrote did not really seem to match up with the
words in the linked article, which I also read -- once.
Yeah, the people who wrote the linked article really hate
socialism. So I do I. So should most libertarians, you'd think. But
I haven't seen anybody here actually point out anything in that
article that wasn't actually true. Yeah, they made a lot of
insinuations, and one can certainly argue about the conclusions
they drew, and they seemed a bit tweaked out, but the stuff they
wrote seemed to comport with reality, to be fact-based, and they
quoted the actual words at length of the people they were ranting a
bit about, so they weren't taking those words out of context.
So, yeah, go ahead and smear me somehow and lump me with LoneWhacko
for pointing out that Obama and McCain are both socialists, as
their voting records and statements on the campaign trail seem to
bear out, in particular their support for the fucking
bailout.
I guess instead of being Godwinned, we have to add a new category
of egregious over-the-top insult: "LoneWhackoed".
But, hey, no hard feelings big guy. It's a Saturday night, I've got
a Pyramid ale inside me, and a fluffy gray dorg snoozing beside me,
and life is too good to be offended by a driveby LoneWhackoing.
Peace, dude.
Elemenope|10.12.08 @ 3:44AM|#
Prolefeed --
You make the same mistake as SIV in imputing to me a positive
opinion of socialism.
I do not hold one.
But if I can just be crystal clear:
The Murder of Kulaks
The Killing Fields of Cambodia
The "Great Leap Forward"
Lending rich bankers some capital to save their overextended
asses
One of these things is not like the others.
Unless you're a fucking idiot.
One need not be LoneWacko to be a fucking idiot.
Mike Laursen|10.12.08 @ 9:22AM|#
Goddamn, Libertarians are fucking stupid.
You're free to express your cowardly, anonymous opinion. Drink!
|10.12.08 @ 9:58AM|#
prole
I think Jesse was responding to your assertion that reason favors
Obama because of some "cosmotarian" ideals and that this could be
seen manifested in his dismissal of the No Quarters article. I
think Jesse is right here in that reason takes it to Obama quite a
bit, but not on goofy conspiracy theory stuff.
One reason why it would not be helpful for people that classify
just about anyone they disagree with on the matter of government as
"socialists" is that then you are seen as calling everyone a
socialist without any sense of gradation. I mean, if McCain and Mao
are "both socialists" to you then it appears that term is so broad
as to be silly. Reason, dealing not with the clientele of, say, the
Ron Paul newsletters ("Jewish speculators!") but with the more
numerous and influential educated/media-savvy part of the
population interested in libertarian thought probably realizes that
rants about socialism make one look like the proverbial homeless
guy pushing a shopping cart muttering about "teh socialists!"
I think the whole "cosmotarian" charge is one of the silliest
things I've ever seen. From what I gather one is a cosmotarian if
they:
1. Are not neo-confederates
2. Enjoy aspects of non-traditional culture (leather jackets and DC
nightlife)
3. Don't think the Civil Rights Act was the most egregious
government intrusion in the past 200 years
|10.12.08 @ 10:15AM|#
I think prole and LMNOP's disagreement can be addressed by
saying that both are right because a concept like socialism does
not necessarily mean one specific thing.
prole seems to argue that socialism is government "taking over or
controlling huge chunks of the economy, oftentimes by nationalizing
industries, either by fiat or by confiscating taxes or inflating
the currency or taking on massive debt or all three and buying up
those industries." This is consistent with many definitions of
socialism, such as The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language which defines it as a system "in which the means of
producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a
centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
The bailout, to the extent that it involves a centralized
government planning and controlling more of the US economy fits
that bill.
LMNOP seems to me to be objecting to the idea that the bailout
qualifies as socialism because it socializes costs and privatizes
benefits, i.e., transfers social wealth to wealthy figures. If one
takes the definition of socialism from the Chambers 21st Century
Dictionary that socialism is "a political doctrine or system which
aims to create a classless society by removing the nation's wealth
(land, industries, transport systems, etc) out of private and into
public hands" then LMNOP is right. The bailout is certainly not an
attempt to create a classless society.
|10.12.08 @ 10:16AM|#
"Obama
Vagueness we can believe in!"
Yeah, lord knows that McCain is full of specifics!
BDB|10.12.08 @ 10:28AM|#
MNG--
That's about right. Don't forget lack of foaming at the mouth over
the "North American Union" or "New World Order". IOW, if you're not
in OLS territory, you're a "cosmotarian", aka a sane person.
|10.12.08 @ 10:51AM|#
Welcome to Lonewacko territory, Prolefeed.
Damn, remind me never to piss off Jesse.
Handle Randomized for TallDave|10.12.08 @ 11:01AM|#
TheMedia strikes again!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/us/politics/12strategy.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
John McCain's campaign is NOT in trouble, it's TheMedia!
VM|10.12.08 @ 11:17AM|#
LOOK! OVER THERE!!!
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE PEEING ON THE TEN KOMMANDMENTS
[hurries off]
|10.12.08 @ 2:33PM|#
Here is a great editorial by Sam Harris about the dumbing down of american voters and it's relation to gov. Palin.
BDB|10.12.08 @ 2:40PM|#
How are American voters being "dumbed down" if they're rejecting her in droves?
Kolohe|10.12.08 @ 3:15PM|#
from the original post
a similar witchhunting lunacy is brewing in some quarters of
the left.
Some more evidence on this subject. The Republicans are obviously
flailing because they see nothing has been working lately and the
gap keeps growing. But it seems to me the Obama supporters are also
overreacting - sometimes to the point of near batshiat crazy
themselves - and their dude is *winning*.
To wit:
This story in the Washington post that I found through
fark.
The sign went up Sunday evening, bold black letters against the stark white background of the marquee at the Colony South Hotel & Conference Center in Clinton: "Country First. McCain/Palin."
By daybreak, pandemonium had broken loose all across heavily Democratic Prince George's County. Many local supporters of Democrat Barack Obama, jolted by the message as they headed down Branch Avenue on their Monday morning commutes, grabbed cellphones and BlackBerrys to notify friends. Operators of neighborhood e-mail group lists cried foul to their memberships. The NAACP logged calls. Community leaders demanded boycotts of the hotel, a common venue for Democratic events.
Pandemonium?! Boycotts?! Really? For a major party candidate's
banner?
|10.12.08 @ 3:31PM|#
One reason why it would not be helpful for people that
classify just about anyone they disagree with on the matter of
government as "socialists" is that then you are seen as calling
everyone a socialist without any sense of gradation. I mean, if
McCain and Mao are "both socialists" to you then it appears that
term is so broad as to be silly.
Well, if it seemed like I was implying that there were no degrees
of socialism, then I apologize for not being clear enough.
Socialism comes in every degree of admixture with free-market
capitalism, from the U.S., which despite the bailout is still
perhaps the country with the greatest degree of freedom in the
marketplace, at least until Paulson or his successor goes on a
buying spree, to the European Democratic Socialism, to Iraq under
Saddam, to Communist China a decade or so ago, to perhaps the most
extreme manifestation right now, Zimbabwe under Mugabe.
The more socialism, the worse life gets for the subjects in
general, though as Europe shows, you can have a great deal of
socialism and still live a pretty good life.
And, to address LMNOP's point -- there are right-libs and
left-libs. Similarly, there are right-socialists and
left-socialists. Bush and Paulson are right-socialists, who are in
favor of nationalizing industries by grotesquesly overpaying rich
people for severely overvalued assets, and paying for it in ways
that harm poor people. Chavez is a left-socialist, who nationalizes
industries by seizing the assets of rich people with little or no
compensation, and giving some of the seized wealth to poor
people.
The end result over time will be similar, though -- a significantly
poorer society with virtually everyone suffering to some extent --
but with different classes of people momentarily benefiting from
the different types of government seizure.
I do recognize LMNOP's implied point that most socialism to date
has been of the left-socialist variety, and so the recent spate of
right-socialism in the U.S. doesn't fit in with many popular
definitions of what socialism is.
And yeah, the cosmotarian comment I made was kind of a gratuitous
swipe, for which I apologize. I think Nick Gillespie's black
leather jacket is pretty cool, and I'm a bit jealous I can't pull
off that look. :o)
|10.12.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Kolohe, I read the article and I find nothing disturbing. It is the chance you take when you choose sides and post that choice on your business. If the democrats were talking about fire-bombs or lopping the owners head off, then i could see the comparison to repubs.
|10.12.08 @ 3:39PM|#
There is no such thing as "right socialism."
This is the equivalent of using the word "fascist" to describe the
cops who took your weed. It's a trendy misuse of the term, popular
among a certain type of of person who likes to flatter himself by
equating his bugbears with something actually scary.
VM|10.12.08 @ 3:48PM|#
oh yeah. oh yeah. well, the other side would be worse. so there.
neener.
[ducks, which is what cousin Norbert, up in Alaska, should have
done]
the innominate one|10.12.08 @ 3:56PM|#
Jonah Weisberg on
what to call the economic model of the bailout
hi, VM!
thoreau said: Look at who's doing better: The guy with the
inspiring speeches. Say what you will about Obama's rhetoric and
policies and whatever else, but he plays up hope, and he
wins.
I think this is an important point that the campaign consultants
are overlooking. Back when I read George Will regularly, he said
the same thing in regard to Reagan's campaign. Remember "there you
go again". People vote for optimism, for candidates who make them
feel good, except when they're afraid, then they vote for the
candidate who makes them feel safe. I think both are playing a role
in this election, but the optimism probably moreso.
Kolohe|10.12.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Kolohe, I read the article and I find nothing
disturbing.
Really? I grant you that it's precisely the reason that businesses
of all sizes try to assiduously avoid partisan politics.
But it disturbs me that a community is saying 'We don't want any
Republicans to do business here.'. (or alternatively that they
should stay in the closet*). The community has no problem with
similar pro-obama signs. The sign for McCain is supporting a
mainstream albeit currently minority political opinion(both locally
and nationwide). You use a boycott for this 'injustice' and I ain't
going to listen to you when real injustices occur.
also from the article:
"Businesspeople have to be mindful of the sentiments and sensibilities of their market trading area, and Prince George's County is overwhelmingly for Obama," said community activist Arthur Turner of Kettering, who was among those advocating a boycott. "People I have talked to look at the sign as a slap in the face. They feel it was blatant disrespect. . . . I have heard people say they will no longer patronize Colony South because of that disrespect."
This guy manages to fulfill the Palin notion of the 'community
activist'. Disrespected because of a different mainstream political
view? Grow the fuck up.
*ironic, no? And furthermore, to link this back to what Turner
said, if some redneck town in the south boycotted some store with a
gay pride flag in front, how many would say that the store needed
"be mindful of the sentiments and sensibilities of their market
trading area"
|10.12.08 @ 4:09PM|#
fwiw there are no gay pride flags on display in southeast Alabama businesses.(sp)
Kolohe|10.12.08 @ 4:14PM|#
fwiw there are no gay pride flags on display in southeast
Alabama businesses.(sp)
I have seen them in Pensacola. On some store just up the street
from McGuire's and Sammy's. The latter two establishments, btw,
always had some christain fundies protesting outside them saying
both the proprietors and the patrons were going to hell. I never
saw a protest in front of the store with the flags.
|10.12.08 @ 4:17PM|#
One might as well talk about "left monarchism."
Come to think of it, by some lights, Louis XIV was a socialist. His
government had a great deal of involvement in the economy, and
kings have been said to own the entire country, all the land, or
whatnot from time immemorial.
|10.12.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Pensacola, I suspect, is willing to overlook certain things they
find disagreeable, in pursuit of the almighty tourist dollar.
Look, that really is the point here. You can make your stand, or
make your money, but you oftentimes can't do both.
Kolohe|10.12.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Go to Appalachia and put up an Obama sign
A recent poll puts Obama actually
up by 8 in West Va
But even with the usual medium margin of mccain +5 to +8, I'm sure
there are plenty of Obama signs in Appalachia
BDB|10.12.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Yeah, in the ARG/ROFL poll.
If Obama wins West Virginia this year very large pigs will fly by
my window at the same time it's called for him.
|10.12.08 @ 4:21PM|#
VM | October 12, 2008, 4:18pm | #
only if I get the gag ball this time."
VM, all i have is a teabag.
VM|10.12.08 @ 4:23PM|#
well, brotherben, that's just a golden shower on my parade.
*takes cup away from girls*
Kolohe - BDB is probably right. Airborne bacon.
but it sure would be interesting. We could commemorate the moment
by watching "All the Right Moves".
BDB|10.12.08 @ 4:24PM|#
Not only a moose, joe. A Bit City Chicago Moose. Is there anything more anti-Palin?
Kolohe|10.12.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Look, that really is the point here. You can make your
stand, or make your money, but you oftentimes can't do
both.
So the only way to keep making a living in the upcoming Obama
presidency is to make sure either you keep your political opinions
to yourself, or make sure they're the correct ones. All minority
political opinions shall be dealt by the community 'with great
justice.'
Good to know.
Kolohe|10.12.08 @ 4:27PM|#
For the record, I also am not too keen on a poll that shows a 8 point lead one way, when every other one showed 5 to 8 the other way.
BDB|10.12.08 @ 4:29PM|#
If there's a dark red state that shows a surprise this year, it's probably Indiana.
|10.12.08 @ 4:37PM|#
It has nothing to do specifically with Obama's presidency. If I
open a gay nudey bar (calm down joe, it's a hypothetical) in a
predominantly hetero area, does it mean that the locals are
homophobes if I can't make a living?
could someone define "strawman" before I have to leave?
Kolohe|10.12.08 @ 4:42PM|#
If I open a gay nudey bar ... in a predominantly hetero
area, does it mean that the locals are homophobes if I can't make a
living?
It depends. If you go out of business because there is no demand,
no.
If you go out of business because 'the community' pickets outside
your place every night causing customers to stay away, yes.
Kolohe|10.12.08 @ 4:45PM|#
less hyperbolically, b-ben, I just can't believe your so sanguine about a community reacting the way it is to a contrary political opinion than the mainstream.
Kolohe|10.12.08 @ 4:50PM|#
and it must be emphasized, a contrary opinion but not a whacked out one. The sign didn't say 'no jews or negros allowed' The sign wasn't for David Duke. The sign wasn't even for Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr. The community is having a conniption fit over a person advocating the second largest political party in America today.
BDB|10.12.08 @ 4:52PM|#
"If you go out of business because 'the community' pickets
outside your place every night causing customers to stay away,
yes."
Actually, in the town I grew up in (very conservative place) the
town's only strip club ( a "normal" straight one, even) was shut
down by the local Baptist Church using exactly those tactics.
It's more common than you think. And I'd rather they be shut down
that way than by zoning boards.
|10.12.08 @ 4:54PM|#
"So the only way to keep making a living in the upcoming Obama
presidency is to make sure either you keep your political opinions
to yourself, or make sure they're the correct ones."
Yeah, that's hyperbole. We have an example of a very pro-Democratic
area that is taking social steps to shun a very pro-Republican
establishment in its midst. Certainly not something "indicative of
an Obama presidency."
However I agree on your general point. I mean, it's quite the
over-reaction. Geez get a grip people.
|10.12.08 @ 4:56PM|#
Well, if the sign was for Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr noone would have noticed. It's because it's the second biggest candidate out there that the other side would hate them so much.
|10.12.08 @ 4:57PM|#
Palin's past association with the Alaskan Independence Party is
one of her few redeeming qualities.
What reasonable American with an appreciation for our history
doesn't defend the right to self-government?
|10.12.08 @ 4:58PM|#
The funniest thing about this is that quite a bit that Democrats like would get passed under a McCain Presidency that will probably get held up by GOP filibuster in an Obama one. It's certainly not like the world would end for liberals if McCain won.
BDB|10.12.08 @ 4:59PM|#
MNG, I think they're more scared of McCain croaking two months in and getting Palin than McCain himself.
Asharak|10.12.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Palin's past association with the Alaskan Independence Party
is one of her few redeeming qualities.
What reasonable American with an appreciation for our history
doesn't defend the right to self-government?
I concur.
|10.12.08 @ 5:56PM|#
BDB | October 12, 2008, 4:59pm | #
MNG, I think they're more scared of McCain croaking two months in and getting Palin than McCain himself.
Well, if he did it in the first 2 minutes of his presidency, think
of the money that would be saved by having two inaugurations for
the price of one!
|10.12.08 @ 6:02PM|#
So the only way to keep making a living in the upcoming Obama presidency is to make sure either you keep your political opinions to yourself, or make sure they're the correct ones.
Yeah, that's hyperbole. We have an example of a very pro-Democratic area that is taking social steps to shun a very pro-Republican establishment in its midst. Certainly not something "indicative of an Obama presidency.
This is the
reason I decided that I would not for Obama even if Michigan
were close (it won't be).
It [the Obama campaign] has also threatened regulatory retaliation against outlets that show it, which isn't fine. Instead of, say, crafting a response ad, Obama's team had general counsel Robert F. Bauer send stations a letter [pdf] arguing that "Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.'" And, more directly: "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement."
______________________________|10.12.08 @ 7:03PM|#
Fairhope, AL looks like it might be kinda gay friendly. I've never been on that side of Mobile Bay though. The utopian single tax thing seems pretty gay.
Orange Line Special|10.12.08 @ 7:09PM|#
Kolohe showed his idiocy above. CriminalAliens refers to foreign citizens who've committed a crime, and thus includes both IllegalAliens and LegalImmigrants who've committed a crime. Clearly, Reason fave MaxBlumenthal didn't know the difference. Other than that, I have no idea what it was referring to.
Kolohe|10.12.08 @ 7:11PM|#
I don't deny that what I said above was hyperbole. I'm a little
peeved because it is obvious this distraction caused the redskins
to lose today. Pete Kindall was so upset about free speech in the
county in which he played that he couldn't hold onto to the
football.
But, calling the shot now. I predict this is going to be all over
foxnews and talk radio this week. It's got everything they could
ask for: overeager Obama supporters, 'stifling of dissent',
'community activists', and, to put it bluntly, black people. It's
tailor made for right wing media machine.
Kolohe|10.12.08 @ 7:20PM|#
OLS Oct 12, 2008
CriminalAliens refers to foreign citizens who've committed a crime, and thus includes both IllegalAliens and LegalImmigrants who've committed a crime.
OLS Dec 1, 2007
There's a difference between illegal aliens and criminal aliens, and I strongly suspect that the workers were just the former and not the latter
|10.12.08 @ 7:20PM|#
Kolohe-I agree with your assessment. They'd love to have that
community activist on camera on Fox. And he will be happy to oblige
and do what he can to sink his candidate.
J sub D
Do you believe in defamation laws? Can someone lie with impunity
about another person in public? About candidates?
I don't think I agree with Obama's move here (using "the public
interest" gimmick is almost always cheesy), but I don't think it's
an open and shut case here.
And I gotta say, it seems to me a like a bit daft of a reason to
change your vote if you were convinced it was the right thing to
do.
|10.12.08 @ 7:36PM|#
Do you believe in defamation laws? Can someone lie with
impunity about another person in public?
The TV stations didn't defame anybody. The crybabies can show
damages and sue that producers of the ad. Threatening somebody
else's business license is a tad bit different don't ya think?
If a defamation occurred, the NRA is the responsible
party. Of course, the Obama campaign likely lacks the
stones to sue the NRA, so they attack the broadcaster
with regulatory threats. If you don't see this as heinous behavior
by the campaign of the presumptive next POTUS, you have a serious
fucking problem with free speech issues that rivals both
major party candidates.
|10.12.08 @ 7:39PM|#
And I gotta say, it seems to me a like a bit daft of a
reason to change your vote if you were convinced it was the right
thing to do.
I sincerely believe the First Amendment to be the most important
law ever written. I'm kinda funny that way.
YMMV.
|10.12.08 @ 7:49PM|#
Ironically, didn't Obama use McCain/Feingold law to take
that action?
I think it's all FCC regulations bullshit. If you sell air time to
con artist preachers selling faith healing on the air, no problem.
If you sell air time to an NPO who is critical of Obama, may even
have been deceptive in their ad, I'll get your license on public
interest grounds.
The more I think about it, the angrier I get.
|10.12.08 @ 8:02PM|#
The FCC is so quaint now with the internet and YouTube,
isn't it?
Sorta like the Geneva Conventions.
[/gratuitous shot at Bush II]
The FCC could be properly run by 50 intelligent tech school grads
(or experienced military radar technicians) and 5 shit-hot
secretaries and do all of the necessary functions. It is an
ananchronism that, in true government bureaucratic fashion, will
never be disbanded.
BDB|10.12.08 @ 8:03PM|#
BTW, the co-founder of RedState refused to vote for John McCain.
He's writing in Bobby Jindal.
http://joshuatrevino.com/?p=681
|10.12.08 @ 8:03PM|#
True life titty bar story.
North of Dothan,Alabama, there was a maingy little titty bar on a 4
lane hiway. about 100 yards south was an upstart church. The
church, after picking that location, was mightily offended at the
closeness of such a den of iniquity. So they prayed and prayed.
They snuck over during the times when the place was closed and laid
hands on the building and prayed. They did news stories in the
paper and on TV about it, sayin that God was gonna shut down the
titty bar. After a few months, the owner was arrested for tax
evasion and the club was auctioned off. The church bought the
building and proclaimed victory for God Hisself.
About 2 months later, a tornado came through and destroyed the old
building. The insurance called it
an "act of God."
BDB|10.12.08 @ 8:03PM|#
I just know that no matter how much the government tries to regulate speech, technology will always outsmart and get around it.
|10.12.08 @ 8:11PM|#
BDB, when that reason article I linked to first appeared, my
favorite partisan, democratic party supporter and noted Obama
fanboy reasonoid made exactly zero comments defending his man over
this.
I respect joe for that.
BDB|10.12.08 @ 8:13PM|#
I don't think MNG was really defending it per se, and I'm not. I just think McCain sucks more.
|10.12.08 @ 8:18PM|#
True life titty bar story.
North of Dothan,Alabama, there was a maingy little titty bar on a 4
lane hiway. about 100 yards south was an upstart church. The
church, after picking that location, was mightily offended at the
closeness of such a den of iniquity. So they prayed and prayed.
They snuck over during the times when the place was closed and laid
hands on the building and prayed. They did news stories in the
paper and on TV about it, sayin that God was gonna shut down the
titty bar. After a few months, the owner was arrested for tax
evasion and the club was auctioned off. The church bought the
building and proclaimed victory for God Hisself.
About 2 months later, a tornado came through and destroyed the old
building. The insurance called it
an "act of God."
Great story.
In the middle ages and into the industrial revolution, churches,
usually being the tallest structure in town, were struck by
lightening often enough to give the faithful pause abot whether God
was really pleased with their worship of him.
When lightening rods starting going up on cathedrals it was a tacit
admission that lightening strikes weren't really "acts of
God".
One more reason to say, "Thank you Mr. Franklin".
|10.12.08 @ 8:28PM|#
J sub D
A secondary re-publisher of defamatory statements can be liable for
the original defamation in many cases.
As to whether I'm supporting Obama on this strategy I requote
myself from above:
"I don't think I agree with Obama's move here (using "the public
interest" gimmick is almost always cheesy), but I don't think it's
an open and shut case here."
My point is, if an ad were run containing what you thought were
blatant falsehoods about you (if you were crazy enough to be a
candidate) what recourse would you have?
Before you just say "I'd send out a response ad to correct that"
know I'd say, hey, then the other campaign could just make up shit
after shit tying your ad budget up countering that shit. So please
don't say that, because it's stupid and I've never thought of you
as stupid.
|10.12.08 @ 8:41PM|#
My point is, if an ad were run containing what you thought
were blatant falsehoods about you (if you were crazy enough to be a
candidate) what recourse would you have?
If we can assume I'm crazy enough to run for national office, we
can also assume that I'm smart enough to know that defamamation of
national office seekers is a time honored American tradition and de
facto legal.
In that case my only recourse would be to suck it up, act like a
mature adult and, if warranted, run a counter ad.
|10.12.08 @ 8:47PM|#
MNG,
One last thing, misrepresenting somebody's political stance on gun
issues (if that occurred) is not
defamation.
Asd I pointed out in the thread I linked to, the Obama campaign is
guilty of misrepresenting opponents positions as well. At least
according to that ultra conservative right wing rag, the New York
Times.
|10.12.08 @ 8:50PM|#
And I could just make up lie, after, lie, after lie, forcing you
to make response ad, after response ad, after response ad...
J sub D is gay. He's a terrorist sympathizer. He pisses and craps
in a bag connected to him by tubes. He's fondled lil'
boys....
And every one of these lies is on you to run a response ad
to?
My point is that there is a very important value on one side:
freedom of speech (in the context of a political campaign even more
important); but on the other side there is an important value, the
value of not having one's reputation unfairly defamed.
I'm channeling the famed conservative jurisprude William Rehnquist
here, btw (read the famous defamation cases). I used to think I was
a free speech absolutist 'til I did...
|10.12.08 @ 9:16PM|#
MNG, name a major party presidential candidate who has sued over
defamation in a campaign and won.
Links required. And you wouldn't dare say things like that 'bout me
cause I'd do an Aaron Burr on your dumbass.
Of course, the Keep America Beautiful folks would ensure that
your visage wouldn't end up on currency. ;-)
Threatening peoples business license for carrying an ad of arguale
accuracy is an attempt to quell speech that has not been proven
illegal in a court of law. If it doesn't bother you that the next
president threatens people's livlihood when they disagree with him
in public, as Daffy would say, "You're dethpicable".
Elemenope|10.12.08 @ 9:31PM|#
The FCC could be properly run by 50 intelligent tech school
grads (or experienced military radar technicians) and 5 shit-hot
secretaries and do all of the necessary functions.
So, for clarification, the secretaries are there *for* the tech
school grads?
|10.12.08 @ 9:41PM|#
So, for clarification, the secretaries are there *for* the
tech school grads?
Somebody has to send out the "we're looking into it" form letters
for the retards who find something objectionable and don't know how
to change channels.
Seriously, the mail must be answered and frequency assignments and
power levels authorized need to be filed. Technical problems must
be tracked, and scofflaw behavior must be documented. Technical
people would fuck that up. I know, I'm a former military radar guy.
When it comes to paperwork and recordkeeping, we are fucking
hopeless.
SIV|10.12.08 @ 9:46PM|#
One last thing, misrepresenting somebody's political stance
on gun issues(if that occurred) is not
defamation.
The NRA has presented the clearest representation of Obama's
actions on gun issues.
Unless he fully repudiates these actions his campaign position is
at best meaningless and most likely a lie.
|10.12.08 @ 10:00PM|#
J sub D
I'm prety sure you did not answer any of the questions I've put
forward.
SIV
The NRA ad is bullshit, and you probably know it. But factcheck.org
has the real dope.
SIV|10.12.08 @ 10:42PM|#
But factcheck.org has the real dope.
Factcheck counters the NRA reports of Obama's actual record with
his campaign statements.
They also read those statements differently.
Saying a total ban on handguns is not politically feasible suggests
you support it but don't think you could "get it done".
Orange Line Special|10.12.08 @ 11:28PM|#
Kolohe seems to spend so much time constantly refeshing posts
here it doesn't have enough time to think. There's nothing
contradictory about the two statements highlighted above. Someone
can "just" be an IllegalAlien by crossing over the border without
authorization. If they then commit a crime, they become a
CriminalAlien. Most people differentiate between the crime of
EntryWithoutAuthorization and, say, armed robbery. The former means
someone is just an IllegalAlien. The latter means they're an
IllegalAlien who's also a CriminalAlien.
Someone find it a hobby or something.
BDB|10.12.08 @ 11:40PM|#
OLS, why do you randomly capitalize and not put spaces between certain words LikeThis? Can you please tell me? Thanks.
Fluffy|10.13.08 @ 8:41AM|#
You use a boycott for this 'injustice' and I ain't going to
listen to you when real injustices occur.
There is no requirement that boycotts be launched only for
"injustices".
Every person has the unlimited right to limit their purchases
according to whatever criteria they choose. Even silly and spurious
criteria. And they have the unlimited right to combine with others
to limit their purchases.
This is a country where people make purchasing decisions based on
the most frivolous marketing campaigns imaginable. If people can
buy one beer over another because of the tit size of models used in
ads, they can certainly go to one store over another based on the
posting of a political ad.
And while the Obama campaign's action in the ad case being
discussed is reprehensible, I don't think it's being properly
identified here. As far as I know, the ad in question was being
challenged because it falsely identified[according to Obama's
people] the source of the funding for the ad. The other content of
the ad was not challenged on defamation grounds or any other
grounds. Apparently there's some law in that state that makes it
illegal to run an ad that doesn't properly identify the group
behind the ad, and this ad was in technical violation for some
reason. I think it's pretty shitty to challenge the ad in this way,
and it shows the Obama campaign shares the disdain for liberty
typical of advocates of campaign finance reform, but if laws like
the one in question are going to be passed I guess we have to
expect campaigns to try to use them.
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