10 Jan 2010
Palin believed candidacy 'God's plan'

This is exactly why I bothered with voting last year - and voted for Obama. Truly the less of two evils.

AP - Sarah Palin believed that Sen. John McCain chose her to be his running mate in 2008 because of "God's plan," according to a top political strategist in the Arizona Republican's campaign.


(link) [Yahoo! News]

22:05 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link

07 Oct 2009
Father of Palin's grandson to pose for Playgirl

File this in 'Humor' - of the darkest kind. I'm no fan of the Palin's at all, but I am the father of a girl who found herself in the same position as their daughter. And I can assure you that right about now, Mr. and Mrs. Palin are thinking about how good a new head would look on their wall, mounted in between the moose and the bear ...

I've had a couple of weird and wild sons-in-law myself, but this kid takes the cake.

AP - Levi Johnston is going for the ultimate exposure — his bare body.

(link) [Yahoo! News: Top Stories]

22:49 /Humor | 0 comments | permanent link

05 Sep 2009
Health-Care “Reformers” Duck the Hard Questions

An excellent essay - with only one problem. The most vocal opponents of Plan Obama are incoherent wingnuts who babble about death panels and keeping government out of Medicare. I've avoided posting much on the issue, despite my deep and abiding misgivings about any government programs, simply to avoid the taint of association with knuckle dragging cretins like "Joe the Plumber" and Sarah Palin.

In fact, until and unless the Republicans get their shit together and drum the loonies back to the fringes where they belong, I'll avoid giving them any kind of aid or comfort, no matter how much I may agree with them on any particular policy issue. Because in the big picture, if the uber-religious right wing nuts get control of the government, anarchist left libertarian heathen farmers like me are gonna be toast (perhaps literally) a lot quicker than with a bunch of escaped granola eating ex-hippies in charge.

One can only hope that someday we'll come to our senses and realize that the real issue is not who's in charge, but the fact that anyone presumes to be in charge. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the results.

The proponents act as if only two kinds of opponents exist: shills for big pharmaceutical and insurance companies, and know-nothing (and most likely racist) extremists who “fear change.” Good-faith opposition based in economic, political, and moral theory is subtly ruled out as impossible.

(link) [Future of Freedom Foundation]

via LeftLibertarian

12:22 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link

15 Dec 2008
McCain won't say he'd back Palin for president

This speaks volumes about why Obama won ...

Sen. John McCain said Sunday he would not necessarily support his former running mate if she chose to run for president.

(link) [CNN.com]

08:07 /Politics | 2 comments | permanent link

24 Nov 2008
Requiem for a Maverick

Nice bit of writing here - if you like this piece, check out his initial take on the campaign after the RNC - Mad Dog Palin. The illustration on that one is priceless...

Election night at the Biltmore in Arizona is a hilariously dismal scene, like a funeral for a family member nobody liked, who died owing everyone money. The rats here are already bailing off the ship with lightning speed, like L.A. Dodgers fans leaving a playoff game to catch the latest episode of Entourage. The exodus, in fact, begins about eight seconds into John McCain's concession speech, which incidentally starts off on the classiest of notes: with the remaining crowd cursing the name of the new president.

(link) [Rolling Stong]

via RealityChex

07:36 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link

02 Nov 2008
Palin Declares War on Iran

Watch it for yourself here. Here's the quote from the clip:

We realize that more and more Americans are starting to see the light there and understand the contrast. And we talk a lot about, OK, we’re confident that we’re going to win on Tuesday, so from there, the first 100 days, how are we going to kick in the plan that will get this economy back on the right track and really shore up the strategies that we need over in Iraq and Iran to win these wars?

Still think I'm nuts for voting for Obama?

08:16 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link

01 Nov 2008
Gates Expands U.S. Right to Defend Against Plots

Warning! Large scale essay ahead! Maybe I'll subtitle it:

WMD's and the End of Ideology

I've been trying my damnedest to keep the "free market" from taking the rap for the latest banking crisis - we have free markets like the Sahara has fresh water.

So I've been following stuff a bit more closely this year, and in the course of my reading I ran across this thread over on Masson's Blog. His take is that Alan Greenspan's failure as Fed Chariman necessarily obviates Objectivism because Greenspan once wrote a chapter in an Ayn Rand Book and indeed considered himself an Objectivist. Then he talks about his conclusion that both Objectivism and libertarianism are unworkable because of large concentrations of wealth!

Well, my first inclination was to jump into the conversation full tilt + not in a trolling way, but just to try to spread some light about how that just ain't so.

But then I thought better of it, and here we are. I have a bit of a confession to make. I'm coming to the conclusion that they may be unworkable as well. And I'd love to be proven wrong.

I've been a libertarian and an anarchist since I was in the Air Force. I went through a serious Objectivist phase, as did Mr. Masson, as did many of my generation. I've watched my youngest daughter go through Rand to Ron Paul, and slowly towards the realization that government is the problem, and that it's form is largely immaterial.

But in breaking with a longstanding policy, I've decided to vote this year - for Obama. Kinda absurd for an anarchist, eh?

Maybe - but weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological or nuclear - hereinafter referred to by the shorthand name "nukes") may have completely changed the game.

How would an anarchist society possibly defend itself against the threat of terrorists with nukes?

I've read alot of critiques of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism - none of them hold much water for me. The economic ones are just specious bull, and the moral ones are gibberish, misunderstanding the ideal of libertarianism entirely. But nobody seems to address nukes in any meaningful way, short of some Pollyannaish vision that nukes will be pointless when we attain a stateless society.

The assumption underlying this is that no one wants to destroy the planet and kill themselves. Libertarians, myself included, have been a bit glib about nukes. But the rise of religious terrorism should give us pause - we assume that people always act in their own self interest, and we're right. But what happens when that self interest is self destructive, and is armed with a ten megaton warhead?

There are religious fanatics in this world who would push the button in an instant if they thought it would hasten the return of whatever imaginary friend they suspect is coming back.

It hasn't helped that I've been reading a couple of excellent essays on the topic of nuclear weapons in general: Weapons and Hope, by Freeman Dyson, and Prisoner's Dilemma, by William Poundstone. The folks at the Mises Institute could certainly use a quick read of the latter to brush up on their game theory. And Robert Gates needs to read both of them. Now. Before he opens his mouth on the subject again. And before we shift our national policy.

In a truly stateless society, what could prevent a person or group of people from building nukes and using them to impose their will - from becoming a government? Or worse, from simply destroying the planet for the sake of watching the fireworks.

Libertarians not only assume that everybody acts in their own self interest, they assume that self interest is driven by reason - and by a shared worldview in which Life = Good and Death = Bad.

The last few years in the Middle East, and the rise of the Religious Right in America, should be enough to put those notions to rest once and for all. There are some people out there who are really and sincerely crazy, and some of them are more than willing to die to prove it. And take as many of the rest of us as they can with them when they go.

So there you have it: any of my fellow left-libertarians care to rebut? Take all the space you need (but links are disabled in comments, unfortunately) or just email me and I'll post any cogent rebuttals with links enabled.

Which leads me back to why I'm voting this year.

The thought that somebody who sincerely and wholeheartedly believes that the end is nigh and God is coming back might have their finger on a nuclear trigger is enough to make me abandon my anarchist principles and do whatever I can to try and prevent that. I do not want to die in a fusion fireball to satisfy some moonbat's prophecy.

And in the course of the last two months, I've become convinced that Sarah Palin is such a person.

Hence my reluctant vote for Obama.

And if she does assume office, I sincerely hope I'm wrong about her. Or Gods help us all.

The defense secretary offered a broad interpretation of the the nation’s powers of self-defense in a post-Sept. 11 world.

(link) [New York Times]

Update: Anchorage Daily News.

11:38 /Politics | 6 comments | permanent link

08 Oct 2008
Verbage

Fascinating deconstruction of the political doublespeak the Republicans have foisted upon us this year.

In recent elections, the Republican hate word has been “liberal,” or “Massachusetts,” or “Gore.” In this election, it has increasingly been “words.” Barack Obama has been denounced again and again as a privileged wordsmith, a man of mere words who has “authored” two books (to use Sarah Palin’s verb), and done little else.

(link) [The New Yorker]

via MyAppleMenu:Reader

20:20 /Politics | 1 comment | permanent link

07 Sep 2008
In Palin’s Life and Politics, Goal to Follow God’s Will

If you wonder why this Heathen's more than a little scared, read this.

Interviews with pastors point to a firm conclusion: Sarah Palin’s foundation and source of guidance is the Bible.

(link) [NYT > NYTimes.com Home]

09:24 /Politics | 1 comment | permanent link

04 Sep 2008

A Moose In Every Pot!
McCain and Palin ...
McCain - Palin 08

22:42 /Humor | 0 comments | permanent link

01 Sep 2008
Evangelicals energized by McCain-Palin ticket

Ya know, as a left libertarian anarchist type, I'm not much into voting. Generally, I see it as only adding legitimacy to the oppressive system of State control we labor under. And, generally, I think I'm right.

This year I may be wrong.

McCain is 72, and has had several bouts with cancer.

The longest stint of executive experience on his veep's resume is as the part time mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Of course, ethically, it seems as though she'd fit right in with the current administration.

But beyond all this are her Christian Dominionist roots.

Given her extreme Christian views, having this woman a heartbeat away from the Presidency could be a ticket to a literal nuclear Armageddon. And I fear that religious liberty (especially for Heathens like me) would be a moot point long before the bombs started flying.

So I probably will vote this year - and not for a pseudo-libertarian. I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama and his unrepentant drug warrior running mate, on the theory that nobody will be around to fight the Drug War if we're all reduced to glowing chunks of cesium 137 ...

AP - Sarah Palin already has energized conservative religious leaders who had fretted that John McCain would pick an abortion rights supporter as his running mate. The Alaska governor was raised in a Pentecostal church and has called herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be."

(link) [Yahoo! News: Top Stories]

09:26 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link