June 30, 2004
Lovely Irony
Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Presidential nominee, sent out a press release on Monday, including:
"The attempt to gag Michael Moore demonstrates that McCain-Feingold was just an excuse to outlaw political criticism."
Under an advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Moore may be prohibited from advertising his controversial new documentary, which is sharply critical of President Bush, after July 30. Under McCain-Feingold, corporate-paid radio or TV ads that identify a federal candidate are illegal to broadcast within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
Since Moore has publicly stated that his goal is to help defeat Bush, Democrats and Republicans are waging partisan warfare over "Fahrenheit 9/11."
But Badnarik -- who teaches classes on the Constitution -- says a much larger issue is at stake: Every American's freedom of speech.
"The truth is that Democrats and Republicans committed a bipartisan crime against the First Amendment when they passed the McCain-Feingold law," according to Badnarik.
"This law allows politicians to determine what their critics can say, when they can say it and how much they can spend in the process -- which is exactly what's not supposed to happen in a free country."
Noting that the First Amendment clearly states that 'Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom speech,' Badnarik asked: "What part of the words 'no law' doesn't the government understand? The First Amendment doesn't contain exceptions for advertisements that might offend the president or cost him his job -- and it certainly doesn't authorize federal movie police.
"Every American should stand up for Michael Moore's right to advertise 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' regardless of how they feel about George Bush."
The nice thing about this is that leftists, presumably including Moore's supporters, were advocates of McCain-Feingold. So while I agree with Badnarik it's nice to see Moore's side squirm.
June 29, 2004
She Said It
Perusing Instapundit I came across this from Hilary Clinton:
Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Every libertarian should already know this is how the political class thinks. What's remarkable is she came out and said it, and in very precise words.
She might as well say, "We know what is best for everyone. The ends justify the means. Any abuse is justified as long as we deem it benefits the common good."
June 26, 2004
Bile
Here's an astonishing bit of invective from Rocky media critic Michael Tracey in this morning's paper. It reads like a second-rate partisan blog post.
Murdoch symbol of neo-con threat:
Who is the greater threat to Western democracy, Osama bin Laden or Rupert Murdoch? Let me suggest that while bin Laden is manifestly a deeply dangerous psychopath, in terms of the functioning of democracies where rational, informed publics elect their leaders, Murdoch is far more dangerous. He is extraordinarily gifted in a nasty kind of way - driven by childhood demons, one suspects - whose final word will surely be the Aussie equivalent of "Rosebud."
I use Murdoch here not just as someone with a vast media empire, but as a metaphor for that perfect storm at the confluence of conservative and avaricious media barons and those "neo- cons" who believe not in democracy but in a new imperium in which the globe is fashioned in their own image and likeness...
[snip]
Murdoch does not like the idea of deeper European unity. He also happens to own - in Britain - The Sun, the biggest selling daily tabloid; The News of the World, the biggest selling Sunday tabloid; and the Sunday Times, the biggest selling Sunday broadsheet. He dispatched an emissary to Downing Street to have a word with the prime minister. The message was very clear and simple: if Blair did not agree to a referendum over the constitution then Murdoch's papers, which have supported Blair in the last two elections, would turn on him with a vengeance. Shortly after, Blair announced that he had changed his mind and that there would be a referendum.
Murdoch is the anti-democrat for insisting on a democratic vote? Want to try that again, Mr. Tracey?
June 25, 2004
The Post on Moore's Film
I really don't care to comment on Michael Moore's latest effort, as plenty of pixels have already been devoted elsewhere to that subject, but Denver Post film critic Lisa Kennedy's review deserves some attention. She finds some aspects of the film wanting, but I get the feeling she would give it an 'A' for effort...
The families the president values, "Fahrenheit 9/11" argues, are those with whom the Bush family has had long and complex business dealings. How else to explain the disquieting fact that a number of Saudi nationals (including members of the bin Laden family) were allowed to leave the U.S. in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11?
Certainly, the movie is anti-Bush. The filmmaker from Flint, Mich., has been a class warrior from the start.
I can believe that Moore would see himself as a class warrior, but does anyone really think the '04 election has something to do with a class struggle, or that labeling Bush as an aristocrat will be effective as he runs against Kerry?
Kennedy:
Moore, like the administration he critiques, does not always encourage views other than his own.
In this regard, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is not unlike another recent American film. It, too, was released into a swirl of controversy, though the hand-wringing over "Fahrenheit" wasn't nearly as prolonged as that over Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."
"Fahrenheit 9/11" also sets out to proselytize. It, too, intends to convert, though it is more likely to act as a balm to true believers.
Each movie is the forceful expression of its director's deeply felt beliefs. Each uses film's powerful language to persuade, to insist upon its version of truth.
Avid fans of both films will reel at that assertion, but the rest of us can be more detached about the power and failings of films.
As a fan of neither film, I'm reeling too. Does Kennedy mean to say Moore's film is the product of religious devotion?
June 21, 2004
Why The Drug War Is Doomed To Fail
The short answer is that demand drives the drug trade as well as supply. In fact, there are many substances which a person could use to become intoxicated, most of them not what you may consider to be a recreational drug. Case in point, today's Rocky headline, Cough syrup abuse rises. Here's a bit:
The medicine's active ingredient is dextrometh-orphan, or DXM or Dex, which can cause fanciful hallucinations but also seizures, agitation and permanent kidney and liver damage.
DXM is found in more than 120 nonprescription cough and cold medicines, including Robitussin, Vicks NyQuil and Vicks Formula 44.
Abuse of cough medicine has come in and out of popularity for at least 40 years, but now, in metro Denver, it is a growing, dangerous problem.
A local man was killed while trying to get high on cough medicine a few months ago, which is about one more than has been killed by smoking pot in recorded history.
What's most revealing is a collection of statistics included with the article.
Colorado calls to the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, and the type of drug involved, in the past two years
Drug 2002 2003
Marijuana 92 100
Heroin 14 24
Cocaine 109 137
Methamphetamine 71 82
Cough medicines/ dextromethorphan 229 275
Codeine 153 188
Painkillers/ oxycodone 602 809
Sleeping pills, tranquilizers/ benzodiazepines 1,012 1,212
Methadone 87 97
Morphine 150 208
Ethyl alcohol 270 248
Total calls 68,245 67,463
Note that calls regarding cough medicine/dex each of the last two years outnumbered calls for marijuana, cocaine and heroin combined.
June 19, 2004
What's Going on Here?
Local activist/muckraker/online columnist Michael Zinna has been subject to FBI visits, for no apparant reason other than his political views, which you can find on his website.
Strangely enough, Zinna 'got some inside wind blown his way' that Rick Stanley's home was going to be raided by the feds, and was on hand to take some photos.
Read the News account of the Stanley raid here. Read my take on Stanley, from last October, here.
Also, Ari Armstrong, a reasonable fellow, writes this about the Stanley raid:
I dislike Rick Stanley. Severely. He's a loopy conspiracy-theory nut, he's irresponsible with his claims and his actions, he's mean and deceitful, and he promotes a bizarre right-wing pseudo-Christian and vaguely apocalyptical religion. He's a weird guy, he's done more harm than good for liberty, and I think he's a complete idiot. Yet the strange ones are most at risk from overzealous state action, and they're the least sympathetic to the media and the public. Thus, the rights of the oddballs are precisely those with which we must be most concerned. Liberty always is eroded at the margins. If we do not stand up against over-aggressive state power when directed against those we dislike, we will be unable to stop that power when directed against our friends or ourselves.
On Wednesday, June 9, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, consisting of the FBI, IRS, and other law enforcement agencies, raided Stanley's home and business, Stanley Fastener & Shop Supply, in an industrial section of Denver near Monaco and 39th.
Karen Abbott reviewed the story the next day in the Rocky Mountain News. She noted the Task Force seized "materials said to be related to taxes and possible anti-government activity." Automatically we should be suspicious. What is "anti-government activity?" I don't know whether that phrase came from Abbott or a government official. But it's nonsense. If law officials have evidence of violence or intent to commit violence, then that's the allegation they should make, not some vague reference to "anti-government activity," a phrase more appropriate to Stalinism or a novel by Kafka or Orwell.
Let's cut to the chase. Rick Stanley is not a terrorist. He is, instead, a tax resister. This is no secret -- he announced to the world via his web page that he no longer pays the income tax. He sent letters to the IRS to that effect. It's no surprise that the IRS has taken an interest in him. But why is he being raided by the Joint Terrorism Task Force? Aren't those agents busy enough with real terrorist threats? Apparently not. Apparently, they would rather scratch a pain in the government's ass than actually spend their resources keeping Americans safe from terrorist attacks.
June 13, 2004
OK, Last One
I've been hard enough on the deceased Pres.
Check out this devestatingly accurate take on the Reagan Presidency.
Found via Claire Wolf, who adds:
It still mystifies me that people still prefer to believe what politicians say in their speeches, rather than what they do.
I could go on, but Reagan is still the best President we've had in quite a while. That says quite a bit about the sad state of American politics.
June 10, 2004
Reagan. He's Dead.
Reagan's expiration has been much more interesting than I imagined it would be. He's a polarizing figure in American culture, at least when concerning the Left and Right wings of American politics. You can make a good guess at a person's political leanings from hearing his description of Reagan, even while he praises the former Pres. A lefty will say something like, 'Reagan was a great communicator and instilled a sense of optimism to the country,' while a conservative will say the Reagan was a great champion of freedom. The leftist is quite correct, moreso than the conservative, but conservatives see the bigger picture. Reagan ran and was elected as a man of ideas.
One of many interesting aspects of the public dialogue this week is listening to the Left refuse to acknowledge that the economy has been on a (mostly) steady growth spurt since the early Reagan years, and watching the Right skirt its blind spot, that Reagan was a serious disapointment when it comes to most freedom issues. They say he stared down the Soviets, but he couldn't confront our own Congress.
Murray Rothbard detailed Reagan's failings in a 1987 essay titled The Myth of Reaganomics, including:
One of the most curious, and least edifying, sights in the Reagan era was to see the Reaganites completely change their tune of a lifetime. At the very beginning of the Reagan administration, the conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, convinced that deficits would disappear immediately, received a terrific shock when they were asked by the Reagan administration to vote for the usual annual increase in the statutory debt limit. These Republicans, some literally with tears in their eyes, protested that never in their lives had they voted for an increase in the national debt limit, but they were doing it just this one time because they "trusted Ronald Reagan" to balance the budget from then on. The rest, alas, is history, and the conservative Republicans never saw fit to cry again. Instead, they found themselves adjusting rather easily to the new era of huge permanent deficits. The Gramm-Rudman law, allegedly designed to eradicate deficits in a few years, has now unsurprisingly bogged down in enduring confusion.
Reagan's administration was a bitter disappointment for the freedom movement, as he was elected on the strength of strong libertarian style rhetoric. In 1975 he granted an interview to Reason magazine, proclaiming, "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
Reagan's presidency was nothing close to libertarian. As a debating point, his espousal of libertarianism only gave his opponents on the Left a convenient target - much like California energy policy is held up as a model of the failings of deregulation, while California's energy industries are more heavily regulated than ever.
I'm just old enough to remember politics at the end of the Reagan era. I probably would have voted for him if I were old enough in 1980, but I would not have done so in 1984.
June 07, 2004
More Like This, Please
I greatly enjoyed Auburn Prof. Roderick T. Long's letter to Reason magazine in the June issue:
...Randy Barnett writes that "there are very few libertarians today for whom consequences are not ultimately the reason why they believe in liberty," while Richard Epstein cheerfully agrees that libertarians are "all consequentialists now." Fortunately, this is not true. I say "fortunately" because consequentialism is philosophically indefensible as a normative theory.
The basic problem with consequentialism is that it recognizes no limit in principle on what can be done to people in order to promote good consequences.
[...]
Many consequentialists will say that they too can accommodate ironclad prohibitions on certain actions, on the grounds that utility will be maximized in the long run if people internalize such prohibitions. This is true, but it misses the point. Once one has internalized an ironclad prohibition, one is by definition no longer a consequentialist. One cannot treat certain values as absolute in practice and still meaningfully deny their absoluteness in theory; a belief that is not allowed to influence one’s actions is no real belief. Most consequentialists are morally superior to their theory and, thankfully, pay it only lip service.
The vast majority of people walking the earth operate under no coherent moral philosophy, and consequentialists are no exception.
June 06, 2004
June 04, 2004
Libertarian Convention
Brian Doherty was at the convention:
What the 808 delegates who met in convention assembled over Memorial Day weekend voted for fit in with my previously presented theory of third parties like the LP as consumption expenditures—something people support just because they enjoy it, not necessarily to win elections or change the world. A certain narcissism seemed at work in the delegates' selection of hard-traveling Austin-based former computer programmer and freelance lecturer on the Constitution Michael Badnarik as their man, after he arrived as a distant third in a field of three major contenders: The delegates voted for the man who was the most like them, who presented in the most professional way the modal opinions and views and style of a Libertarian Party activist—quiet, intense, no deviation from the catechism, more concerned with eternal ideological and philosophical verities than the political events of the day. As to whether that is the best strategy to win lots of money, attention, and votes in a national presidential campaign, well, we'll know come November.
Nominating Badnarik seems to be a concession that garnering large vote totals isn't a priority.
June 03, 2004
Colorado Speller
The usual bunch of home-schooled prodigies were in DC for the national spelling bee, which concluded today. A local boy took second place in remarkable fashion:
In the end, he [winner David Tidmarsh] defeated Akshay Buddiga, a 13-year-old from Colorado Springs, Colo., who had briefly collapsed on stage rounds earlier.
Within seconds of crumpling, Akshay stood up and, to the amazement of the judges, immediately started spelling his word: "alopecoid," which means like a fox. He got it perfectly, drawing a standing ovation.
He was led off stage for a medical check and returned for the next round.
Akshay made it into the final twosome while sitting on a chair at the microphone, looking weak, his questions to the judges barely loud enough to hear.
"To me, that's what you call grit," said Paige Kimble, the bee director. "It was an extraordinary circumstance."
Here in Colorado even our brainy kids are tough.
June 01, 2004
Badnarik
In an upset third ballot victory, Michael Badnarik has won the Libertarian nomination for President, besting the favorites Aaron Russo and Gary Nolan. I'm not particularly happy with the choice, but I'll reserve judgement on Badnarik for now.
Jeff Trigg explains how it happened. Doug Allen wonders about the LP's strategy.