Look Out! He's Got a Bob Barr Button!

A few days ago, the conspiracist site Infowars posted a "strategic report" by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a police "public safety partnership" that collects "incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri." The document is a throwback to the great militia panic of the '90s, a time when all sorts of libertarian and populist organizations were conflated with domestic terrorists, and when the threat posed by the latter was wildly exaggerated. Among other things, the MIAC paper declares that "It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr." It also warns that the Gadsden Flag, bearing a coiled rattlesnake and the slogan DON'T TREAD ON ME, "is the most common symbol displayed by militia members and organizations."

Infowars isn't always reliable (to put it mildly), but this time it broke some real news: Missouri authorities admit the document is genuine. In a follow-up story by the Associated Press, one of them unpersuasively attempts to defend the report:

Lt. John Hotz of the Missouri State Highway Patrol said the report comes from publicly available, trend data on militias. It was compiled by the Missouri Information Analysis Center, a "fusion center" in Jefferson City that combines resources from the federal Department of Homeland Security and other agencies. The center, which opened in 2005, was set up to collect local intelligence to better combat terrorism and other criminal activity, he said.

"All this is an educational thing," Hotz said of the report. "Troopers have been shot by members of groups, so it's our job to let law enforcement officers know what the trends are in the modern militia movement."

But Tim Neal, a military veteran and delegate to last year's state GOP convention, was shocked by the report's contents....Neal, who has a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his car, said the next time he is pulled over by a police officer, he won't know whether it's because he was speeding or because of his political views.

"If a police officer is pulling me over with my family in the car and he sees a bumper sticker on my vehicle that has been specifically identified as one that an extremist would have in their vehicle, the guy is probably going to be pretty apprehensive and not thinking in a rational manner," Neal said. "And this guy's walking up to my vehicle with a gun."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Taktix®||

    These members are usually supports of former...

    So "supports" is a noun now?

    Must have missed the memo...

  • smartass sob||

    This sounds like another form of profiling to me.

  • Taktix®||

    It was compiled by the Missouri Information Analysis Center, a "fusion center" in Jefferson City that combines resources from the federal Department of Homeland Security and other agencies.

    It's somewhat ironic that this center exists in a town that is named for a guy who said we should have an armed rebellion every 20 years...

  • Jesse Walker||

    So "supports" is a noun now?

    That typo was mine, and I've just fixed it. The sentence's other abuses of the language are MIAC's.

  • ||

    A good article.

    Tim Neal is so damn right!

  • jtuf||

    smartass sob | March 14, 2009, 5:40pm | #

    This sounds like another form of profiling to me.



    It is, but it's allowed because it isn't based on membership of a protected group.

  • jtuf||

    This is the problem with the "protected class" approach to fighting biggotry as opposed to the individualism approach to fighting biggotry. Once the majority makes it taboo to attack a protected class, fear mongers just pick a new group to stereotype. In contrast, the invididualism approach eliminates all stereotypes.

  • Dormouse||

    "If a police officer is pulling me over with my family in the car and he sees a bumper sticker on my vehicle that has been specifically identified as one that an extremist would have in their vehicle, the guy is probably going to be pretty apprehensive and not thinking in a rational manner," Neal said. "And this guy's walking up to my vehicle with a gun."

    Thread Hijack: As long as you're not a weed-smoking hippie who quotes the Grateful Dead on his Facebook page, you have nothing to worry about.

    (Yeah, that's what passes for journalism in Grand Rapids.)

  • Lefiti||

    "So 'supports' is a noun now?"

    Of course "supports" is a noun, you ignorant fuck. Here, I'll use it in a sentence:

    The ossified brains of libertarian fanatics could be used as bar supports for a bench press.

  • State trooper consulting his m||

    That guy sure has a lot of bumper-stickers on his car . . . I wonder if these bumper stickers refer to any extremists?

    Let's cross - reference those bumper stickers . . . no, the names on the bumper stickers aren't Paul, Barr or Baldwin. The sticker just says "I support Randy Weaver." Probably a local City Council candidate. Thank God, it's safe.

  • ||

    Wow! Lefiti said something clever and amusing! Maybe it's a monkey with a typewriter thing, but I'm proud of you Lefiti!

  • The same state trooper||

    That driver clearly isn't disaffected and angry - the only bumper sticker he has says "MY OTHER RIDE IS YOUR MOM."

  • this state blows||

    It's Misery. It's not the asshole of the world, but you can smell it from here.

    I wonder if my "fuck the police" bumper sticker counts?

  • Lefiti||

    So, Jorgen, you think I'm funny? I'm funny how? Like a clown? I'm here to amuse you?

  • State Trooper Bob||

    Ooh, that's a nice one - he supports traffic safety: FORGET WORLD PEACE, VISUALIZE USING YOUR TURN SIGNAL.

    And the driver of that delivery truck obviously has a service-oriented attitude, he even has a "how's my driving" bumper sticker. Of course, the hotline to call is 1-900-EAT-SHIT, but it's the thought that counts.

  • Rosa Luxemborg||

    It is about time the authorities stopped profiling peace-loving Muslims of color and focused on the real enemies of the people.

  • VM||

    Lefiti - shame on you! you know libertarians don't bench press. it's all about the cable curls! the sally smith machine. and workin the gunz in the power rack!!!

    CHECK OUT THESE GUNZ!!!!!!

    (and yes, Lefiti - you are amusing. how you manage to flummox some posters hier is absolutely amazing!!)

  • Another cool idea for a bumper||

    MY OTHER CAR HAS A 'STATE TROOPER'S ASSOCIATION SUPPORTER' STICKER ON IT

  • Lefiti||

    VM

    It's the Storm Front guys that are doing the bench presses. The libertarians are just lending their brains as supports.

  • ||

    COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) - A new document meant to help Missouri law enforcement agencies identify militia members or domestic terrorists is drawing criticism.

    The Feb. 20 report is called "The Modern Militia Movement."

    It mentions such red flags as political bumper stickers for third-party candidates, talk of conspiracy theories and possession of subversive literature.

    Critics are concerned, saying it seems like officials are trying to stifle political thought.

    But state law enforcement officials say the report is being misinterpreted.

    Lt. John Hotz of the Missouri State Highway Patrol said it comes purely from publicly available, trend data on militias.

    The report was compiled by the Missouri Information Analysis Center in Jefferson City.

    ___

    Information from: Columbia Daily Tribune, http://www.columbiatribune.com

  • cuernimus||

    Marge: Grandpa, this flag only has 49 stars on it.
    Grandpa Simpson: I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missourah!

  • seriously||

    i heard Stormfront was behind the subprime mess. think Greenspan mentioned it on PBS the other day.

  • the innominate one||

    Clearly, it's not the real Lefiti/ Edweirdo. Those comments were nearly clever.

  • ||

    So, Jorgen, you think I'm funny? I'm funny how? Like a clown? I'm here to amuse you?

    Nobody thinks you're a clown. Clowns get paid to act the fool. You do it gratis.

  • VM||

    LOL!


    although I'd maintain - the RP supporters or the "gold standard" assholes are the ones doing the curls in the power rack!!! (and name four or five different curl exercises, while doing the requisite grunts in the mirror)

    or they're the ones doing their gunz kurls about eight inches away from the dumbbell rack, while staring in the mirror and, natch, preventing others from getting to said rack!


    oh nameless - Lefiti does come up with the goodie every now and then. (although since this citizen thinks the RP/gold standard crowd is worse than the gun fanboi klub (when they clearly don't know from caliber), i may have a bias-- actually do have a bias)

  • Lefiti||

    It's a Goodfellas reference, idiot.

  • Leftfooti||

    I'm a retard. LOL.

  • ||

    "Troopers have been shot by members of groups

    People have been killed with classes of objects.

  • Lefiti||

    You guys thought that fucker was the real me?

  • ||

    The MIAC report should probably be revised. It also claimed that opponents of ILLEGAL immigration were more likely to me militia members. Since the majority of Americans oppose illegal immigration, that means that the majority of Americans are more likely than average Americans to be in militias. That is not possible.

  • jtuf||

    Actually lefti, I think "bar supports" is the noun in that sentence, and it is an open compound word. It's like how "high school" is more that just a school where everyone gets high.

  • jtuf||

    ... that means that the majority of Americans are more likely than average Americans to be in militias. That is not possible.

    No, it is possible, if the minority of people is less likely to be in militias.

  • seriously||

    basically the MIAC is correct, and the majority of Americans are militia material who deserve to be shot and/or imprisoned. but most of all, the libertarians who post at Reason with the exact same wit and cleverness of the commentors at the Onion AV club.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I suppose at traffic stops now we'll have to show license, registration, proof of insurance and registry with either the Republican or Democrat party.

  • jtuf||

    For example: I've got 1 green apple, 1 red apple, and 1 green pear. The probability of a fruit being red is 1/3. The majority of the fruit is apples. The probability of an apple being red is 1/2, higher than the probability of fruit being red.

    Of course, the whole point of statistics is to allow you to make generalizations about a group. When you apply it to humans, it means making generalizations about groups of humans, aka stereotypes. That's why I don't put too much stock in social science research.

  • alan||

    basically the MIAC is correct, decent start and the majority of Americans are militia material who deserve to be shot got my interest pumped! and/or imprisoned. wimped out but most of all, the libertarians who post at Reason go on with the exact same wit and cleverness a bit stodgy in your delivery, here of the commentors at the Onion AV club. Ahhh, fizzled with poor timing, darn, you almost had a good one there. Sorry, but BANG.

  • tarran||

    One issue that we in the freedom movement must contend with is that state officials have trouble differentiating their opponents from each other.

    Thus, people who are philosophically opposed to the state and preach peaceful reform of the system tend to get lumped in with more violent people who either are uninterested in peaceful change, or oppose the state on non-philosophical grounds.

    I know a bunch of career civil servants, and it's funny/sad how they lump opponents of the state together into some amorphously defined enemy.

  • Hugh Akston||

    tarran, don't forget the state's difficulty in telling enemies from friends.

  • Wheel of Paultard||

    R E _ S _ N

    S _ _ _ S

  • ||

    It's not the asshole of the world, but you can smell it from here.

    Do what Nevada, Massachusetts, California, and many other states do: send your assholes to Washington.

    Sending Harry Reid to the senate was the all-time greatest improvement for air quality in Las Vegas.

    -jcr

  • images ||

    LiveLeak has images of the report. (upper right hand corner under media)

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f7c_1237080330


    I suck at the internet, therefore no link. just a C&P.

  • oops||

    oops the first info wars link didn't show up for me. I guess the report is already posted.

  • heh2k||

    When the government is debt-spending the country into the ground and ruining the free market, the authorities should be afraid of these people. "These people" being those that believe in responsibility: not living beyond your means - whether it's the government, a corporation, or an individual.

    Those in power that wish to protect the status quo are beginning to realize that people don't like it when they threaten to ruin this country's entire society.

    You can only move money around and make excuses for so long - eventually the house of cards gets too tall to stand. Then people consider TRUE change - like what happened in 1776.

    The worse the economy gets, the bigger extremist libertarian and socialist groups will get. It's very clear to anyone with a brain that the current system is not sustainable.

  • ||

    All I can say is "sounds like per-war Germany to me."

  • Chris||

    Funny I got a link to this from my "Ron Paul" google news alert, which my email provider had curiously marked for deletion as spam. The alert contained a link to another media article about this topic at the columbia tribune (which read very much like the kansascity article quoted above), and the alert also contained google links to read more news stories related to these articles.

    The funny part is when I click the google link to read more articles, the resultant page says there are no articles related to it. So I searched in google news for both "ron paul" and "ron paul supporters" and ... nothing. Not one link to an article mentioning this MIAC report as it pertains to Ron Paul supporters.

    Do a google news search for "miac report" and you get only the prison planet and alex jones websites.

    So... who's scrubbing the links?

  • ||

    'All I can say is "sounds like per-war Germany to me."'

    Goodwin's Law!

    Do I get a prize?

  • ||

    Postscript,

    I don't think JLB777 meets the level of reasoning required to make a comparison.
    For a more detailed discussion see:

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/32944.html

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

  • Chris||

    You know, while they're at it, they should add "self-employed" to the list of characteristics of suspected terrorists because if anyone has a problem with authority it's them.

  • ||

    So they're turning the heat up on militia members and other "anti-government" groups again, eh? It won't be too long now, before Libertarian Party members will be glad they certified that they don't "advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals." The much-maligned "oath" will serve its originally intended function once more: of being as at least a minimal heat shield against government witch hunts.

  • smartass sob||

    Goodwin's Law!

    Do I get a prize?


    Hey, Kansas guy - it's Godwin's Law, not Goodwin's. ;-)

  • smartass sob||

    ...a minimal heat shield against government witch hunts.

    While we're on the subject of witch hunts, whose idea was it that all libertarians should move to one state ala the Free State project? Sure makes it easy for government agents to find 'em when they want.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    So you'd probably be good with a Badnarik sticker.

  • smartass sob||

    So you'd probably be good with a Badnarik sticker.

    That was libertarian with a small l - though I must confess I voted for the Libertarian Party's candidates for many years. Other than voting for Paul in my state's primary I stopped voting some years back - waste of time. And I don't put stickers and messages on my vehicles - only makes them a target for vandals...or cops.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    I'm not really a bumper sticker guy, either. I voted for Badnarik in '04 and a couple Libertarians for state rep last year. Fat lot of good that did.

  • ||

    I have a "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker. I also have a Barr sticker. I had a Paul sticker during the primaries but removed it after Super-Tuesday. When I told my wife about this this morning, she laughed and said she took off her Ron Paul sticker a week ago.

    I have "Free James Island" bumper stickers here and there. These stickers also use the "Don't Tread on Me" logo. James Island is a small town next to Charleston, SC that is has been in a long legal struggle to become an incorporated town rather than an unicorporated area gradually being annexed into the city of Charleston. I was on the town council for three years.

    I am a moderate libertarian. I suppose a "Milton Friedman" libertarian would be the best way to communicate the idea, though James Buchanan and Leland Yeager are even close to my perspective on things.

    Years ago, I was a radical libertarian, pretty much following Rothbard's line.

    I have been heavily involved with the Libertarian Party for years. I was also very much involved with the local Ron Paul effort. I also support the governor of my state, Mark Sanford.

    If, "terrorism" means efforts to create terror among ordinary civiliians by harming them (like killing them with bombs,) then I am strongly against it. Hover, "terrorism" is also used to mean any violence used against government agents like soldiers, police, and politicians. In other words, violent revolution. While I have never considered this a desirable option and don't foresee it becoming necessary, it could happen. It depends on what the government does and how likely violent action will bring desirable change.

    Over the years of invovlement in libertarian activity, I have heard many "crazy conspracy theories" advocated by other libertarians and fellow travelers. Some of them involved imanent dictatorship. If I believed them, I would have been preparing for violent revolution and expecting to commence soon.

    My experience is that these sorts of views become more common as one moves from the "libertarian" movement" over towards the "patriot" or "constituionalist" movement. My point is that there is an important element of truth in the "intelligence" gathered by the state police.
    It is just a cross that we must bear. I believe that the key problem is the "conspiracy" theories. Also, I also believe that it is important to always push back against disdain for ordinary people--you know, the "sheeple" rhetoric.

  • robc||

    I once saw a "I ride with Forrest" bumper sticker.

    I dont have anything to add to that.

  • ed||

    You take your chances by sticking your crackpot political views on your car. I know a guy who had his brand new shiny truck keyed on both sides at a NASCAR race because he supported the wrong driver. No minds are ever changed by this antique form of exhibitionism. Everyone knows that the real route to lasting political reform is through blog comments.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Do a google news search for "miac report" and you get only the prison planet and alex jones websites.

    You have to search for "Missouri Information Analysis Center."

  • jay||

    I remember reading a while back about a school that was banning various kinds of t-shirts because they were 'linked to gang membership'

    Hence one of the local gangs started wearing plaing white t-shirts.

    [I never could understand that rule. I think the average person would be better of knowing if the person they were dealing with was a gang member, and which gang, then blissfully not knowing]

  • Hugh Akston||

    I once saw a "I ride with Forrest" bumper sticker.

    wow. I think that's a thread winner.

  • robc||

    Hugh,

    wow. I think that's a thread winner.

    Yeah. Ive mentioned it a number of times and very few (even otherwise knowledgeable) people get it. Nice code with little chance of offending people, it turns out.

  • ||

    Bill Woosley-

    "It depends on what the government does?"

    How about what it has already done?

  • ||

    Sometimes I wonder if the government just leaks these sort of documents to have a good laugh at the conspiracy nuts. To be honest, I know I would. I think the best game to play would be to throw as many 'New World Order's into a speech as is possible.

  • ||

    "To be honest, I know I would." Thankfully, Anon, you have the wisdom not to defile yourself with government work.

  • Righiti||

    I have the report.

    Whomever wrote it needs to be fired, all three of them.

    I counted 99 technical errors in those 8 pages, including improper security markings, bad formats, spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors. Heck, it was dated 2-20-09 and referred to Obama as "President Elect" [sic] 3 times alone!

    The document obviously has not been reviewed by any competent people.

    Then there was the context!

    The causal associations were pathetic as well, lumping non-aggression pro-choice libertarians with anti-choice abortion clinic bombers and other whack jobs like the Bush and Obama administrations (who were conveniently left out of the report!).

    And they don't quote any real numbers or leaders, and conveniently ignore their own people who are in those groups--libertarian cops, for example.

    It looks like the C4L, BTP, and 2010LP conventions all just got more interesting.

    The MSHP needs to get some junior-high English classes under their belts as well.

  • Orange Line Special||

    Odd. The lag time between my comment and Reason discussing the same thing was only three days. Usually it's a few weeks or a month or two. Is there a new regime in place?

  • Taktix®||

    Odd. The lag time between my comment and Reason discussing the same thing was only three days. Usually it's a few weeks or a month or two. Is there a new regime in place?

    Shut the fuck up, Lonewhacko...

    You ever think it might be due to fact that no one reads your dumbass comments?

  • Jesse Walker||

    Speaking of lag times, Lonewacko, I'm still waiting for answers to the questions I posed to you last month. If you've forgotten them, they're here. They prompted you to rant a bit here, but you didn't actually answer any of them, as I noted here.

  • ||

    Jesse, it's not nice to push Lonewacko on that subject. For all we know he has an EffeminateVoice or just sounds retarded when he talks on camera, and that's why he doesn't do the videos himself. I'm sure you'd understand why he'd be reticent to discuss such things.

  • ||

    "Infowars isn't always reliable (to put it mildly)"

    Curious... Here is the InfoWars crowd's latest documentary "The Obama Deception": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756

    If any of the information in this film is unreliable, I would love to hear about it.

  • ||

    Steve,

    If it's from InfoWars, it's unreliable until proven otherwise. I may as well go to the wino who goes through the dumpster where I work for political analysis.

    That's what happens when you stake your reputation on the theory that the US govt, or the Israeli govt, or some amalgam thereof was responsible for 9/11, and continue to push that theory even when it's been shown to be extremely implausible.

  • Craig||

    ...the "gold standard" assholes are the ones...

    Yeah, who would want money tied to an actual commodity that can be used as a store of value, a unit of account, and a means of exchange, when the Fed can just print paper tickets that cover two out of the three?

  • Orange Line Special||

    zzzzzzz zzzz zzzzz zz z zz z zzzzzzz zzzzzzz zzz zzzzzzz zz z zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzz zzzzzzzzzzz zzzz zzzzzz zzz zzzzz? Zzzzzzzz zz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz z zzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzz zzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzz... zzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... zzzzz.

  • ||

    Crimethink,

    I generally treat most information, particularly politically oriented material as unreliable until proven otherwise, and especially people who believe in a conspiracy theory of Saudis, Afghans, Egyptians rendering the U.S. military defenseless and getting a strike on the actual heart of our defenses 40 minutes after they knew they were under attack, armed with nothing but box cutters.

    But that is why I was asking for specific invalid information, not a bunch stigmatization from a narcissist who is in love with his interpretation of the facts.

  • bt6||

    Lefiti bleated:
    "So, Jorgen, you think I'm funny? I'm funny how? Like a clown? I'm here to amuse you?"

    Well . . .yeah . . ?

  • ||

    armed with nothing but box cutters.

    That's not quite accurate. They were armed with box cutters initially, but thanks to decades of authorities telling people to comply with hijackers' demands, they were able to arm themselves with the airplanes.

    We've known since world war two that an airplane makes a very powerful missile when it's piloted by a nutcase who wants to die.

    -jcr

  • bt6||

    Lefiti bleated:
    "It's a Goodfellas reference, idiot."

    Okay, so it's a Goodfellas reference to an idiot. Not all of us get our social references from Mafia movies.

  • bt6||

    Jesse Walker wrote:

    "You have to search for "Missouri Information Analysis Center."

    Try "miss information analysis center" and you get a similar operation in Mississippi.

  • ||

    I have a sticker that says "easily pissed and heavily armed"

  • bt6||

    "I may as well go to the wino who goes through the dumpster where I work for political analysis."

    Too late. He's the latest pick for Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

  • Mosby||

    I've never met anyone worth a damn who has a non-collegiate bumper sticker on their vehicle.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    especially people who believe in a conspiracy theory of Saudis, Afghans, Egyptians

    You are fucking retarded, and I would tell you that to your face if you were here.

    So, we get a report lumping us in with all the lunatics...and then here they come to comment amongst us. It's not really a mystery why we get lumped in with them, is it?

    I was at dinner with Bob Barr and some other Libertarian operatives not too long ago, and we had one psycho-truther chick much like you, Steve...and I was encouraged to shut my mouth and not make fun of her, because, hey! she's a supporter.

    I don't care. Lunatics...OUT!

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Yeah, who would want money tied to an actual commodity that can be used as a store of value, a unit of account, and a means of exchange, when the Fed can just print paper tickets that cover two out of the three?

    Tell me, Craig, why is gold worth anything at all? It's just as subjective as fiat currency...and a gold standard is open to manipulation just like any other.

  • Jayne Cobb||

    Tell me, Craig, why is gold worth anything at all? It's just as subjective as fiat currency...and a gold standard is open to manipulation just like any other.

    Yeah, but... gold!

  • ||

    The Angry Optimist,

    Hey, thanks for your thoughts. Next time I want your specific prejudice about things instead of objective analysis of facts, I'm coming right to you.

    P.S. Is your angry tirade based on an a misunderstanding of the word 'conspiracy'? That your understanding here is in fact a conspiracy theory doesn't in any way suggest you are a lunatic. But this shows how effective political stigmatization scrambles peoples ability to think objectively.

  • bt6||

    "a gold standard is open to manipulation just like any other."

    Not quite.

    While the value of gold is set by supply and demand, that supply is based on an indestructible physical asset, with intrinsic value which is not related in any way to its use as a monetary standard. No matter what you do to is, gold is still gold, and retains its intrinsic value.

    Fiat currency has little intrinsic value, especially in relation to the monetary value given, say, a $100 bill. All that it would take for that bill to return to intrinsic value would be the stroke of a pen, the touch of a match or a trip through a shredder.

  • ||

    TAO,

    As desperate as the Barr campaign was, I don't think they had the luxury of picking their friends. The neopagans and Truthers formed most of their boots on the ground. Imagine how few states he would have been on the ballot in without them...

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    "It's the Storm Front guys that are doing the bench presses. The libertarians are just lending their brains as supports."

    As someone who had the upleasant task of helping to PREVENT a white supremacist from appearing on the ballot under the Libertarian Party banner, I take a lot of offense to this. We didn't reject said racist for mere PR purposes, but rather because this piece of trash was a bad candidate who believes that only white, non-Jewish Americans deserve full Constitutional protections - and, therefore, was incapable of fulfilling the duties of public office.

    Your apology is forthcoming, I take it?

  • ||

    Gold is not as subjective as fiat currency. You can make much more useful things out of gold than you can a used piece of paper. And gold is not as easily manipulated. You can't just turn on a machine and have it pump out gold bars at will.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Is your angry tirade based on an a misunderstanding of the word 'conspiracy'?

    No, it's your blatant intellectual fraud that infuriates me. You KNOW what people mean when they say "conspiracy theory", and it is not "a theory that involves the use of the word 'conspiracy' in a normal context."

    THIS is the connotative definition of conspiracy theory:

    A conspiracy theory alleges a coordinated group is, or was, secretly working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases these theories contrast what is represented by the mainstream explanation for historical or current events, as well as the evidence that supports it.



    The actual thing that happened on 9/11 is not a "conspiracy theory", despite your wasted brainpower trying to paint it as such, and YOU KNOW IT. that's the most irritating thing of all.

    Please, NAU-ZOG-Mossad-Blackhelicopter-Bilderberg believers, leave my people and party alone. We don't want you here; we don't need you here. Just....go.

  • ||

    a conspiracy theory of Saudis, Afghans, Egyptians rendering the U.S. military defenseless and getting a strike on the actual heart of our defenses 40 minutes after they knew they were under attack, armed with nothing but box cutters.

    They found a chink in our armor -- the fact that almost all of our defensive muscle is geared toward defending against threats coming from outside the country -- and exploited it. Or do you think there are secret airbases next to the Pentagon with jet fighters on call 24/7, and anti-aircraft installations dotting the DC suburbs, but those damned conspirators kept them from being used and, to this very day, have covered up their very existence.

  • Orange Line Special||

    ZZZZZZZ:

    Zzzzzzz zzzz zzzzz zz z zz z zzzzzzz zzzzzzz zzz zzzzzzz zz z zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzz zzzzzzzzzzz.

    Zzzzzzzz zz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz z zzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzz zzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzz... zzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... zzzzz.

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

  • The Angry Optimist||

    You can't just turn on a machine and have it pump out gold bars at will.

    No, but the leveraging ratio can be screwed around with just like anything else.

    Look out, Steve! It's the FED, here to put you in FEMA camps! And they're carrying AMEROs!

    but those damned conspirators kept them from being used and, to this very day, have covered up their very existence.

    Well, YEAH CRIMETHINK! Why would they use those assets when the ZOG and Mossad were the ones doing it?

    DUH! WAKE UP AMERICA!

  • ||

    You can make much more useful things out of gold than you can a used piece of paper. And gold is not as easily manipulated. You can't just turn on a machine and have it pump out gold bars at will.

    The same is true of bat guano, but I don't see you calling for a shit standard.

  • ||

    I actually do a fair amount of work with these sorts of organizations in my job. First, if run properly they are valuable. If the police in town A are doing an investigation of Slob B and Slob C is one of his coherts, police and town B would like to know that as they investigate slob C for check fraud. They do sort of workaday law enforcement stuff like that.

    They also do counter terrorism stuff. Again, they can be valuable. But I think they get into trouble for crap like this primarily because of political correctness. See we can't admit that our biggest terror threat comes from Muslims. That would just not be PC. Understand of course that not admitting the truth doesn't prevent us for investigating the hell out of Muslims. But, since we do that PC senseibility demands that we always talk like Muslims or radical Islam is not a the only threat or even the worst threat. The worst threat, according to PC doctrine, must in all cases come from something involving white males. Therefore we must pretend that having a Ron Paul sticker on your car is the same thing as having Al Quada training tapes in your trunk. I have been to any number of table top exercises involving terrorism. The fake terrorism is never the result of Islamic terrorism and always the result of some evil white guy. If it wasn't so dangerous it would be comical to watch PC government bureaucrats bend over backwards to keep from admitting the obvious.

  • Taktix®||

    The actual thing that happened on 9/11 is not a "conspiracy theory"

    So 9/11 wasn't carried out by a coordinated group of people attempting to secretly commit illegal or wrongful actions, while at the same time trying to hide their activities?

    Just because Al Queda seems to fit your connotative definition of a conspiracy theory pretty well...

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I actually cannot really blame the MO State Troopers here...look at the crazy shit we actually do draw...and I bet a preponderance of militia members do have C4L, RP or LP ties.

    The problem, of course, is that State Troopers aren't going to realize that

    Many X are also Y

    Does not mean that

    Many Y are also X.

  • ||

    TAO,

    Didn't you know that the Washington Memorial is really a missile silo hidden in plain sight? And Lincoln's statue is actually just a plaster coating on a giant killer robot designed for the government by Nicoli Tesla?

  • ||

    "I actually cannot really blame the MO State Troopers here...look at the crazy shit we actually do draw...and I bet a preponderance of militia members do have C4L, RP or LP ties."

    Crazy or not, you can't conduct an investigation of someone on the basis of their exercise of their First Amendment Rights. I fight that battle daily. Cops and feds hate that rule. Not so much because they are evil but more because they are lazy and this stuff is hard to do. It is really hard to find and stop a real no shit crazy terrorist. But it is really easy to harrass and investigate anyone who has a bumber sticker you don't like.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Taktix - I encourage you to read the Wikipedia article on "conspiracy theories":

    The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end."[1] However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies.[2]



    The 9/11 Truthers don't have logic, Occam's Razor or the evidence on their side. There is no standard for falsifiability nor any logical methodology. Every piece of evidence that runs contrary to the narrative is seen as making the narrative "deeper" and "more complex".

    THAT is what conspiracy theory means in the connotation: powerful, shadowy government/corporate groups committing acts in furtherance of some grand national/global goal.

    I can't help people who want to be ridiculously nitpicky that they pretend not to know that (not saying you're doing this).

    you can't conduct an investigation of someone on the basis of their exercise of their First Amendment Rights

    Now, would you say that even if the mosque down the street had daily viewings of OBL tapes?

  • ||

    "Now, would you say that even if the mosque down the street had daily viewings of OBL tapes?"

    Advocating criminal behavior is not protected under the First Amendments. It is a fine line. You can say "the US sucks", but you cannot say "go blow shit up because the US sucks."

  • The Angry Optimist||

    well, yeah, but that's kind of my point. If 95% of Timothy McVeighs have RPaul/C4L/LP ties...what are you gonna do? It makes sense for MO to be on the lookout...and it also makes sense for the judiciary, the ACLU and the IJ to smack them around.

    Like I said, I cannot blame them because of the logical link. The concern, of course, is that they'll think that "95% of Mcveighs are in the C4L" = "95% of the C4L is McVeigh like".

  • The Angry Optimist||

    and merely having daily viewings of the OBL tapes is not advocacy of criminal behavior.

    I'd still expect the FBI to be aware of it.

  • ||

    "If 95% of Timothy McVeighs have RPaul/C4L/LP ties...what are you gonna do? It makes sense for MO to be on the lookout...and it also makes sense for the judiciary, the ACLU and the IJ to smack them around."

    Yeah but there are like how many McVeigh types around? 20? 50? and there are how many millions of peeople who have C4L/LP ties. So how does that disctinction help you actually stop the McVeigh types?

    Further, the most active terror group in the US is ELF. Most of them probably have some kind of Sierra Club or other green tie. Does that mean we should start looking at Greenpeace? Fat chance. Once you start using that kind of logic, it is only the unfashionable, like LPs, who get targeted.

  • Jesse Walker||

    When Lonewacko says "Zzzzzz," it means "I'm running away."

    (When normal people say "Zzzzzz," it means, "I've been reading Lonewacko's blog.")

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    The Angry Optimist | March 15, 2009, 3:15pm | #

    well, yeah, but that's kind of my point. If 95% of Timothy McVeighs have RPaul/C4L/LP ties...what are you gonna do? It makes sense for MO to be on the lookout...and it also makes sense for the judiciary, the ACLU and the IJ to smack them around.

    Like I said, I cannot blame them because of the logical link. The concern, of course, is that they'll think that "95% of Mcveighs are in the C4L" = "95% of the C4L is McVeigh like".




    How would you like to be profiled as a "domestic insurgent" SOLELY based on your display of an LP, CP, C4L or (God forbid) even a FairTax bumpersticker?


    This is a dangerous course of action, IMO.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Most of them probably have some kind of Sierra Club or other green tie. Does that mean we should start looking at Greenpeace?

    I'm not saying "should" at all. I'm saying it would be logical from a law enforcement POV to do so.

    Ron Coronado started in the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, an innocuous sounding registered nonprofit that actively scuttles whaling ships. He was later convicted of arson and is a spokesperson for ALF/ELF.

    Now, it would make sense for the FBI to keep tabs on the SSCS, given that direct link.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    How would you like to be profiled as a "domestic insurgent" SOLELY based on your display of an LP, CP, C4L or (God forbid) even a FairTax bumpersticker?

    Um, not at all? Did I say I would want to?

    I said I cannot blame MOSP for making this logical link. They shouldn't be allowed to police based on it, though.

  • ||

    Steve you nitwit, Ronald Reagan Airport is next door to the Pentagon. Go look at the Google map. One of the fricking runways is aimed straight at it! Your stupid ass implication that the military is supposed to shoot down any plane that gets close to the Pentagon is so beyond the pale that it boggles the imagination. What color is the sky on your planet?

    The best thing the libertarian movement can do to move forward is to give every troofer and tax denier a swift hard kick in the groin.

  • ||

    Brandybuck,

    I an not a troofer, but just for the sake of acuracy, the plane that hit the Pentegon was out of Dulles, not National. The problem wasn't that the plane couldn't be shot down, it was that no one had ever used highjacked planes as weapons before and no one really thought the crazy bastards meant to crash them into buildings. It understandably took us a bit flatfooted.

  • robc||

    Tell me, Craig, why is gold worth anything at all?

    Because it can get you laid. If you think that is a "subjective" value then you have another problem.

    Its also useful in electronics, but the whole getting you laid part is probably more important.

  • Taktix®||

    THAT is what conspiracy theory means in the connotation: powerful, shadowy government/corporate groups committing acts in furtherance of some grand national/global goal.

    Well, if you're going keep changing the defintion of the term...

  • jester||

    9-11 showed that the gov't isn't a conspiracy of mensas but a confederacy of dunces. Think of the whole entire government of the US as your local post office. It's a metaphor that will never have you think of 9-11 as a U.S. Gov't conspiracy never again.

  • jester||

    ever never whatever you know what I mean. bad double negative, bad!

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Well, if you're going keep changing the defintion of the term...

    *sigh*...I'm not changing the definition of the term. "Conspiracy theory", in the modern context of words, means much more than the words "conspiracy" + "theory". The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

    If you're going to persist in being obtuse, I can't help you.

  • ||

    Brandybuck-3:46

    Are we arguing with logic, persuasion and rational analysis? You certainly have not addressed Steve's underlying point in his 1:47 pm post. I see lots of name calling, though.

  • jester||

    And so now you know to take your bumperstickers off.

    Just be glad you aren't younger. Tatoos hurt like ouch to remove.

    Question: How many times in your personal life after seeing a bumpersticker did you question your world-view?

    Question: How many times after seeing a bumpersticker did you think either a) that person thinks like I do or b) that person thinks so NOT like me.

    A bumpersticker is a primitive tool that used to be useful to some people perhaps to confirm a) I am not alone or b) I am in the mainstream.

    Unless your bumpersticker can manifest, 'I am in the mainstream', you might as well dress up like an Emo all the time to show your inner torturedness outwardly- which by the way will invite derision not compassion much less conversion.

  • ||

    The term "conspiracy theory" does mean more than conspiracy + theory, agreed. However, to suggest that there is one, overarching, conception of what "conspiracy theory" is, means, or suggests, is, itself, obtuse.

  • jester||

    Jesse,

    Lone-wacko's zzzs mean he fell asleep waiting for someone to comment at his website.

    Kinda like owning a boating store in Austin, NV and waiting for customers.

    All the lone-wacko-ly people, where do they all come from?

  • ||

    jester-

    Kind of like some advanced soul having to wear a uniform, bought for, and supplied by, Caesar to demonstrate how good they are.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    You certainly have not addressed Steve's underlying point in his 1:47 pm post.

    He didn't have an underlying point.

    However, to suggest that there is one, overarching, conception of what "conspiracy theory" is

    I did no such thing. I just suggested it borders on intellectual fraud to state that what actually happened on 9/11 was a "conspiracy theory". It was a conspiracy (used in the criminal sense)...but not a "conspiracy theory".

    I'm about tired of banging my head against the desk with this.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Are we arguing with logic, persuasion and rational analysis?

    It's been done....over and over and fucking over and over again.

    9/11 Truthers are like Flat Earthers. It's been addressed...your nonsense is disproven, and those who persist in clinging to the comforting mythology that there must be a logical order to things deserve all the derision and ostracizing they receive.

    Enough. Is. Enough.

  • ||

    The problem wasn't that the plane couldn't be shot down, it was that no one had ever used highjacked planes as weapons before and no one really thought the crazy bastards meant to crash them into buildings. It understandably took us a bit flatfooted.

    Actually, that type of attack had appeared in works of fiction several times before 9/11, including a nearly identical scenario of a flight from Boston to SF being crashed into the WTC in the pilot for The Lone Gunmen which first aired in March 2001. I have a hard time believing that the govt had no contingency plans for that type of event, Condoleeza's plaintive wail that "no one could have seen this coming" notwithstanding. I mean, the Navy probably has contingency plans for a global war against the UK. It's what they do.

    Now I don't think this means that 9/11 was a govt conspiracy, rather I think the powers that be were asleep at the switch. As I said before we had a serious chink in our national defense armor and it was exploited.

  • jester||

    The whole article serves as an indictment of the Government-as-Your-Local-Post-Office reality.

    I don't think it takes much for a Law Authority to realize that someone with a sign that says essentially 'I resent all authority' whether that is a RP sign, or a DTOM sign, under the caution flag given in the article wouldn't realize the inherent 'I dare you.'

    And to realize that each time they take the 'I dare you' bait, it makes their job more dangerous. If Robert Conrad says, "I dare you to knock this battery off." Just buy a different brand, for god's sake.

    Law Enforcement in America. Please don't adopt the preemptive war doctrine that has helped ruin America. Likewise you'll be fighting imaginary boogey-men that will suddenly turn into well, boogeymen.

  • MNG||

    "Didn't you know that the Washington Memorial is really a missile silo hidden in plain sight? And Lincoln's statue is actually just a plaster coating on a giant killer robot designed for the government by Nicoli Tesla?"

    Holy shit!

    (turns around and marks out "trip to DC" for next weekend)

  • jester||

    Liberty Mike,

    Kind of like, I am kind of slow right now. Not sure what your post meant. Certainly not the boating store in Austin, NV?

    I am we Todd did.

  • jester||

    Well enough MNG. Washington doesn't need tourist dollars these days. Hotels are full with consultants from Wall Street who are desperately needed to advise Congress on how to correctly allocate the stimulus.

    Obviously their talent is desperately needed. These are people fresh from mistakes. No one ever makes the same mistake twice.

    *please remember patriot consultants: your hotel cost can be written off as business expenses.

  • Taktix®||

    9/11 Truthers are like Flat Earthers. It's been addressed...your nonsense is disproven, and those who persist in clinging to the comforting mythology that there must be a logical order to things deserve all the derision and ostracizing they receive.

    I fully agree. I thought I was taking shots at Steve, whom I though was claiming...

    Well, whatever, I misread the posts cause I'm at work.

    My bad, TAO...

  • Taktix®||

    Actually, that type of attack had appeared in works of fiction several times before 9/11, including a nearly identical scenario of a flight from Boston to SF being crashed into the WTC in the pilot for The Lone Gunmen which first aired in March 2001. I have a hard time believing that the govt had no contingency plans for that type of event

    So they have contingency plans for being thrown out of an airlock by a President?

    Not all fiction warrants strategic planning and resources...

  • ||

    So they have contingency plans for being thrown out of an airlock by a President?

    Not all fiction warrants strategic planning and resources

    Well apparently this fiction did! It's something that was relatively easy for a terrorist org to do. It's not like they converted Dr Manhattan to their side and had him knock over the WTC with his blue banger. Then I could see Condi saying "we never saw this cumming."

  • ||

    John, it doesn't matter which airport the plane took off from, because if you actually look at a map you'll see that there's an airport ACROSS THE FREEWAY from the Pentagon. The Troofer assertion that we should shoot down any plane near the Pentagon is beyond stupid.

    Even if you had enough time to scramble jets and get them into the area, which plane do you shoot down? This was not military controlled airspace, it's right in the middle of a major air traffic corridor. But imagine you did find the right plane. You have no orders to shoot down civilian aircraft. This isn't Hollywood, it's the real world. Back in pre-9/11 days you didn't shoot down your own civilian aircraft in the real world without explicit orders.

    Libertymike, when you read Steve's 1:47 post, you see that he's implying that we should have able to stop a plane intent on striking the Pentagon. That was what I was addressing. Since you troofers are incapable of finding a map on your own, HERE IT IS! Click on the link. Look at the map. Only an idiot can claim that the Pentagon had a policy to shoot down planes that got too near.

    How did the plane get to be so near? It following normal flight routes! I myself have been on a plane that flew right by the Pentagon. I could look out my window and see it clearly below. The pilot could have swung around in an arc and struck it before anyone on the ground could have done anything about it.

    Steve seemed pissed that people consider InfoWarts to be unreliable. But it is! Every point the Troofers bring up about the Insider Mineta/Cheney Conspiracy to incite a war with Iraq is championed on InfoWarts. The only reason you guys pretend to be Ron Paul supporters is because Ron Paul never turns down an interview. If he had never been on InfoWarts you guys would be driving around with Cynthia McKinney bumper stickers and pretending to be socialists instead of libertarians. InfoWarts is given no respect for exactly the same reason the Weekly World News is given no respect. The only difference between Devil Worship at Bohemian Grove and Bat Boy, is that at least Bat Boy has a musical.

    Every point the Troofers claim has been answered over and over and over again. But they refuse to listen. They say they are just asking questions, but they refuse to look at any answers. That's why I call them names.

  • Taktix®||

    Steve seemed pissed that people consider InfoWarts to be unreliable. But it is!

    Yeah, like their groundbreaking report on oil wells that magically refill themselves.

    InfoWars is the offline equivalent of a spam chain, but without the funny references to penis enlargment...

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Fun fact: Peter Bagge did a Bat Boy comic for Weekly World News.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    My bad, TAO...

    We're cool! I'm not entirely sure in what the apology is warranted...but hey! "My bads all around!"

  • ||

    ## The problem wasn't that the plane couldn't
    ## be shot down, it was that no one had ever
    ## used highjacked planes as weapons before
    ## and no one really thought the crazy
    ## bastards meant to crash them into
    ## buildings. It understandably took us a bit
    ## flatfooted.

    # Actually, that type of attack had appeared
    # in works of fiction several times before
    # 9/11, including a nearly identical scenario
    # of a flight from Boston to SF being crashed
    # into the WTC in the pilot for The Lone
    # Gunmen which first aired in March 2001.

    And don't forget the pilot episode of Paramount's sci-fi time-travel action series, "Seven Days," any episode of which may have been viewed by more people than ever saw the Lone Gunmen during its entire run. In the pilot, a guy in a plane slams it into the White House and our anti-Hero, the certifiably unstable, ex-military operative, Frank Parker, is sent back in time seven days to prevent the tragedy. This show aired October 7, 1998. I bring up "Seven Days" not to offer it as being exceptionally prescient -- there were numerous differences between the show's scenario and what actually happened on 9/11 -- but only to point out the popularity in the years immediately preceding 9/11 of that general idea: that a nutcase or kamikaze-type would have or gain control of otherwise innocuous private aircraft, and then crash it into a target-rich building or landmark, including the Pentagon and the White House. Given the currency of that class of idea in those days, and also given that "radical islam" had been using suicide terrorism for some years already, it is hard for me to imagine that our national security strategists didn't consider at least a few related "kamikaze airplane/airliner" scenarios. Why wouldn't they have taken precautions to prevent such things, or at least had plans in place to deal with this kind of attack? Even assuming that the nature and timing of the maneuver took us by surprise despite previous forethought, to say that we so clearly underestimated the "crazy bastards" and were caught "flatfooted" does just not seem credible. Or if it is, it provides just one more illustration of the incompetence of government to provide adequate defense, and the basic uselessness of multi-billion-dollar defense programs. We could almost certainly achieve the same level of "security" for a far lesser expenditure. More importantly, if we adjusted our foreign policy to avoid inspiring blowback, our absolute risk of terrorist attack would probably plummet, too.

  • ||

    JAM,

    Actually, there was a nutjob who crashed a single-engine Cessna into the White House during the Clinton administration.

    And then there's this guy, who attempted to hijack a plane and do the same during the Nixon administration.

    So it's not an unthinkably far-fetched sci fi idea, as the Bush administration tried (and succeeded) to convince the American people in the aftermath.

  • bt6||

    "Advocating criminal behavior is not protected under the First Amendments. It is a fine line. You can say 'the US sucks', but you cannot say 'go blow shit up because the US sucks.'"

    I dunno, it worked for a couple of BO's pals . . .

  • ||

    Even assuming that the nature and timing of the maneuver took us by surprise despite previous forethought, to say that we so clearly underestimated the "crazy bastards" and were caught "flatfooted" does just not seem credible.

    Dude, don't. It's massively more credible than the idea that hundreds of conspirators spread across twenty govt agencies have been able to keep the lid on the govt's involvement in 9/11 -- which would easily be The Story of the Frickin' Millennium for the reporter who dug up real evidence. I mean, breaking the Watergate story would look like covering a pig race at the county fair next to that.

  • bt6||

    "Actually, that type of attack had appeared in works of fiction several times before 9/11"

    In "Clear and Present Danger," a nuclear bomb is concealed in a pop machine. Do you now expect any pop machine you see to be a nuclear device?

    There are a lot of potential threats, and most have appeared in fiction at least once. There is no way to defend against all of them at the same time.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    The Angry Optimist | March 15, 2009, 3:29pm | #

    How would you like to be profiled as a "domestic insurgent" SOLELY based on your display of an LP, CP, C4L or (God forbid) even a FairTax bumpersticker?

    Um, not at all? Did I say I would want to?

    I said I cannot blame MOSP for making this logical link. They shouldn't be allowed to police based on it, though.

    ***

    My bad, I thought you were taking the MIAC side of the argument, that political affiliation = advocacy of violent insurgency against a sitting administration, et cetera.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Nutbaggery from the Alex Jonesers aside, this is not some flight of fancy. For once, Jones got something (almost) right.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    My bad, I thought you were taking the MIAC side of the argument, that political affiliation = advocacy of violent insurgency against a sitting administration, et cetera.

    No, it's my bad. Clearly I am arguing like joe...I figure if this many people are misunderstanding me, it must be because I am not making myself clear.

  • ||

    "Supports" isn't the half of it. It also misspells "Martial Law" as "Marshal Law." The memo looks like it was written fron an undergrad sociology class, the classes that DON'T need statistics as a pre-req. Here's the 2nd introductory paragraph:

    Academics contend that female and minority empowerment of the 1970's and 1960's cause a blow to white male's sense of empowerment. This, combined with a sense of defeat from the Vietnam War, increased levels of immigration, and unemployment, spawned a paramilitary culture. This caught on in the 1980's with injects such as Tom Clancy novels, Soldier of Fortune Magazine, and movies such as Rambo that glorified combat. This culture glorified white males and portrayed them as morally upright heroes who were mentally and physically tough.

    If that's the "Introduction" then you already know where the rest of this memo is going to go.

  • MNG||

    What a stupid, stupid thread. I mean, really guys, this one takes the cake. WTF?

    TAO-In the name of consistency I would love to know how a guy who thinks that if folks are stranded on an island and one guy "gets property" in food but a second and third guy does not the second and third guy are not justified in taking food from the other guy but also thinks that it's OK to target someone based on utilitiarian grounds when it comes to "national security". WTF?

    You are a smart guy. But it strikes me that you are deontological when it suits whatever beliefs you want to defend, and utilitarian when it suits whatever beliefs you want to defend, in a way that is, well, philosophically indefensible. But maybe I misunderstand you...

    I'd like to ask you, as an objectivist, what in the world are the basic principles from which you judge actions.

  • MNG||

    I mean, here we are in a thread where folks are mad at you for what you often complain about, that you criticize better than you theorize.

    So let us know what ar the basic principles upon which you judge actions.

    I'll gladly do (and I've gladly done) the same...

    The problem with giving neutral general principles upon which to judge the correctness of specific actions is that if one moves counter to those principles because of some personal bias, they will busted...

    But an intellectual won't be afraid of that...Why would they want views controlled by personal biases anywan?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    also thinks that it's OK to target someone based on utilitiarian grounds when it comes to "national security".

    Where did I say that?

    it strikes me that you are deontological when it suits whatever beliefs you want to defend, and utilitarian when it suits whatever beliefs you want to defend, in a way that is, well, philosophically indefensible.

    It strikes me that the moral and practical should run together, because moral principles should also be those maxims which are pragmatically good for humanity.

  • MNG||

    I can also say, that despite the fact that I live now in the state of "manly deeds, womanly words", and I like this state very much , thank you, I am stoked to see my old fav Duke win the ACC Tourney!

    In your FACE other ACC posters!

  • MNG||

    Since many threats have "blank bumper stickers" it is reasonable to target those with "blank bumper stickers"

    Though you excellently made the observation that because all x (threats) have y (bumper stickers) it is wrong to assume all y are x.

  • ||

    The only way government can protect us from every real and imagined threat is to become a totalitarian state of unimagined proportions. The shocking truth of reality is that "shit happens". I don't mean to be callous about it, but people die all the time in ways that could have been prevented. Each incident becomes justification for yet another layer of government force. If we keep indulging the scared and frightened we will soon end up locked inside our own homes, unable to leave without state approval. Germany has one of the strictest set of gun controls laws in the world, yet a terrible shooting just happened in the same block where friends of mine lives.

    This is the Troofer mindset: that we must have a government so powerful, so ruthlessly efficient, that it can stop every possible threat. They expected our government to shoot down civilian planes at the first hint of hijacking. To them the hypothetical scenarios presented in a few suspense novels and is justification to murder hundreds of civilians.

  • MNG||

    "It strikes me that the moral and practical should run together, because moral principles should also be those maxims which are pragmatically good for humanity."

    That's interseting, but I have no idea how you are going to salvage objectivism from that...

    I'd like to see your general principles, as I said...You once asked Tony "what do you believe." I know ask you that same question...

  • MNG||

    Just so you are OK, my general principle is that that which tends to maximize the general welfare is morally correct.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Since many threats have "blank bumper stickers" it is reasonable to target those with "blank bumper stickers"

    I think that it's reasonable to draw that connection. If every militia depot you bust has the Gadsden Flag and C4L literature, I couldn't blame someone for making a connection.

    But, like I said, the reasonableness of that connection should not be used as justification to target the aforementioned symbols or groups, because of the greater moral and pragmatic implications for liberty, freedom of association and freedom of speech.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I'd like to see your general principles

    I mean, in terms of what? Person-to-person dealings (ethics)? Government? I'll take a little crack at it:

    Reason is better than force. Those actions which make reason impotent (force and fraud) and make honest dealings impossible should be guarded against with state action.

    Ethically, Honesty is the best policy. It is better to be blunt and correct than to spare feelings, because in the long run, people will respect you for it and the truth is never a bad thing. That is not to say that there isn't something to presenting a controversial proposition with finesse, but, at root, honesty should rule the day.

    That's interseting, but I have no idea how you are going to salvage objectivism from that...

    Objectivism explicitly is neither deontological nor utilitarian, because Kantian deontology divorces moral actions from the context in which they reside, and utilitarianism reduces men to pieces of matter to be rearranged via the will of the people with guns.

  • ||

    In "Clear and Present Danger," a nuclear bomb is concealed in a pop machine. Do you now expect any pop machine you see to be a nuclear device?

    No...sort of like how I don't expect EVERY plane in the sky to be hijacked by terrorists and flown into a building.

    My beef isn't that there weren't surface to air missile batteries on the roof of the Pentagon, it's that, apparently, our govt has no standing procedure for a scenario which is (a) easily carried out by a minimally competent terror org, (b) extremely destructive if not repelled, and (c) had been attempted before! Hiding a nuke in a soda machine fails (a) and (c), and in any case is not terribly different tactically from hiding a nuke in 10,000 other sorts of object -- which I friggin hope the govt has some sort of contingency plan for.

  • ||

    You know who needs to be targeted? Those people who still have magnetic ribbons on the back of their vehicles. Fuck them.

  • ||

    To them the hypothetical scenarios presented in a few suspense novels and is justification to murder hundreds of civilians.

    No...it is however justification to plan for such a contingency, and not claim that "no one could have seen this coming" after the fact. Repeat: the DoD has tactical plans laid out for use in the event of a global war against Britain. You know how likely that is to happen?

  • ||

    Supports is a noun..as in the platfrom rested on its supports.

  • alan||

    Kucinich Supporter's Wife: Hey, hon, did you see in the paper where Ron Paul supporters are being targeted by the authorities in Missouri?

    Kucinich Supporter: Yeah, I did . . .

    KSW: What's wrong? Why so glum.

    KS: I have a Kucinich bumper sticker. I speed, cops just wave to me while I go by them.

    KSW: That's because every body likes you.

    KS: I don't want to be liked. I want to be feared.

    KSW: Don't take this wrong way, but nobodies ever going to fear you.

    KS: They should fear us. If Kucinich got in there, he would shake the system to its rotten core.

    KSW: Honey, you are a pussy. Nobody is worried about you.

  • Kolohe||

    re:DoD tactical plans

    A plan that nobody has trained on, and especially one that few of people responsible for implementation is not much of a plan at all.

    re: the original post
    This reads to me like a typical intel document full of generalizations and conjecture. People can read the whole thing a judge for themselves but I find it kinda pedestrian and thus really no cause for excessive alarm. Although as has mentioned above, it is incumbent on the commanders to remind their troopers that although all horses have 4 legs, not all 4 legged animals are horses. And counting on the 'professionalism' of smokeys is a somewhat dicey proposition these days as Mr Balko ably points out nearly every day.

    One more bit of food for thought. This is an intel highlights summary of exotic and mysterious Missouri. Imagine the products for more remote locations.

  • Kolohe||

    "especially one that few people responsible for implementation are even aware of is not much of a plan at all"

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I thought the military scrapped all of the color-coded "Wars with Major World Powers" like, a loooong time ago anyway.

  • ||

    Repeat: the DoD has tactical plans laid out for use in the event of a global war against Britain. You know how likely that is to happen?



    A war games scenario regarding Britain is proof that 9/11 was an inside job? WTF?!?!?

    TODAY there are plans to shoot down hijacked planes with no questions asked, but that is TODAY, not September 10th, 2001. Back then hijacked planes had always demanded to be flown somewhere. Or hostages were held for a prisoner exchange. Etc. We had NEVER had a suicide hijacking. At what point do we start shooting down civilian airliners with hundreds of passengers? Do we shoot down EVERY hijacked plane when the probability is only one out of ten that it's a suicide flight? The twisted mind of the Troofer would, but sane people would not.

    By the time we knew that the these were suicide flights, it was too late. It was very confused that day. No really, it was! You Troofers like to pretend that it was all a carefully orchestrated plot, but in reality it was a huge clusterfuck. The civilian air traffic control system is not the military. They can't shoot down planes even if they wanted to. Neither does the military have the authority to shoot down civilian planes. The grounding order happened fairly quickly after the first two strikes, but dozens of planes were still in the air on the eastern seaboard. They continued on to their destinations.

    Here's the sequence that has to happen to shoot down a plane in 2001: Figure out that a coordinated suicide attack is taking place. Scramble jets. Verify that planes off route or not responding were indeed hijacks. Fly the jets from where they currently are to where the hijacked planes are. Please note at this point that the jets are only traveling a few hundred miles faster than the airliners. It takes a while to get into position. You then have to confirm that it's the right plane. Then you have to get confirmation to shoot it down. Then you fire the trigger. Unfortunately by this time the plane has long since crashed into the Pentagon.

    REAL LIFE IS NOT LIKE THE MOVIES!

  • ||

    Maybe they just said they were scrapping them to catch the British off-guard. You can't be too careful with those perfidious banger munchers.

  • ||

    Brandybuck, I'm not a truther. I'm just saying that the govt's immediate response to 9/11 was utterly incompetent. It's possible there was nothing they could do, but they didn't even do the things they could do correctly.

  • ||

    General: "Mr. President, it has come to our attention that Tom Clancy has written a book that has a Japanese plane flying into Congress."

    President: "OMG! We need to change our entire domestic air traffic system to instantly shoot down any plane that loses transponder contact! Our policy must be 'shoot the hostage'. Get Norm on this right away."

  • ||

    Crimethink, I used to think that too. Government was incompetent, and could have stopped 9/11. But I've changed my mind. There were no more incompetent than they always were. There was extremely little they could have done once the attack started. Government isn't nearly as omnipotent as Hollywood portrays it.

  • ||

    This is real and it has been confirmed. I personally have spoken to Rep Jim Guest who confirmed it himself. If you would like to see the document-
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/13232178/MIAC-Strategic-Report-The-Modern-Militia-Movement

    And you can call the number on last page to confirm yourself.

    If you would like to stay up to date on steps being taken-
    http://www.libertyrestorationproject.org/2009/03/14/stand-up-missouri-a-plan-of-action/

  • dickie||

    ...funny thing... the word Terrorism was actually invented in France, during the Revolution, to describe the use of fear/terror BY THE GOVERNMENT...

    ..pot, kettle.. anyone?

  • MNG||

    TAO
    Thanks for the answer, I was just curious.

    It's not so much the tention between deontology, whether Kantian or not, and utlitarianism as between deontology and consequentialism as I think in practice you will run into problems concerning. I don't think you can have both or neither in a coherent, satisfying moral philosophy, if you follow me. But maybe I'm wrong.

  • MNG||

    I'm also looking for something a little more "meta-ethics." You say reason is better than force, but why (I'm not trying to be dense, I tend to think reason is generally better than force too, but that's because I think reason over force tends to maximize welfare, and it's that "because", along with a strategy of "never doing things that negativelly effect that 'because'" (deontology) or following a strategy of "maximizing" that "because" (or some third way that would be neat), which will be uesed to judge the rightness or wrongness of specific things...

  • MNG||

    And let's not be too hard on Kant. Kant had a lot to say about reason as well. And his general point about ethical statements, that they had to be general (able to be universalized to other similar moral agents) was certainly a necessary component of any coherent ethics (it would be goofy for you to say "it's wrong for a person to use force on a person, except for Bob and redheads; if it's wrong in a situation then that means its wrong for any similarly situated agent to do too).

  • ||

    Just so you are OK, my general principle is that that which tends to maximize the general welfare is morally correct.

    In that case, you should be a defender of freedom, capitalism, and sound money, instead of the pinko stances you generally support.

    -jcr

  • ||

    MNG, what if oppressing a minority increases the general welfare?

    I mean without going Godwin and all, isn't the General welfare the reason used by all mass murderers?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    You say reason is better than force, but why

    Dual reasons: welfare-maximizing and, happily enough, the only moral way to keep men as ends in and of themselves, rather than means to an end (a phrase to which I give Kant credit; I'm not as dumbly brutal to him as other Objectivists are/were - although it is justified 90% of the time).

    I don't think you can have both or neither in a coherent, satisfying moral philosophy

    I don't see that. If your personal philosophy is yielding you unhappiness, you should reevaluate yourself. Conversely, if what brings you happiness is evil, dishonest or both, I would posit that A) you probably won't be successful or live long and B) you need to adjust what makes you happy.

    It does have a Darwinist angle to it.

  • ||

    Just so you are OK, my general principle is that that which tends to maximize the general welfare is morally correct.

    Utlitarianism as a moral principle admits of far too many scenarios that most would regard as immoral. The hoary hypo about killing one baby to save two mass murderers sums it up nicely.

  • ||

    I think that individual rights have to trump "the general welfare", or else there are no rights and no freedom.

    I think that holding individual rights above the general welfare, in the long run is the best thing for the the general welfare.

  • ||

    Holy cow! I have a Culpeper Minutemen tag on my car, and I've never been in any militia.

  • Gary||

    You know, the most amazing thing about the responses you idiots have made here is that not one of you has enough awareness to see the very real danger in the fact that police all over the country - not just in Missouri - are being trained to identify YOU as "terrorists," let alone the full implications of this. Okay, you can all go back to your nap now. No wonder I stopped calling myself a "libertarian." If that's what you people are, I'd be ashamed to be one.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Gary, I'll be God-damned if I'm going to be cowed into giving up my party affiliation because some myopic cops can't rationalize that NOT EVERY LIBERTIARIAN IS A TERRORIST GOONJOB.

    In fact, I'd say the number of libertarian terrorist goonjobs would be "a handful", as in a number in the double digits or so, tops, per state (and IMO, that's a high estimate). Most libertarians are too busy arguing amongst themselves over purity versus pragmatism, to engage in terrorist activities.

    Unless "terrorist activities" includes a belief in limited government, which in Obama-Brand NewSpeak WOULD be considered subversive and traitorous. But I digress.

  • ||

    Why is it that Libertarians are so afraid of the Truth Movement? Well, perhaps it is because the ideals of the Libertarian are not marketable if they are associated with any ideas that might be considered Conspiracy Theory? This website is reason.com. So I would expect people here to use reason? lol So where is it reasonable to assume there is nothing fishy about several buildings falling at free fall speed as the first 3 in steel framed buildings in history to come down from a fire all in the same day, defying the laws of physics when put up against the official explanation? You would think that the people witnessing the events on that day had never seen a controlled demolition! Where is it reasonable to ignore the overwhelming evidence, or the laws of physics even? I tried the Libertarian thing, and I have met some really great people. However, I still find them to be very careful to not be associated with any groups that might tarnish the Libertarian name because they still believe that government holds the true reigns of power. They actually believe that putting someone in the Oval Office is going to change the direction of this country in a way that will truly create freedom. Who knows, if they lived long enough to get some airtime on the Telly, then maybe they might? But I find the majority of the populace to be naive, but not for long. As we approach 2012, the truth will be revealed and all that were on the fence will take their sides. Total denial of themselves and the Truth, or complete realization of the truth and the overwhelming desire to defend and act upon it. Go ahead... Get started on what a whack job I am. He must be one of those nutters. He probably even believes in the existence of UFO's Aliens! People, wake up! Obama's timing of being placed in the White House is no mistake. He is a perfect puppet for the next phase of the agenda.
    And slam the material on Alex Jones all you want, I have seen plenty of pseudo stories on there myself. However, that doesn't change the fact that he has uncovered tremendous evidence of a seemingly organized system that works behind the scenes as only a shadow of the government that holds power. And he is my least favorite of all these wonderful people working hard to expose the truth. He just happens to be the most vocal and visible and extreme. (Very Much So! lol)
    So... I could sit here and drum up hundreds of facts that support that 9/11 was an inside job, or all of the information that proves the existence of an agenda to reign in a One World Government, but I only have so much breath to waste. Soon enough, it will become clear to the Libertarians as they are already closer than most to "Getting the Big Picture". For that I commend.

    To the awakening of all!

    Peace & Plenty

  • Tom VanAntwerp||

    Using the MIAC report, I've put together a little quiz for anyone on facebook to see if they are a domestic terrorist in Missouri. Please give it a try and let me know what you think!

    http://apps.facebook.com/miac-terrorists/quiz.php?quizid=13211

  • Abercrombie hollister||

    One says, "Jewelie has no freaking clue what twitter is and needs to know how people have time for this?" In another, the person says she is "order clothes from china." As with the Facebook and MySpace profiles, it is not clear whether the Twitter page belongs to the woman alleged to have had an affair with Woods.

  • Norway Cruises||

    Yeah I agree, it could be anyone posing as that woman...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement