The Ghost of Barry Goldwater: Barry Knows Dead and Conservatism Ain't It

Yep. I'm a Conservative. Or a Progressive. Funny how it all boils down to the ability to question authority and laugh at the answer.

The Ghost of Barry Goldwater: Barry Knows Dead and Conservatism Ain't It

There's more...

The Conservative supports the right of workers to unionize and bargain collectively for their own Betterment. But he also supports the right of the individual to eschew forced membership in such groups as his conscience dictates.

The Conservative supports access to education for all and the formation of public services that “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty”. But Barry insists that these services be controlled at the local level, where they are accountable to the people who benefit or suffer under them.

The Conservative supports free enterprise and, as a direct consequence, sees Corporatism, as anathema to individual liberty, honest government, and democracy. As such we oppose laws that protect corporations from public accountability, specialized tax incentives for specific businesses, public funding or stipends of any kind for business, protectionism from foreign or domestic competition, and policy that subordinates the greater public good for the narrow corporate good.

The Conservative supports legislation that protects people from discrimination, enables and facilitates free speech, holds moneyed interests accountable to the people, seeks equality under the law, and protects the liberty of the individual. But we do not support legislation that treats the individual like dull witted chattel, who must be corralled and trained to better their natures. That’s the providence of T.V. preachers and Liberal do-gooders.

Siegelman and Scrushy - Tip of the Iceburg?

Alternet: Going to Jail for Being a Democrat: How Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman Got Roved
By Paul Craig Roberts, CounterPunch.

The frame-up of Siegelman and businessman Richard Scrushy is so crystal clear and blatant that 52 former state attorney generals from across America, both Republicans and Democrats, have urged the US Congress to investigate the Bush administration's use of the US Department of Justice to rid themselves of a Democratic governor who "they could not beat fair and square," according to Grant Woods, former Republican Attorney General of Arizona and co-chair of the McCain for President leadership committee. Woods says that he has never seen a case with so "many red flags pointing to injustice."

The abuse of American justice by the Bush administration in order to ruin Siegelman is so crystal clear that even the corporate media organization CBS allowed "60 Minutes" to broadcast on February 24, 2008, a damning indictment of the railroading of Siegelman. Extremely coincidental "technical difficulties" caused WHNT, the CBS station covering the populous northern third of Alabama, to go black during the broadcast. The station initially offered a lame excuse of network difficulties that CBS in New York denied. The Republican-owned print media in Alabama seemed to have the inside track on every aspect of the prosecution's case against Siegelman. You just have to look at their editorials and articles following the 60 Minutes broadcast to get a taste of what counts for "objective journalism" in their mind.

The story itself bears so much similarity to so many other stories that it seems almost routine. It took a few of the comments to make me realize that suddenly "Dog bites Man" is genuine news.

The news is that "plausible deniablity" is off the table. We now know that when "Dog bites Man," it's almost always the same goddamn dog - just as we always suspected.

The Internet, the web and other emerging peer-to-peer connections are a staggering intelligence advantage to ordinary people, and a freakin' nightmare to those who would prefer to keep citizens "Mushroomed;" eg, "Kept in the dark and fed bullshit."

The Internet, the web, and now the various social media of "web 2.0" are a freaking godsend for people like me who justify their existence by making connections between apparently unrelated things. While the implications of it trouble civil libertarians when they contemplate how potentially troublesome data mining linkages could be, it's a fact that this particular phenomenon is at least as dangerous to those who would abuse their authority than to those they might find "dirt" on to abuse.

This case is fascinating evidence of that phenomenon. Not only do we have evidence of abuse, but clear and damning evidence pointing to a systematic cover-up.

It wasn't all that long ago that the assassinations of Robert and Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King and probably others were undertaken without any blow-back to those who set it up, or conclusive evidence pointing to who was responsible.

Back in the day, it only took a few judicious threats here and there, and the ominous, but truthful observation; "Who ya gonna tell?"

The answer today is "the whole goddamn world, and whatcha gonna do about it?" There are people alive today -Sibel Edmonds leaps to mind - who probably would have perished suddenly and quietly fifteen or twenty years ago.

The problem for those who start thinking in that way is this: There is no way to shut up a whistle-blower these days without significant and persuasive notice being taken. And if the implications of data-mining for connections between ordinary individuals may be troubling to ordinary individuals - imagine what the very idea does to the sphincters of people with connections to Karl Rove.

You see, this is one of those ideas that could have gotten me put in a quiet padded room somewhere very private, back in the day, just for pointing it out. But I hardly need to point it out, it's obvious, it's inevitable and it's already happening. The internet is a powerful and absolutely magnificent tool for individuals who need to evaluate the reliability of various information sources.

In "free and open societies" such as our own, a newspaper can be scrupulous about their journalistic standards and still be corrupt as all hell. There are probably three or four stories a year that are of critical importance - and if a paper sits on those stories, it's even better than publishing lies.

Well, that reality actually ended in the mid-eighties, when the Internet became a flood of information, and a way to reality-check information cheaply and reliably. What was first the tool of the hardwired geek intelligencia is now available to anyone with the cash to pick up a second-hand computer. If you are the slightest bit interested in data security, it's pretty darned easy to hide your tracks.

What this new reality amounts to is a means by which the average person can have access to the sort of information that William Casey would have sacrificed his left nut and his first-born to get his hands on - if he could have kept it to himself.

Indeed, that was J. Edgar Hoover's secret to power - files that contained dirt on everyone of significance in positions of power both public and private. Well, of course Rove has taken that tactic to heart - but the fact that he has done it is so clearly obvious to people in a position to "connect the dots" that it significantly erodes the effect.

For instance, ten years ago, even five years ago, Nancy Pelosi may well have gotten away with saying "impeachment is off the table." Anyone who disagreed and could object meaningfully would have no ability to do much of anything about it.

But by now there is some point to saying aloud that "taking impeachment off the table" made no goddamn sense politically or strategically when it's in the absolute best interest of honest Democrats to remove corrupt Republicans from power before they can fix the next election.

It makes sense to say that some combination of stupidity, incompetence and blackmail must account for the difference between implied promises in 2006 and delivered results in time for 2009 have significant and troubling implications.

The web hasn't eliminated smoke-filled back rooms where deals are made between politicians and "the people that matter." What it has done is put a live webcam in there, so we can see that the people in those smoke-filled rooms aren't any smarter, better informed or more high-minded than your average gas-station attendant or insurance agent.

We always had the right and the responsibility to oversee them. Now we have the practical capacity to do so; yes, that is bi-partisan urine trickling down their legs.

Oh - and by the by, what's true here in the US is true everywhere there is a robust Internet. So, pretty much, that means everywhere. The implications for the Taliban, for Norway, for China and Russia are all the same - there's no way of keeping "internal matters" internal, there's no way of ensuring that they don't end up on the front pages of their own media and blogs and there's no way of erasing every single trace of corrupt dealings.

Come to think of it, consider the implications of the internet in an honor society like Pakistan, where it becomes impossible to hide the private dealings of "men of the world."

It's a good way to get a private enterprise rocket grenade enema.

Nor is there any effective way of restricting access to that information without killing off their own economy. Now, some regimes don't give much of a crap about that - but that doesn't mean they can absolutely ensure that their citizenry will obey, when disobedience is so very profitable in so very many ways.

And it's also true of the United Nations, and stuffy old NGO's like the Red Cross. If it hadn't been for the web, I doubt they would have gotten so righteously hammered as they did in Canada, where the government took away their control over the blood supply after it turned out that they had willfully neglected to screen blood plasma for HIV - because it would have been "too expensive." That piece of data became widely known - along with another damning number - their overhead ate up 80 cents of every dollar donated. As I recall, - though it's only a vague recollections - it was a combination of hemophilia advocates who had been tracking this that brought it to national attention, but they did it by way of the internet, skipping the historical process of having to find someone to call who could do something and might be persuaded to do so.

Essentially, what has occurred is this: the web advantages people who deal honestly and who either have no skeletons in their closets, or who use them as festive decor while chuckling gleefully. It has made it clear that those who have invested a lot in appearing to have nothing to hide are less worrisome and more likely to screw you over than those who, say, like dressing up in rubber and don't much care about what "decent people" might think.

The average person is now capable of getting enough information to compete intellectually abd even strategically with "the people who matter," because we also have the ability to collaborate to mutual advantage at minimal cost.

Conservatives decry Wikipedia, for instance, because it's not "definitive," that it is "unreliable," and it's possible to insert innacurate information.

All of this is true - but what they don't comprehend is that the distinction between Wikipedia and, say, The World Book is that you can tell who's fingerprints are on which bit of information.

It's true that you can insert inaccuracies - but the act of doing so is information in it's own right; more compelling than the misinformation. Further, the process by which Wikipedia is self-policed tends to give extra validity to articles that have become stable and uncontested.

Compare that to the editorial policy of The Brittanica or Groliers.

Oh, wait. You can't.

So how do we know they have equal or higher standards, as is alleged by conservative sources?

They say so. Very authoritatively. And to the extent that you would have been able to check, that would be true, back in the day. The problem is, that makes you tend to rely on the accuracy of things you cannot check. And that is where the money is.

Go ahead, look up Armenian Genocide in three or four different encyclopedias.

Now go to Wikipedia. I don't actually know what it says - but I know that it will come from more perspectives than the "authoritative" sources, and the comments section will be more fun than "All My Children" and "Project Runway" put together.

History and culture is no longer defined by the victors, or by those who believe they are the "winners" in our society. Everybody gets their fifteen seconds - and it's archived by keyword on You-Tube forever.

A Worthy Heir to Westbrook Pegler

Why this is hell, nor am I out of it. Think'st thou that I, who saw the face of God and tasted the eternal joy of heaven, am not tormented with ten thousand hells in being deprived of everlasting bliss?

Christopher Marlowe, Dr. Faustus
English dramatist & poet (1564 - 1593)

AlterNet: A Liberal Goes Undercover to Brave America's Premiere Right-Wing Gathering:

"FRIDAY MORNING. George W. Bush, when you get right down to it, is a fucker. That's why I don't like him. He's a fucker who does fucked-up things. He's a privileged little shit who doesn't give a damp hell for the opinions of the people he was elected to govern. He buys into the toxic economic theories of unreconstructed capitalism, despite never having had to earn an honest living in his life, and he supports a worldview that cuts out anyone who hasn't had his good fortune -- the worldview of a murderous plutocracy stained with swaths of luck and cruelty where first is first and second is nobody. He's stupid in the truest sense of the word: willfully ignorant and determined to surround himself with people who keep him that way, not only resistant to different ideas but actively hostile towards them. He is neurologically incapable of thinking ahead, and he consigns the consequences of his actions to the status of dreams. And he forced his country into a pointless, unnecessary, unconscionably wasteful war that will poison every aspect of American life for generations.

Worst of all, though, the son of a bitch made me get up at 2 o'clock in the morning to go to his fucking speech at CPAC."

I hardly need to say anything more - but of course I will.

While this above was indeed a classic Peglerization, the moment of true sadness for me was this:

A rail-thin brunette in the row in front of me tests my cover for the first time.

"Hi! Are these seats taken?"

"Help yourself."

"Oh, thanks, sir!" Sir. So much for getting laid. "I'm (name redacted) from the University of Small Midwestern State's Conservative Student Alliance."

"Leonard Pierce, American Milk Solids Council."

"I'm sorry? What is that?"

"It's an industry group for milk solids manufacturers. We lobby Washington lawmakers to lessen regulations on the export of milk solids. The problem is that the government blames us for the incompetence of African mothers."

"That is so unfair."

"Tell me about it."

I have two reactions. First, Irony is Dead, but then we knew that; Carl Rove is still bragging about the ambush.

But second; dear Lord, Leonard; to even think of screwing around with a Midwestern muffin that stupid, and who has likely never heard of a condom in an approving (much less informative) context, one, who due to context and description is no doubt also a sorority member if not a cheerleader?

I'd rather time travel back to the 80's and skank it up at a gay bath house. It would be, I think, marginally less risky - and the conversation would for damn sure be more interesting.

'Politically Correct' is not the opposite of 'Stupid Racist...'

But some days it's hard to explain why that's not exactly true.

I found this link polluting my sidebar. "Political Correctness" caught my eye, and I have lots to say on that particular set of ideas. Unfortunately, this was the Usual Usage of Right-Thinking Sorts. That is to say, a whine that it's no longer "politically correct" to yell "nigger" in a crowded theater.

Friday, 21 December 2007 Why would someone look to someone else and ask if its OK to say what you want to say ? We are a free people. Nobody decides what is proper to say. The European socialist may control language ( can even over rule what you name your child ( Italy) ) but here we have a Constitution with the Bill of Rights that protects our freedom of speech, but we have no right not to be offended. One should not be afraid to offend someone with their speech because of what others will say, but only out of personal respect and consideration for that person. Not a group.

In America we are all individuals. All people are free and different. When someone allows someone else to speak for them they give-up their freedom and any chance of success as a person. No person can speak for others. What may offend one may compliment another. When someone says they speak for a race, a sex, or any other group , they are, in effect disrespecting those in that group as individuals and stripping them of their own personal power of opinion. When, those in that group start believing what is being represented about them their own initiative is devolved and they become slaves to the group leaders opinion. Their lack of personal power and self respect hinders them from obtaining, self respect , jobs , relationships and yes even respecting the law. Its only in the state of no self respect can one be offended.

When we find these “ Personal Power Thieves “ who claim to speak for others we should prosecute them for theft but, instead we glorify them as great leaders ( i.e. jessie jackson, ) and when we recognize them as such we commit a crime against those they claim to speak for.

I have some friends who describe themselves as Black, one who is Negro and yes some who are Colored, Dutchman, Hillbilly, Crout, White and African American but all are proud Americans only. When one considers if what he may say is politically correct, he to has fallen into someones controlled group and loses his individual respect.

Remember that only in socialism are there divisions and to " Divide and Conquer or Control ” is whats being attempted here as evident when questioning ones own speech.

And That's The National Word

Technorati Profile

I posted a comment - and then realized that expecting the comment to stay - or even appear - was silly. Not when such a disagreeable post had nothing but dittos following it. So I decided instead to respond here.

My response to this post and to the majority of the commentators is "horseshit."

The term "political correctness" is being used here in the usual sense - by stupid people who think they are "rugged individuals" just like all other "right-thinking Americans." They are trying to use arguments crafted by their betters for the protection of significant speech intended to provoke debate between citizens to justify the right to offend others.

There is, indeed, no right to not be offended. But there are words for choosing words specifically intended to offend large numbers of people with the potential of provoking violence and making debate pointless.

Stupidity. Verbal Assault. Hate Speech. And quite possibly - "Death by Misadventure."

These "rugged individualists" all seem to band together, with the same set of the same "Evil thems", like "socialists" and "liberals" and Mexicans. Such obvious and obviously unintentional irony seems to be the hallmark of the New Right - and would embarrass the HELL out of Saint Barry G.

They are crying out that people are attempting to suppress their literal right to yell "nigger" in a crowded theater. Well, yes, they are.

When you wish to disturb the peace and have the clearly insane belief that you should get away get away with it, a little suppression is in order. It may be technically illegal - perhaps even "wrong" in some sense to leave you bleeding and whimpering in a corner. It's perhaps even against the darwinian ideal to prevent that from happening, as stupidity really ought to be it's own reward. Nonetheless, there are may reasons why we prefer the rule of law to Lex Talonis - and disapprove of those who would try the patience of others with stupidities intended to provoke what they fondly believe will be futile, choked, impotent outrage.

Me, I actually DO support their putative "right" to yell "nigger" in a crowded theater in the depth of darkest Harlem, but I also support the long-neglected "fighting words doctrine."

That is to say, should you be fool enough to do that, the law should hold those so deliberately provoked harmless, and the consequence of such damnfoolishness should be listed as "death by natural causes," or possibly "aggravated pesticide."

Real Rugged Individualists assume that other people are also individuals - Equally honorable, just as touchy and probably armed.

Therefore, they are courteous!

Courtesy does not even imply agreement. It means that one refrains from stupidly and needlessly insulting ones whom one does disagree with. It means treating others with respect - and especially those with whom you disagree.

I deplore the concept of Political Correctness myself - but the author is deliberately confusing it with attempts to distinguish between disagreeable protected speech and Hate Speech. So I need not confuse matters by speaking about Political Correctness as it is generally understood by people on opposite sides who agree on the terms to be debated. This ain't that.

This is about the putative "right" to hold stupid, uninformed, racist opinions without consequence. This is an insistance on the right to form and maintain a lynch mob to attack and suppress all the ideas they don't want to hear, or which cause them to doubt the validity of their own pinheaded self-righteousness.

It's a position that should (and quite possibly does) embarrass people who sincerely believe in the superiority of the white race, and who really do try to support that view with evidence and argument they think persuasive.

I may not agree with the conclusion, or much respect the quality of the reasoning, but I do respect the willingness to play the game at long odds.

But these people - they don't have that degree of self-respect. And because of that, they do not understand that courtesy is not a concession to the "tender feelings" of others but rather evidence of one secure enough in their own selves and the validity of their own position that they need not be rude, discourteous or dismissive, even toward those those they despise. Especially so, unless they are willing to allow the situation to escalate toward virtual or even literal violence.

Oh, people who confuse "your" and "you're" should really invest in a spelling and grammar check - especially when deriding institutions of higher learning.

It's little ironies like that that suggest to intelligent folks of all political hues that everyone holding these opinions are as dangerously stupid as their communications make them seem. Should it become common enough to seem stereotypical, - well, one of my favorite ironies of the ages is a grumpy quotation from WWII:

"This Hitler fellow has made it impossible for a gentleman to be an Anti-Semite."

Let me hit that nail again: If the general perception becomes that everyone holding a particular set of views holds them for reasons as evidently disreputable, superficial and for reasons that reasonable people will assume to be at least partially racist, whatever validity the positions may have becomes quite irrelevant.

At some point it just becomes too damn embarrassing to be seen holding the views you do in public, at least. So in one generation, or two at the most - the intellectual justifications for the core idea are gone. There are only those who think it's stupid - and those stupid enough to not understand how stupid they appear.

And - here's the kicker - opportunities to breed are allocated on just such perceptions.

When the contents of a post are highly congruent with an evident absence of factual understanding of the history and economic factors involved in various important cultural and economic issues, while being nearly word-for-word the views of known and famous liars, such as Limbaugh, Malkin and O'Rielly, it's likely a waste of effort to take you seriously enough to respectfully consider your opinions.

Courtesy is a consideration that is a given between those within a certain range who are willing to live up to a certain level of civilized expectations. I certainly have no reason to respect someone likely to mislabel me as a "kraut" AND misspell the slur. I certainly do not consider them to have the same right to an opinion as do I - and if it turns out that they are agreeing with me, using the same arguments as I might, I will do well to reassess my position.

By the way, I'm an Antiathoritarian Libertarian, and for damn sure an individualist; certified by the NRA as a marksman before I was able to drink legally.

To do that, you have to put a .22 round in a target the rough size of a human eyeball five times out of five at 25 feet, using a fifteen pound rifle and NO optics, prone, braced, kneeling and offhand.

Not only can I shoot a deer, I can skin it, butcher it and probably cook it better than most. And given a forge, tools and a stack of old rebar, I can make and edge tools good enough for those tasks.

I grew up near a small resource based town, on the land, and I bet I've shoveled more literal shit than most people have ever seen. I've driven a tractor, groomed horses and knocked domestic rabbits in the head so I could eat them. That last, by the age of five. I could field-strip most any rifle without looking at the directions - but I'm not that dumb.

In other words, this arrogant bastard is exactly the sort of redneck most suburban rednecks pretend to be.

I've never gone to Harvard - OR Yale. Or any university. I have two years of community college, and I learned how to learn and think for myself pretty much in spite of my education. I'm naturally very conservative of things worth respecting and conserving, such as the Constitution, momentum, credit and capital, cause and effect, the good opinion of others and every word of The Art of War.

I've read the Good Book from front to back - and formed my own opinions. Which are, by the by, nobody's business, other than the fact that I've followed Jesus's example in that I know it well enough that I don't need someone else to tell me what it "Really" means.

But from the dull, turgid and depressingly conformist prose dropped here, like so many individually indistinguishable rabbit droppings, these fake "real Americans" still think you need some form of "permission" to be an individualist - and that requires that you all nod in the same places when the same damn-fool things are said.

Right may be Right, but only if it's factually correct. And these days, if you are able to read and write on the Internet, there is no excuse for being factually challenged, no matter what your politics.

Please note that I have not said anything whatsoever to indicate what I might actually think on anything said above. I've only stated my opinion of the "reasoning" expressed. It would be particularly stupid to assume from that, or from the fact that I write in a particularly high-falutin' way that I'm some "liberal" or "socialist."

I AM an intellectual. So was Barry Goldwater. So was Henry the K. So was Nixon. And (as much as he tries to hide it) so is Bill Clinton. As is Ron Paul and his good buddy Dennis Kucinich.

None of them would agree on much, overall. And not one would be unwilling to back up their views with facts. Nor would any of them, to the best of my knowledge, WHINE about having to be accountable for their words - indeed, all of them are or were willing to be tried in the court of public opinion based on how well their ideas worked out.

Not so with the folks at The National Word, so deep in their dittohead groupthink that they are incapable of perceiving the irony in calling those who disagree "socialists," thinking that the definition of "socialism" is putting people into groups and making them think alike. It's an hilarious case of the National Socialist calling the Christian Democrat black.

Especially if his name is Sven.

Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians"

I'm devouring this book, and the footnotes are as tasty and entertaining (in a dark, horrifying, goddamit, I TOLD you so sort of way) as the text itself. While this is obviously mandatory socio-political ammunition for democrats and leftists, it's far, far more vital for Centrists, Independents, Libertarians and traditional Conservatives to read and understand.

Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians Chapter 6 Authoritarianism and Politics chapter6.pdf

10 On September 20, 2006 an independent Congressional-watch organization called
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington released its second annual “Most
Corrupt Members of Congress Report.” Three senators and seventeen members of the
House were named, most of them hold-overs from the first annual report (although the
news release noted with some glee that two of the previous winners were already on
their way to jail).

I found it instructive to look up the ratings these 20 lawmakers' voting records
received from the Family Research Council, the successor to the Christian Coalition
as the major lobbying organization for the Religious Right. The average was 80%.
Eight of the “most corrupt” had perfect 100% endorsements from the Family Research
Council. The lowest score was a 64% posted by the Democratic Representative Alan
Mollohan from West Virginia. (Seventeen of the twenty “most corrupt” were
Republicans.)

To be sure, many other lawmakers who got high scores from the Family
Research Council did not get named as most corrupt. But I think I read somewhere
that there’s this interesting connection between being a lying, dishonest, amoral
manipulator and becoming a leader of right-wing political/religious movements.
Back to Chapter

And then there's footnote seven, which I absolutely must highlight, with a link to John Dean's book, Conservatives without Conscience, which is referenced here.

7 If anyone ought to be interested in understanding authoritarianism, it’s the
mainstream conservatives who used to form and control the Republican Party. They
have seen their political party hijacked by the most radical element in their party, and
it’s anybody’s guess whether they can get it back. The takeover has been so complete
that many people have forgotten what “conservative” meant before it became
“authoritarian.” I don’t look forward to “conservative” becoming a dirty word the way
“liberal” did. Until we find someone who’s always right, democracy needs both
traditional and progressive voices to choose from. But the principled conservative
options have been badly tarred lately by authoritarianism.
I can’t imagine Senator Barry Goldwater agreeing with, “Our country
desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the
radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.”As John Dean points out,
Goldwater was quite apprehensive about what the “cultural conservatives” would do
to the Grand Old Party. “Mark my word,” the former senator said after the 1994 midterm
election, “if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they’re sure
trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten
me.” (Conservatives Without Conscience, p. xxxiv.)

I should also direct you to a particular post about the book - because of the hilariously ironic "criticism" of Dean's book by people who are clearly RWA's who MUST argue the premise - but cannot even seriously consider it deeply enough to argue, as it would require confronting their own demons. Almost literally.

Mr. Terence J. Nugent says:

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway.]

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Hide post again. (Show all unhelpful posts)]

This book'spremise is the most absurd yet. He implies tha the Bush Administration fuels terror to preserve and expand quasi-dictatorial powers. In that case, it called an aisrike in on its own position on 9/11, as the White House was targeted. Perhaps Dean is on the jihadi payroll, as this is absurd as the anti-Zionist theory that the Isaelis did it.

As if this wasn't enought o prevent anyone of siound mind from spending their hard earned money on this abomination, the intellectual bankruptcy of his argument is absolutely appalling. It is axiomatic that left wing and right wing authoritarianisms are mirror images. Left and right traverse a circle that meets at dictatorship. Dean has evidently forgotten the communist authoritarian regimes of Joseph Stalin, Mau Tse Tung et. al. For a domestic example of quasi-liberal authoritarianism exhibit A is the Deomocratic dictatoship in the city of Chicago, and the County of Cook. Of course there is othing more authoitarian than jihadis, who we are trying to fight despite internal resistance from thelikes of Dean.

John Dean was driven mad by Watergate and has since become a pawn of the left, just as he was a pawn of the right during Watergate. He was then, and is now, a dangerously misguided man who would not recognize intellectual honesty if it became incarnate before his blinded eyes.

This is exactly the sort of response, of course, that Bob Altemeyer's research would suggest to be inevitable. And it's certainly exactly the sort of mindless personal attack I've come to expect from those who wish to disagree with an ethical critique, but cannot without defending the indefensible.

And of course, that means that you lose the debate - in rational circles.

The Official Graphictruth Unendorsement of Ron Paul

The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul: "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."

I think Ron Paul needs the blessing of being on the short end of those taught "morality and civility" by Christian churches. I grew up in a town where there were as many churches as taverns - and there were a LOT of taverns. If the one thing didn't justify a particular flavor of abusive crap, well, the other was there to fill in for it.

As much as I personally benefited from the civility that is undoubtedly well-taught by the Episcopal Church, "morality" and "conformity" were pretty much interchangeable concepts. While some in that church were unquestionably both moral and ethical persons, I would say that at least half were there because it was "the right church" to belong to, if you were "the right sort of person."

It was no different with the Catholics, the Baptists, the Lutherans and the various Evangelical and Pentecostal churches.

Later on, as I came to deal with multiples and abuse survivors and as everyone started comparing notes; there was hardly a one of us where religion had not played a huge role in our abuse - especially the "keeping silence" part. The worse the abuse, the more rigid the facade, the taller the "pillar of the community."

There is a certain sort of person that builds such a facade for the sole purpose of keeping their particular brand of evil out of the public eye, while maintaining a secure hold on their access to victims.

And then, of course, the scandals started to happen as one by one, abused persons gained courage from one another (via the Internet, I suspect) and started disclosing. The Catholic Church has been hit hardest, but none have been immune. And there is one common thread - the idea of unaccountable, unquestionable "moral" authority.

I'm sorry, but if you simply wish to shove government out of the way of theocratic dominion, you and I must have words, Sir, for I've seen to what degree these people can be trusted, these people who wish to rule without the inconvenience of laws and customs that would permit escape from their clutches.

We have only just managed to break their stranglehold of conformity and moralism, just managed to pry their fingers from our throats, and we have just now started to speak seriously of the damage that has been done and how to proceed from here. We continue to fight those who would brand our rebellion and our individuality as evil, we resist those who would cheerfully rally the mobs - and those who would gladly sacrifice their own children upon the altar of Church and Conformity.

I've come by my anti authoritarian views honestly and by a very hard row. I trust none who hold themselves unaccountable, and who rely on religious doctrine and custom to justify their desire to dominate, control and exploit others, while I hold those who bow to and blindly trust Authority as being superior to their own conscience and more reliable than their own eyes.

I have nothing against faith - my faith has kept me alive when by all rights I should not have survived. What I take issue with is social engineering and ritually enforced cultural conformity - and that is all that Christmas has been for the last hundred years or so in these United States; a pastiche of semi-religious, semi-pagan cultural myths which amount to a shared cultural tradition. It is not a matter of faith, or a matter of true religion - it's merely a way of governing the lives of others without being accountable to an electorate or subject to the strictures of Constitution or law. And if it's somewhat benign on the surface, and behind closed doors in many cases, possibly even most - for the sake of those whom the facade is a prison, it must become both optional and transparent.

You, Ron Paul, should damn well know better, working as you do in such a den of vipers, knowing full well the distinction between the substance and the facade it conceals. There's a reason why there IS a constitution - and it's to trump those who would rule by Church, by Fiat and by Tradition.

Up to now, you have said all the right things to impress me. But it seems that as I cast about, you say quite different things to different audiences - and the whole speaks to me of a man who confuses conformity to social norms with morality, and would might well pander to shibboleths, rather than dealing with the scientifically described reality that presidents must - lest they be compared to George Bush.

And it seems to me that when doing the right thing and deference to authority come into conflict, you disappoint me. The fact that you contradicted your own position on the need to impeach Cheney means I must question your motives and alliances. The Largest Minority asks "Why did Ron Paul vote against Impeachment?"

I would like to urge all first-time pro-Paul visitors to my leftist pinko blog to please save all reactionary hate mail until after you’ve actually read what I have to say. Paul’s vote to table the impeachment resolution, then to refer it to committee is especially troubling coming from a supposed consitutionalist. He voted with the Democratic leadership on both accounts.

...

Perhaps even more confusing is this interview from the far-right website InfoWars from March:

Paul said that Bush should be impeached not under the umbrella of partisan vengeance but for ceaselessly breaking the laws of the land.

“I would have trouble arguing that he’s been a Constitutional President and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office.”

Opining that the U.S. had entered a period of “soft fascism,” Paul noted that the legacy of the Bush administration has been the total abandonment of Constitutional principles.

.. Ron Paul’s commitment to the constitution was tested yesterday, and it unfortunately fell short of our expectations. It’s contradictory to say there isn’t sufficient evidence to warrant an impeachment against the very same people you say are violating the constitution. Impeachment isn’t just an option, it’s an obligation. There’s no glory in defending the indefensible, and Paul’s vote was just that. I urge his supporters to contact Paul about his vote. Tell him to vote in favor of impeachment the next time Kucinich brings it back to the floor. And liberals, don’t forget to do the same with your representatives.

I'm not going to bother doing that. I'll be voting for Kucinich. Whoever gets the official nod.

The Constitution now OFFICIALLY "Ron Paul Spam."

Alternet pointed me in this direction with barely concealed glee:

In a stunning move against supporters of a Republican candidate for President of the United States, the powers that be at RedState.com, a magnet site on the conservative end of the political spectrum, has decided to censor those from the party RedState supports.

I had some hopes that I had found a conservative forum I would feel comfortable in at RedState.com, and had gone so far as to create an account there. Alas, it's not so much Conservative as Authoritarian. The two concepts have become much confused over the last few decades. But anyway, the administrators and denizens of RedState have become much exercised over Ron Paul "spammers," to the extent that they have become deeply suspicious of people posting historical background about the US Constitution.

Yes, one would indeed have to be a "MoRon" to state the fundamentals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in order to facilitate debate about conservatism and governance.

You would think that the Constitution would be welcome on a Conservative site, it would seem to me obvious that it's the foundation of the ethos and ethics behind all that is fine and good about these United States, the essentials of our premise for civilized behavior and the responsibilities of individuals.

But such ironies are depressingly commonplace on the tighty-righty end of the blogosphere, where all things that interfere with the imposition of "Right Thought" are reacted to with a positively Stalinist fervor. Or perhaps I should say "Maoist," considering the importance TheoCons place on an ongoing Christian Cultural Revolution. I'm sure they would like to get all us "intellectuals" out into dem cotton fields, to learn the sanctity of work and politically correct thought.

Point is, though, our Constitution doesn't have much respect in evidence for "political correctness."

Nor do I. No matter who's restricting comment in the name of what sacred cow.

Attention, Ron Paul Supporters (Life is *REALLY* Not Fair). | Redstate:

By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.

Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I'm guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don't understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once.

Hey, we're sure *some* of Ron Paul's supporters really are Republicans. They can post at any one of a zillion Ron Paul online forums. Those who have *earned* our respect by contributing usefully for a substantial period of time will be listened to with appropriate respect. Those who have not will have to *earn* that respect by contributing usefully in the other threads... and not mentioning Ron Paul. Given a month of solid contributing, send one of us an email and we'll consider lifting the restriction on your account.

You may now resume your regularly scheduled RedState activities. Everyone but the Ron Paul spammers, that is. You can resume your regularly scheduled activities somewhere else.

P.S. Comments to this post are closed. Complaints may be directed to the contact form.

My response at RedState is reproduced here, in case it disappears suddenly.

The next sonofabitch what calls me a Liberal is gonna get it RIGHT in the cojones.

By graphictruth Posted in Blogosphere — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

In response to Leon's statement about site policy regarding new posters and Ron Paul - Meta.

I'm not talking about Ron Paul here. I've got a whole blog of my own to do it, and I do ok there, thanks muchly. However, this fiat policy underlines why a lot of old-fashioned Republicans, not just "libertarians and liberals" are disenchanted with what sorts of policies and mindsets are associated with conservatism these days.

And by "associated with Conservatism," I don't actually mean "Conservative." Nope, of late, I've noted myself in agreement with Pat Buchannon, the shade of Barry Goldwater and even the John Birch Society on the pernicious tendency of those in power - and those who identify themselves with those in power - to act as if they had the Mandate of Heaven and were imbued with the Divine Right of Kings.

And for raising points that each of these folks raised from time to time, I've been called a "liberal" more times than I can recall.

Which tells me that the average conservative wouldn't recognize a genuine liberal if it ran up their pant-leg.

God only knows what would happen if I raised a genuinely liberal point of view. It's never happened, because I'd have a hard time keeping a straight face. But I have a point that the farther "right" the blog is, the more likely I'd get high fives and hosannas, if I clad the idea in the right choice of words. Which tells me that it's the way it's said that matters, and that most people are pretty iffy on the underlying concepts. That's a general observation - I could easily pull the same stunt over at dKos. But now that I'm a grownup, it just doesn't seem all that funny any more.

I'm a Centrist in terms of my view on the economy, just a teense left of dead center according to the online assays of "who you ought to vote for," but I am definitely suspicious of Authority in general and unaccountable Authority in particular.

I consider those questionnaires to be silly at best. They don't generally ask the right questions. I'm a solid fiscal conservative, a solid Constitutionalist and an advocate of every one of the Bill of Rights, in no wise excluding the Second. I've always considered myself to be reflexively conservative, in both the small and large C sense, because I've always felt that prudence is better than panic, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure and that the government that governs least, governs best.

I have a saying: "Question Authority; the answers will be on the quiz."

And indeed, that's what this whole hoopla is about. We are having a two-year long quiz, and the results will determine who the leader of this nation is, and perhaps, whether there will even be a nation by the next election. I can't ever remember the stakes being higher.

And yet, with one or two notable exceptions, getting a straight answer out of any of the candidates with anything short of a trip to Gitmo seems to be impossible. Paul is one exception, Kucinich another - and it may just be that it's due to them having nothing to lose from saying what they believe.

But then, I'm conservative enough to think a man oughtta be able to tell the truth and shame the devil, and maybe having something to lose by telling the blunt truth is, I dunno, an issue we should be concerned with.

I'll agree - the people attracted to Ron Paul can be damn annoying. Hell, a lot of them are half literate, barely capable of using a spell checker and totally unsophisticated in terms of the realities of politics. Or, in other words, people who are completely out of touch with politics, people who may never have supported any political candidate before are becoming excited. And they are very commonly people we'd refer to as "salt of the earth" folks. Not your Hollywood types, not your coastal types; we are talking about folks who own pickups because they really honestly need them, and those pickups are 4x4s because they don't see freeways all that often.

They don't talk like Liberals. I know; I talk at liberals all the time, and I listen when they talk at me, so I can tell that the fundamental assumptions are starkly different. These are practical folks, who know which end of a gun goes bang and know that meat doesn't come from the supermarket.

And whatever else I think of it, it's one of the most interesting things happening right now. It's a genuine, completely unexpected phenomenon. I mean, if I were to have been asked to lay my money down on what sort of person would be catapulted to the forefront in a situation like this, I'd have laid bets on an old-fashioned Populist; some sort of Kingfish figure. I think this may be a genuinely new thing.

I also have a strange sort of idea that acting in an Authoritarian manner tends to prove one is less than properly Authoritative on the topic.

Or in other words - if as site mods, this is the best policy that you can come up with to deal with the supporters of an actual Republican candidate you don't like, it tells me that you are trying to "shelter" your readers from some uncomfortable facts of life.

Well, good luck with that. Me, I'd rather be accused of being "liberal" than finding myself compared with an intellectual condom.

I've been involved with probably hundreds of online communities over the decades, going back to Fidonet, and this pattern always seems to lead to one end. You see, in stating that new posters need to "earn your respect" by posting in a certain way about certain topics, you make it clear that you do not welcome dissent or debate, and "newbies" are on probation.

As you point out, there are thousands of other sites out there, and there is no freer market of ideas anywhere. So what is there about Red State that would make new posters willing to post here, instead of somewhere else? Folks like me, we are of the view that we have been posting long enough, literately enough and intelligently enough that we don't need to prove a damn thing. I used to get all snorty when such authority trips were pulled, now I recognize it for what it is - an inability to deal with real, unfettered free speech and a real, unbiased free market of ideas.

The old hands will stay on for a while, and continue reinforcing each other, until about a year later, nobody is bothering to say anything, because it's all been said, and it's become less and less relevant to the world outside. When you see a plethora of baked bean recipes and dog pictures - it's time to sell the domain, because it's over.

For myself, I'll take my leave now. I find participation in declining fora to be depressing.

...and for some reason, my account was blocked almost immediately after posting, and my post replaced with an adolescent grade of mockery. The irony of the following comment and it's tagline must be seen to be believed.

Most old fashioned republicans would endorse the policy by Joliphant

Seeing as we are used to and support people exercising their property rights to set guidelines and codes of conduct.

Ahh screw it. This must be like water off a duck to you.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Pretty much, yeah, it is like water off a duck to me.

The thrust of my criticisms being underlined at this sad effort of self correction, wherein the asinine revisions of my blog (and apparently several other dissents of a more or less respectful nature) were collectively replaced with this curt notice, which took it out of the realm of a personal disagreement and into a matter of general affront to all lovers of the underlying principles of liberty, free speech and spirited public debate.

A Brief Administrative Note

By Leon H Wolf Posted in Blogosphere — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Okay, we (and by "we" I mean the moderators) have had a lot of fun with the whole YouTube thing when it comes to the moRons. But it's time to take our site back for non-Ron Paul purposes. This means not letting moRon diaries overrun legitimate diaries, etc. Effective immediately, pro-Paul diaries and comments from new users will be summarily deleted, no matter how reasonable, crazy, whatever it is that they might be.

It takes us two seconds to hit the delete button on both your diary and your account, moRons. We will be enforcing this policy without exception.

Thanks, and have a nice day.

He's so cute when he's being all stern and manly, ain't he?

I'm so tempted to go register moRon.com, but I'll leave that to someone willing to treat this issue as it deserves, because this "clarification" pretty much underscores the obvious; that they will tolerate NO favorable mention of Ron Paul - or indeed, any mention at all.

That's clearly the RNC policy toward Paul, clearly the RNC-controled MSM strategy. And clearly to everyone BUT RedState, both policies are in the realm of wishful thinking.

You see, these here "internet tubes" are what we refer to as a "commons," even when they lead to privately owned sites like thine and mine. Why? Well, no visitors, no comments, no traffic, no relevance. Or in other words, it may be your property, but the more you treat it as an exclusive domain, the more you will be excluded.

Yes, your property rights are fundamental - but my right to avoid your property and refuse contributing to your income stream is even MORE fundamental. When I pick YOUR site to comment on, rather than someone else's site, I'm doing YOU a favor. Not the other way around. Content is king, and Bob King is content.

But I do indeed support your RIGHT to impose this policy. You have every right to enforce that policy. I encourage you to continue to excercise your absolute constitutional right in this matter.

Of course, it's also (imho) your constitutional right to smash your testicles with a rock. It doesn't mean that people won't point and laugh, because what you are doing is not a lot smarter than smashing your own testicles with a rock. It's pure commercial suicide, political suicide and entertaining as all hell.

I can just hear other influential sites "repositioning" themselves right now. At least some must be bright enough to know that alienating anyone still considering voting for ANYONE with an "R" after their name is just plain dumb, so they will suddenly throw their gates open - for all that lovely traffic, if naught else, and for the chance of turning some toward what they see as The Light.

Tom Paine was indeed correct: "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

Let me remind you of another principle: "The proper response to offensive speech is more speech."

RedState is a site that thrives on (and monetizes) free speech. Your free speech. But your liberty is contingent upon the principle of liberty itself, including the inalienable liberty to take issue with your mental, moral and ethical acuity. You can, of course, make sure I'm over the property line before I do it. But that simply serves to underline how accurate my criticisms must be.

And you, Joliphant, being either too intellectually lazy or to fundamentally stupid to understand the point behind the quotation you misuse as a sigline, are in fact cheer-leading the imposition of a small, localized and utterly impotent tyranny. You see, in order for a "sit down and shut up" policy to work, you have to actually keep them sitting down and shutting up. Instead, they walk away and talk more - using you as a talking point!

You may be congratulating yourself on "silencing" Ron Paul supporters - but in fact your only accomplishment is analogous to that of small children sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "Na, na, boo boo, I can't HEAR you!"

This Martin A. Knight tantrum reminds me of some of the more memorable Communist tantrums of my youth, where the only thing they hated more than actual "cryptofacists" were people who agreed with them for the wrong reasons:

Get the %$#@ off our website and stay the %$#@ off ... Boycott this site. Get your loser friends to do so as well. Please have nothing henceforth to do with us or the GOP for that matter.

In fact, if you can pull yourself away from the porn you've been downloading in your mother's basement on Election Day please go and vote for Hillary. Vote for Reid, Kennedy, etc. Vote for sand. I would hate to have any Republican win thanks to the votes of anti-semites, Stormfronters, troofers, Code Pinkers and all the other assorted fools that "support Ron Paul."

Do you understand? Your votes are tainted. We don't want them. Sit at home. Vote for Hillary. Vote for Satan or the joint you just fried your brain dead with.

Javohl, Kamerade! Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Kindergarten!

Whatever you might think you were accomplishing with that remarkable public hissy fit, you made Ron Paul all that more credible, by demonstrating how viscerally you hate and fear the Ron Paul Revolution and all it represents, and undermined the only person on your site who's been trying to explain your position - which seems to be that you don't like Ron Paul because he opposed the war and continues to oppose it.

Well, there are rather a lot - seventy odd percent - of the American People who agree that it was either a stupid idea to begin with, incompetently executed, or an effort utterly compromised by corruption and greed - if not all three. I'm pretty sure that it's a non partisan observation to say that insisting that a super-majority of the American people are foolish, wrong, deluded, traitorous appeasers of terrorism isn't the way to usefully influence the election. Well, not if you identify "useful" with "results you would approve of."

You may be unimpressed with the "average Ron Paul supporter." But then, the Ron Paul Revolution is pretty much a mob of "peasants with pitchforks" headed straight for the doors of folks like you, folks who think they know better than the "ignorant, unwashed masses,"- and are too dim-witted to realize that events have long established that they do not.

And That is the Graphic Truth.

tag: Red State, Martin A. Knight, Ron Paul, Revolution, Constitution, ethics, First Amendment, Highly Relevant Traffic,

In your heart, you know he's pissed! Poster from Zazzle.com

Just Sold!



In your heart, you know he's pissed!
by
webcarve

Get this custom print at Zazzle

Not that I'm braggin', or nothin', but I think it's a damned important Graphictruth.

I was listening to Ring of Fire on Air America yesterday, and someone mentioned that conservative figures like Barry Goldwater - who used to be considered a right-wing nutcase and of course Richard Nixon are starting to seem downright cuddly and Liberal in comparison with the current adminsisration.

It's not that they were so good - it's that George Bush and his fellow travelers - the Neocons and Theocons - are so ... are so...

Oh, I'll just say it out loud.

Evil.

Barry was a nutcase, but neither evil nor stupid.

Tricky Dick - in the end, well, he had some integrety - and he was actually smart.

It's a shame when arch conservatives who can only be praised with faint damns are now looked upon as exemplars of what Conservatism once was and should be.

Well, there went the family values voters....

Vittter is mocked in The Hill for attempting to rebrand himself the Republican Party as "Fiscal Conservatives.

TheHill.com - Senate GOP to Vitter: We’ll handle the Republican reputation from here, thanks: "Senate GOP to Vitter: We’ll handle the Republican reputation from here, thanks
By Daphne Retter
July 26, 2007

Oh, how we would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) rose to speak during a Tuesday policy lunch.

Only seven days earlier, he had delivered a heartfelt apology at the same weekly meeting. Fellow Republicans responded with thunderous applause, and most refused to tell reporters how Vitter had addressed his forced public admission that he had committed a “serious sin” and was linked to an alleged prostitution ring.

So just imagine their confusion when Vitter scrambled to his feet a week later. Would he apologize again? Had he committed some new sin?

But no. Instead, he launched into a speech about his thoughts on “rebranding” the party by reclaiming the fiscal conservative mantle.

Yes, that’s right: Vitter, on improving the Republican image.

This time, his colleagues held the applause."

Of course they will all try to fly Vitter's lead kite themselves. Gee, the only topic where they have LESS credibility that on "traditional family values;" fiscal responsibility.

Put on your clenched acceptance face, we're going to Sorrytown!"

Ah, John Stewart, the master of the throwaway one-liner:

"I'm not a fan of personal vendetta gotcha-style politics," said Jon Stewart on Tuesday's Daily Show. "But there can be exceptions. Take Louisiana Senator David Vitter ... who came to prominence in the 90's demanding President Clinton's impeachment for the Monica Lewinsky affair. Well, it seems the condom is on the other foot."

"Last week, Vitter became the highest profile john implicated in the DC Madam scandal-gate," Stewart explained. "Kind of reminds you of the old saying, 'The only thing I trust less than a Louisiana senator sleeping with a hooker is one that isn't.'"

The video can also be found here.

Now, I of course would never stoop to mere "gotcha" blog entries either. (What, Never? Well, Hardly Ever..).

In this particular case, I think this is a remarkably apt insight into what Republican values actually are. That is to say, you can pretty much assume that whatever public stance they take will be taken purely for personal political advantage and will have little or nothing to do with personal values or conviction. It's kinda like the Catholic Church in that way. How many folks out there still think it's a good idea to leave their child alone with the parish Priest?

Well, folks, that goes for anyone who seeks a position of unquestionable moral authority and access to either your children, your vote or your wallet.

While that observation may well be true of political figures in general, Republicans in particular have been particularly active in trying to demonize, regulate and restrict YOUR libido, YOUR sexual practices, Your definition of family, and indeed, your reproductive choices, while undermining your right to privacy and your right to access information without trace or record. I don't see very many examples of Republicans living by the values they espouse - so to speak. On the contrary.

So perhaps all these protestation of high moral standing are mere pretexts and postures, not just in exceptional cases, but in general.

Any large group of people will have a few bad apples, a few "isolated incidents." But these are NOT "just a few" and they all share something similar; the overwhelming majority of these sexual crimes involve practicing the opposite of what they preached. That is to say, they violated the law purposefully and deliberately, and in the way that was most vile on the basis of their own public standards to demonstrate to themselves and to one another that they were above that law and could get away with violating it. Indeed, there seems to be the perverse drive to enact laws for the purpose of violating them!

Another disturbing theme of near equal weight is a consistent pattern of abuse - sexual abuse, domestic abuse, and the abuse of power in general - toward those who cannot fight back.

Here's a particularly odious example of such an authoritarian circle-jerk.

Don Haidl, Assistant Sheriff of Orange Country, in violation of California's rape shield law, led a smear campaign against the child his son poisoned and then violently gang-raped on videotape, adding up to 24 felony counts. He said that his son "acted accordingly" because the child was a "slut". The full gruesome story, with many newspaper articles.

And here's one that just reeks of depraved irony:

Earl Kimmerling, from Indiana, sentenced to 40 years in prison after he confessed to molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her. Anderson, IN, Mayor Mark Lawler and Republican State Reps. Jack Lutz of Anderson, IN, and Woody Burton of Greenwood, IN, supported him. Source

Then there's the largest and highest reaching sex abuse scandal ever, probably in any nation, since roman times - and you have probably never heard of it. Read it and be amazed by The Franklin Credit Union Child-Sex Ring Scandal.

This sort of thing isn't anything new, in other words; it's actually part of long established Republican political culture. The blackmail operations detailed in the link above may well partially explain the spineless behavior of our current Congress's Democratic majority, and I'm SURE it explains the "dead-ender" behavior of a great many Republicans who can't be so politically tone-deaf as to think the President's lame-duck agendas in any way serve the cause of their own re-election to orifice office. Blackmail is about the only thing that could explain such a sudden and inexplicable altruism on the part of those who's focus has been squarely upon th main chance up to now.

What we need to do is to purge all levels of government of corruption, and we also need to send - as a nation of outraged and unforgiving Citizen-activists - a resounding message. Remember that the Republican majority came out of the so called "Republican Revolution" pledged to END corruption and cronyism - and has turned out to be more than willing to wallow in a system as corrupt and lawless as any Byzantine court and indulging in graft on a level that would embarrass Tammany Hall.

So, if you are a Republican - repent! Register as an Independent, or a Constitution party member. Get your name off their sucker list. This is especially true if you have ever been a "values voter." These are the values your votes supported. So either repudiate the party for it's lack of interest in values when it might affect a Republican in power, or consider yourself complicit in all the crimes that have been committed in the name of pure, unchecked and unaccountable power. Because that's the way ethics works - you are accountable for the choices you make and the messes you contribute to.

As for myself, I'm a registered Libertarian. I have no illusions that it's a party composed of inherently better people - but it is a party of strong essential principles that may work against the accumulation of personal power for a time. It's not a party that attracts as many authoritarians and opportunists, and it will take those folks some time to figure out how to subvert it to their own ends.

Likewise, I'm going to make a choice about where my money goes. My money is going, in terms of consumer goods, toward companies that do not support the Republican cause. Likewise, I will not enter any place of business that has a fish by the door - a device almost exclusively used by Religious Conservatives, unless I see something in the window that indicates they are opposed to the moral choices this government and this party have made.

What can you do?

You can spread this around. You can digg it up, stumble it, email it to your fundy family members. You can blog about it, create fliers to stick in your church's brochure box, you can wear a t-shirt or put a poster in your store window. You can talk to strangers at bus-stops. You can call in to talk radio. Hell, you can slip Air America a few bucks. Grab your video camera and vlog it onto YouTube and Google Video.

I'll tart this post up later with links to the most vicious and apt t-shirts, bumper stickers and any particularly useful and usable photos and graphics I can find.

Together, we can change the world. As long as enough good people refuse to stand by as evil is done, we cannot help but do so.

Where I stand

I've said that Ron Paul is my favored candidate right now, but in the areas we disagree, we disagree passionately.

In the areas where we disagree, each of us departs from stock libertarianism in one case - and not in the other. I think it's worth looking at where each of us emphasise principle over practicality - and vice versa.

Read on..

I'm an exception to all other Libs I know of in that I advocate a strong and secure social safety net. I don't refer to it as "socialism" or "welfare stateism" in that I am not talking about those approaches to this particular problem. However the lack of success in a particular approach toward solving a problem does not make the problem go away. Generally it makes it worse. In the case of both socalism and welfare state policies, centralized planning and paternalism make the problems addressed so very much worse that it's easy to believe that merely getting rid of the solution would solve the problem.

Oh, if only it were that easy. But in fact, it's not, and a comparison of the livability and costs to citizens in the "socialized" nations of europe shows that recognizing and dealing with poverty least intrusively dealt with by a very simple process: Give the poor enough money to not be poor AND desperate.

Poverty is relative - desparately poor is to put people under basic survival pressure. When enough people in your society ARE under survival pressure, Very Bad Things Happen that in our nation, You See On Fox Every Day.

I differ from Ron in having had the opportunity of being poor in Canada - and now seeing what being Poor in America is like. Hell, in many ways it's better to be poor in Canada than Lower Middle Class in America. At least you have health insurance!

So we differ there, in that I feel that it's a government's duty to address matters of common concern to all citizens; healthcare, poverty and crime are all issues that are common concerns and which tend to be causes and effects of each other.

On the other hand, we disagree passionately on the issue of open vs closed borders. As a Libertarian, I believe in the free movement of peaceful people. Furthermore, I feel that this whole matter falls under the Bobatearian principle of "no Stupid Laws," that is to say, laws that are intrusive by definition and which will obviously increase both hassle and provide endless opportunities for the corruption of government officials.

I like what another Libertarian running for President has to say on this topic.

Beyond the economic and cultural positives of open immigration, we must consider the national defense problems posed by "closed" immigration.

Capital -- including human capital -- moves to where it can be most profitably invested for all concerned, and it rolls right over government barriers to do so. In practice, this means that millions of immigrants arrive, and will continue to arrive, in the United States each year regardless of what our government does to stop them.

Right now, nonsensical US immigration policy forces many of those immigrants to sneak in rather than walk in "through the front door." Reasonable estimates put the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico alone in excess of one million annually. An entire industry of cross-border guides, called "coyotes," is built around getting those immigrants into the US to live and work. These "coyotes" don't care one way or another whether the person they're smuggling into the US is a janitor from Guadalajara or an al Qaeda fighter carrying the material to make a "dirty bomb" in Dallas. And our immigration policy gives the latter type of "immigrant" a huge crowd to hide himself in.

The first step in providing for our national defense at the border is to let those who bear us no ill will to come in "through the front door" -- to walk across the border publicly and conveniently instead of sneaking over it in the middle of the night and in the middle of the desert. Believe me, they'd rather be welcomed