Extras A few weeks ago I saw Cloverfield on DVD, and then last night I saw the 2002 movie Signs, which I believe is an indirect inspiration for Cloverfield. Both are movies about "extras" in other people's movies. One is a monster movie and the other is an alien movie (or both are both) and the audience is never told how or why these creatures came upon the northeastern states. Cloverfield is more to the point, that this is about the "extras" running in a seeming panic in a bad Jerry Bruckheimer movie. Signs is about another story, and the monsters are but an occasion to bring it to light. But in neither one do we involve the White House, the Pentagon, a maverick cop or scientist, his estranged wife, a heroic military unit, or anybody else on the supposed "front lines." It is about people who by their location or status are on the periphery of cataclysmic events, people who have no power and can make no judgments for anyone other than themselves - individually or as families.

Often such movies provide, at most, a mix between the "average" people and the heroes. Perhaps 9/11 and empathy for its victims helped change this equation, although Signs must have been scripted, if not filmed, by the time 9/11 happened. Or perhaps both are prophesying some other, other-worldly event that will sweep up a lot of innocent life in the future. More probably, they're both just movies, but movies in an age that gives some semblance of respect for the audience.

How many other movies have their been about Extras, that is, about people trapped in some cataclysmic time that is not about the heroes who brought the ultimate victory? I know there must be more movies like this than just Cloverfield and Signs, but I'm drawing a blank. Any thoughts?

Labels: Culture, Entertainment, movies

  8:50 PM permanent link 0 comments

  A World Without Banks? This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Why shouldn't Al give his extra money to Bob?

I'm not saying that Bob has a right to Al's money, or deserves it, or that governments should take the money from Al to give to Bob.

But I am asking. why should Al address a theoretical future need for himself and ingore Bob's real, present need?

Al's future need is theoretical for at least four reasons. First, Al could die later today, which makes the future irrelevant. Second, perhaps Al will make a good income in the future regardless and doesn't need to save money today. Third, money is only a means of exchange: what Al would really need in the future is what he needs today: food, clothing, and shelter. If, due to calamities of varying kinds, food and resources are lacking in the future, then the money one saves now won't mean much then. No sense having money if there's nothing to buy. Last, there is no reason to assume the value of today's money won't decline drastically in the future, wiping out the purchasing power of one's savings. Wars, regulations, over-spending, and other crimes of the government can quickly destabilize an economy and currency.

Labels: economics, Environment, Partial Observer

  8:09 PM permanent link

  The Good Intentions of an Ignoramus Almost all of my knowledge is from hearsay, not direct experience. But most of it is reliable. I knew that Manhattan existed before I arrived there on a road trip, and even though I've never been to London I trust it exists on the same kind of reliable testimony that had told me Manhattan exists. The theories that the Earth is a spherical planet and is orbiting the sun, I accept on similar grounds. Everyone else tells me so, as do the books and tv shows. In the same way, I trust that persons I was told existed and events I was told happened did indeed exist and did indeed happen, and that the world today is the Effect of their Cause. I believe this is more reliable wherever there is clear continuity in the record-keeping. It is more believable that U.S. President Millard Fillmore actually lived, than that Moses or Jesus lived as described in the Bible - even though the latter two allegedly accomplished more important things. That's because the existence of Moses and Jesus depend on more remote hearsay evidence; there are definitive records of Fillmore's existence in our federal government's archives, and, presumably, in the archives of the Foreign Offices of foreign countries. In contrast, you have to accept Moses and Jesus on faith, not evidence.

But a lot of what I know amounts to associating names and categories to visual recognition: gold is an element, water is a compound. Chimps and humans are both primates. Housecats and tigers are felines. Wolves and poodles are canines.

And so I am also told that oil from the ground comes from fossils of preexisting life on earth. The Big Bang happened because it makes the most sense, I am told. "Darwinian" Evolution is true because it makes the most sense, I'm told.

Then I'm told that Evolution somehow proves there's no God, as if progression in four-dimensional space-time is the only Reality there is. But then physics tells us there are more dimensions than that, and one wonders if consciousness and creation can't exist in those dimensions, and that some sort of God or spiritual/supernatural force might exist after all.

And then I'm told that Global Warming is real, and then I'm told it's a myth. That it's impossible for the Twin Towers and Building 7 to have fallen as they did according to the official story on Sept 11, and then I'm told it is quite possible for them to fall.

Because I have a lot of Oscar and Super Bowl trivia in my head, I don't see how I'm expected to form an intelligent opinion on these matters. Heck, the only reasons I know it's foolish to microwave a metal plate or drop a radio in the bath is because I've been told about these dangers - I wouldn't know enough to figure them out for myself. On most matters relating to the physical universe, I am an idiot, and have no way of knowing when "respectable" science is corrupted by greed and power, or when "alternative" theories and therapies become too paranoid or cult-like. Is the homeopath selling snake oil? Is the hospital grossly overcharging? How am I supposed to know? And why should I trust the "mainstream" and the "respected" as opposed to the despised and rejected?

I don't know if I'll ever trust my own judgment. Every sound argument for an "established scientific fact" is countered by, to me, an equally persuasive counter-argument. I'm not smart enough to figure it all out, and even if I did have the time and intelligence to get it right on one subject, I wouldn't know enough about other subjects to form an educated opinion.

I do know that what has appealed to me about Christianity and other religions and philosophies is the degree to which they express genuine love and respect for every human being. The more theological and technical their dogma becomes, the more I'm turned off. And that's also why I'm attracted to Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment theories of Constitutionalism, Classical Liberalism, and Libertarianism. They also invoke similar love and respect for every human being, including giving them room to make choices I may disagree with, provided they don't harm anybody else. They don't reduce other people to pawns in ideological struggles, but treat individuals as ends in themselves.

That is why, as much as I would love to kill Mugabe in Zimbabwe, or the junta in Burma, it is simply not my decision to make. Bad as the inflation is in Zimbabwe, and the post-cyclone misery in Burma, an invasion or civil war in either country will probably bring even more suffering. I don't believe it's my call to make, nor is it the call of the U.S. President or Congress.

I'd kill Mugabe and the Burmese junta because I hate them, not because I believe killing them will actually accomplish anything good for the suffering in their countries. Should I act on my hatred, or should I do what I can on behalf of the innocent and helpless? Ideological justice says "Kill the tyrant!" but real justice is motivated by love for the innocent, not hatred for the guilty. In any catastrophe, the poor, the innocent, and the weakest will always suffer most of all. Taking the meek and humble path means that not every one of these will be rescued. But they won't be rescued in any case. Not by authoritarian means. And certainly not by an invasion or civil war.

What I'm saying is that I believe Love is the Ultimate Reality, and the only true God. Though I may err in situations, I hope I never abandon my best intentions.

Labels: Christianity, Culture, health, political theory, religion, science

  8:15 PM permanent link 0 comments

  Coming Home Local government isn't good, it's just less bad than national government.

68% of Wisconsinites believe states will do a better job of reforming health care than the federal government.

In Bill Kauffman's new book, he wants to live in a "land of creeks, not oceans; shops, not factories; modesty and sly humor, not bluster and brass."

In the face of creeping environmental nationalism, Alexis Zeigler writes, "We as citizens can localize our economies, develop more cooperative means of living and using resources, and live more rewarding lives in greater connection to the people around us. We do not need the president or congress to give us permission. Our children are going to live cooperatively in a hundred years whether we like it or not."

Labels: Culture, political theory

  4:25 PM permanent link 0 comments

  Barr's Running I don't know if Bob Barr will win the Libertarian Party nomination for President. And, if he does, I don't know if this will be good for the libertarian movement - whatever that is. But assuming an Obama-McCain contest in November, a vote for Barr will:

a) likely rally more disgruntled conservatives who can't stand McCain and don't want Obama either. Barr will give them a candidate closer to their values. McCain is Public Enemy #1, the world's greatest threat to peace - and therefore to liberty and prosperity. He must be defeated.

b) send a message to Obama that his program is unacceptable. The more politically weak Obama enters the White House, the less government can grow under him.

The equation would be different if Hillary Clinton is nominated, because she can't attract anti-war conservatives and libertarians they way Obama can. With Obama as the nominee, the LP and Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin are actually at a greater disadvantage. Their hopes of winning votes from the anti-war Left disappear, and they will instead have to persuade the anti-war Right to vote for them instead of Obama.

However it turns out, I just want McCain and neo-conservatism to be thoroughly rejected and repudiated by the American people. Knocking Obama to under 50% of the vote, and McCain to under 40%, would be great. If Barr could get numbers in the range of Perot's 1992 total, that would be fantastic.

I'm not that optimistic. But I don't see how any other LP candidate could get more than half-a-percent of the vote. Barr has the best chance of making a difference and ensuring McCain's defeat.

Labels: Bob Barr, elecions, Libertarian Party, politics

  11:01 AM permanent link 0 comments

  The Earmark That Backfired

Today's Downsizer-Dispatch . . .

In 2005 Republican Rep. Don Young of Alaska championed a $10 million earmark for a highway interchange. The earmark appeared in an 835-page transportation bill called SAFETEA-LU. Rep. Young was the man behind Alaska's infamous $233 million "Bridge to Nowhere," so this sounds like nothing unusual for him, except that . . .

• The project wasn't in Alaska, but as far away as possible, in the Florida district of Republican Rep. Connie Mack.

• Mack and other local Republicans opposed the project. There were environmental concerns and higher priorities.

• But they were told that they had to accept the project or risk losing future federal funds.

Why? Because a local developer who owned 4,000 acres near the proposed interchange had raised $40,000 for Rep. Young's re-election campaign. The interchange would multiply the value of his land. When asked about it by a reporter for the New York Times Rep. Young responded with an obscene gesture.

But there's more:

• This earmark wasn't even in the 835-page bill passed by the House and Senate.

• The original earmark (#462) was for widening I-75, not for an interchange.

• After the bill passed, but before President Bush signed it, someone changed it to an interchange project.

• This was done during the "enrollment"process when punctuation and other technical corrections are made.

• But this was clearly a substantive change, not a "technical correction."

Incredibly, no one noticed the change for two years! Finally . . .

• In August, 2007, a former Department of Labor official, Darla Latourneau, reported that the interchange didn't appear in the original bill passed by the House and Senate.

• The Lee County Metropolitan Planning Organization voted to return the money, asking that it be used for its original purpose.

• That change was included this year in H.R. 1195, which passed both the House and Senate.

• H.R. 1195 also includes a provision for the Justice Department to investigate the alteration of the earmark.

Little investigation is actually needed. Don Young's staff has admitted that they made the change, but no member of the House has filed an ethics complaint. Without a complaint, the House ethics committee can't investigate.

Have other House members done something similar? Is it common practice? Could this be why no one has complained to the ethics committee?

How did this happen? As Darla Latourneau says, "If this had come to light right after the bill had passed, there would have been a very quick technical amendment. This should not have happened." But how could it ever have come to light, given that Congress NEVER READS THE LAWS THEY PASS!

The Read the Bills Act (RTBA) would make frauds like this impossible.

• If Rep. Mack had read SAFETEA-LU, as RTBA would require, he could have caught and corrected Young's change.

• If SAFETEA-LU had been posted on the Internet seven days before passage, as RTBA requires, the Lee County government could have found which earmarks were for them, and asked for a correction immediately.

And if RTBA were the law its very unlikely we would have 835-page appropriations bills where things can get buried. Bills would be shorter, and probably fewer. Congress would have to prioritize. They would do less and spend less. There would be fewer earmarks. Perhaps only Florida taxpayers would determine which projects were best for them. And the Committee chairs in Congress would have less ability to buy and sell favors.

Demand that your Representative and your two Senators introduce the Read the Bills Act. Use your personal comments to mention the above example of why RTBA is needed. Also ask your Representative to file a complaint with the ethics committee, demanding an investigation of Rep. Young. You can send your message here.

You can also spread the word about the Read the Bills Act by joining the RTBA Coalition. Add an RTBA Coalition button, banner, or web-ad to your website or blog. In return, we'll announce your membership in a future Dispatch, reaching nearly 22,000 subscribers. You'll also be listed on our blog. Details are here.

This week we welcome three new members to the Coalition:

Beach Banter
Sovereign Justice
A Free Society

Finally, last week the House passed nine bills amounting to 299 pages, while the Senate passed one 4 -page bill. The list of bills is found below my signature in DownsizeDC.org's blog post of this Dispatch.

Sincerely,

James Wilson
Assstant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

Labels: Downsize DC, Read the Bills Act

  8:32 AM permanent link 0 comments

  Gone Baby Gone I saw the movie Gone Baby Gone on DVD tonight. It has one, and only one, amazing stunt - and it lands the character who did it in the hospital. A good guy kills a bad guy and feels terrible about it afterward. Just about all the characters look like real people instead of Beautiful People - including the two good-looking young leads; their hairstyles and wardrobe make them One Of Us. These small tokens of respect to the intelligence of the audience by themselves make the movie worth watching.

The most interesting thing about Gone Baby Gone, however, is the moral dimension, but to even come close to describing what it is, means giving some of the key plot developments away to those who haven't seen the movie. I will just say that I came away impressed - more impressed than with several films that garnered even more acclaim in 2007.

Congratulations to Ben Affleck for his debut as a director.

Labels: Culture, Entertainment, movies

  8:59 PM permanent link 0 comments

  Decided in 2002 As everyone knows by now, Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the Democratic nomination for President are increasingly remote. As this AP story says, her campaign survived this long "largely because of her 60% to 36% edge over Obama among white women voters in the primaries to date. Among college-educated women - presumably, those more likely to call themselves feminist - the gap narrows to 54% to 43%.

Imagine if the situation in 2002 was reversed. Obama is in the Senate and votes for the Iraq war resolution. Clinton is not yet the Senate but vocally opposes it at the time. Probably,

a) the feminist vote would be more solidly behind Hillary;
b) Obama, who had far from a conventional African-American upbringing, would have a harder time winning black voters who had been loyal to the Clintons. That's because he'd have a harder time proving he's "one of them" and that he's carrying on the legacy of people like Martin Luther King.

I don't have the numbers, but this primary race has been close enough that I suspect if Clinton did 10% better among feminists and Obama did 10% worse among African-Americans, we'd have a different presumptive nominee.

And I think this is more than fair. It's hard to sympathize with feminists who believe the symbolic value of a woman President and issues such as the wage gap are bigger priorities than an unprovoked, unnecessary war. Equality is artificial and meaningless. Enough Democratic voters were aware of this to give Obama the edge.  6:03 AM permanent link 0 comments

  Two Things I Like About the Bush Presidency The two things I like about the Bush Presidency:

1. The First Lady has pretty much stayed out of the way. I suppose if you're interested in her, you could find out what she's doing. But after Hillary Clinton, Barbara Bush, and Nancy Reagan, Laura Bush if the finest First Lady in my memory.

2. The daughters also stayed out of the way. Making Jenna's wedding a private affair in the middle of nowhere is most appropriate. And I don't even remember the name of the other daughter.

Labels: Bush, the Presidency

  3:40 PM permanent link 0 comments

  Who Cares About Israel? The other day I heard a caller on a public radio show rant against Arabs, how racist and dangerous Arabs are, that any clear-thinking people would love to have Jews in their country, how Jewish settlers in Gaza helped the economy tremendously before they were pulled out, and how too many Americans are too trusting of Arabs and don't see these issues clearly.

But why should I, as an American, give a damn one way or another? Yes, there is that $3 billion in foreign aid given to Israel every year, which allows Israel's enemies to blame America for Israel's actions. This in turn creates diplomatic headaches and the threat of terrorist attacks that probably cost Americans closer to $300 billion/year in Defense, Homeland Security, and opportunity costs. And this leaves out the possibility that America made war on Iraq and is threatening war with Iran in large part because those countries don't acknowledge Israel's right to exist. But all of this only goes to show that foreign aid to Israel is bad policy. To cut it off does not mean we are taking the side of Arabs. There is such a thing as neutrality.

If a similar dispute existed in Africa involving the same size of territory and number of people, we would probably ignore it entirely and call it "tribal" warfare - perhaps blaming it on the artificial boundaries created by European imperialists. A similar dispute in Southern or East Asia also would only barely get our attention. To the extent we are interested in the Balkans or meddle in the affairs of ex-Soviet Republics, we do so only to humiliate Russia. The U.S. may be more interested if something like it existed in the Americas - only because of our historically paternalistic attitude toward our neighbors - but even then it wouldn't consume nearly as much of our time and attention as does Israel, which is the size of Massachusetts.

Of course, every conflict is unfortunate. Human suffering, particularly war-related suffering is tragic anywhere. But human suffering outside of the U.S., and not caused by the U.S., is not the U.S.'s problem.

Some would try to persuade me that it's "obvious" that Israel is in the right, or that it's "obvious" that the Palestinians are victims of Israeli aggression, and that it's my "duty" to "see this clearly." But why should I even bother to study this, or form an opinion at all, when I don't bother to do so with most other national and ethnic strife in the world? This conflict is several hundred miles away from oil fields. The region may be of interest to some religious people, but they can donate money to the Israeli government on their own if they so choose. There is simply no vital U.S. interest on the east coast of the Mediterranean.

Why should I mourn the death of an Israeli more than anybody else? Because of his religion? Because he lives in a democracy? Because of his skin color? These are all very bad reasons. The Israeli is no more entitled to American protection, aid, or sympathy than any other person on the planet. No more than a Somalian or Albanian. Or Palestinian.

Labels: foreign aid, Iran, Iraq, Israel, war

  6:12 AM permanent link 0 comments

  Don't Blame Britney and Miley This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

By 1997, some Christians decided to boycott Disney because Disney - which was never anything remotely like a Christian company - started to give out same-sex partner benefits to their gay employees. If your business employs large numbers of animators, make-up artists, costume designers, and dancers, this sounds like a sensible business decision. The new generation of Christians, however, demanded "wholesome" entertainment from a "wholesome" company, when their grandparents would have warned that seeking "entertainment" was itself the problem. The very fact that a Christian boycott of Disney was called for was proof-positive that the Old Time Religion had died and the boycott could never work. The real problem was not Disney, but the fact that conservative Christians watched Disney videos and vacationed at DisneyWorld. The problem was not the symptoms of sex, violence, or profanity in the movies, but the disease that Christians caught when they had fallen into the hypnotic trap of mass media and pop culture. They would watch the same television shows as everyone else and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the same movies. They would watch the same sports and the same news programs. They would be swayed to want something they didn't need through advertising. They would be presented with a narrow range of choices in the ballot box, and be told this was "freedom" and "democracy."

Had the old-time Christians been as vehemently against radio, records, and television as they were against cards, alcohol, and shows, conservative Christianity may actually have become a counter-cultural movement today, rather than a whiny, paranoid subculture within the mainstream culture that it has become.

Labels: Britney Spears, Christianity, Culture, Disney, Entertainment, Miley Cyrus, religion

  8:42 AM permanent link

  Bush I's Finest Moment I saw a portion of The American Experience about George Herbert Walker Bush last night.

In Bush's first year as President, Poland held free elections for the first time, and Hungary opened its borders with Austria, triggering upheaval in the Eastern Bloc that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

As this happened, Bush remained, as Dana Carvey would often mock on Saturday Night Live, "prudent." He sent a message to Gorbachev that he wouldn't be dancing on the Berlin Wall. He framed the issue as something wonderful for the German people, not the sign of "victory" in the Col War. As commentators on the program noted, Bush didn't want Hungary, 1956 all over again, when the CIA persuaded the people that America would back their revolution, only find themselves crushed by Soviet troops. So if the Soviets ordered a crackdown, America was not going to intervene.

While Sen. George Mitchell and Rep. Dick Gephardt publicly criticized Bush for not being exultant, Bush quietly earned the trust and goodwill of Gorbachev. With a vote on German unification coming, the question was with whom Germany should be aligned. Bush wanted it to be part of NATO, and Gorbachev wanted it to be neutral. But the 1975 Helsinki Accords affirmed that each European country had the right to decide to choose for itself. Bush pointed this out to Gorbachev, who was forced to agree. So they held a press conference saying that the issue wasn't up to them, it was up to the German people. (Who, in the end, did join NATO)

Bush did some pretty bad things, such as giving the green light for Saddam to invade Kuwait, then make war on Kuwait, then misleadingly encouraged the Iraqi people to revolt against Saddam (though at least Bush I wasn't dumb enough to actually invade Iraq). Bush also deposed Noriega from Panama, and established the "Drug Czar."

But his refusal to grandstand on the Berlin Wall, when just about any other President or would-be President would have done so, was one of the best diplomatic maneuvers I've seen. He would have done better had he, and subsequent Presidents, acted like that more often.

Labels: Bush I, Cold War, the Presidency

  5:23 AM permanent link 0 comments

  Who Are the Bad Guys? I saw The Bourne Ultimatum last night.

Often in a movie like this, when the bad guy is a government official, he is usually a) a twit, or b) someone who knows he's evil and is proud of it. David Straithairn, however, is the kind of actor who doesn't let his character become a caricature. I've said it before, but the great actors in supporting roles are the ones whose characters don't know they're a supporting character in somebody else's movie. Straithairn acts as if he's the hero and good guy trying to chase down a national security threat.

And that's probably more true-to-life. When someone is a) given near-absolute power; b) actually believes absolute power is necessary, then c) he will justify "extreme measures" to himself and will break the law. The "rogue" and "black-ops" portions of the U.S. "national security" apparatus think they're the good guys. If the JFK assassination and 9/11 were inside jobs, the guilty parties believe what they did "had to be done."

It's really the same mentality that, in the 2000 election, seemingly drove Democratic election judges to count spoiled ballots, and Republican election judges to dis-enfranchise eligible voters. It's what drives legislators to attack free speech and abolish third parties.

The ends justify the means, especially if they can be sanctimoniously decorated with phrases like "national security" or "clean politics." The bad guys persuade themselves that they're the good guys while they persecute the innocent.

A similar racket goes on with economic protectionism. Lobbyists for the American Society of Interior Designers, for instance, probably don't realize they're the bad guys when they try to impose regulations and licensing in their industry. They've probably persuaded themselves that what is good for themselves is good for America. And that's true of everyone who seeks legislation to drive out economic competitors. They'll use phrases like "public health" and "safety." They'll accuse opponents of regulation as greedy. They'll claim that without regulations, people will buy snake oil. But the real reason marijuana and industrial hemp are illegal is that, if legal, the price of countless drugs and other products would fall drastically. Real greed is using the force of law to drive out your competition, allowing you to raise prices. And the most effective snake-oil salesmen are the ones who persuade the government to purchase and mandate their snake oil - such as ethanol.

A "bad guy" is one who cheers when the State knowingly harms the innocent. But they will forever persuade themselves that the innocent are not really innocent, or they're not really harmed, or it's necessary for the overall good.

I don't think it's paranoid to say that there are bad guys all around us.

Labels: movies, political theory

  3:18 AM permanent link 0 comments

  Big Business Loves Big Government

Today's Downsizer-Dispatch . . .

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/2008/may/05/big_business_loves_big_government

Quote of the Day:

"Why not take advantage of the clever Downsize DC system like I just did? Invest five minutes today to sign up, and then from time to time you, too, can help bombard congress and pressure them into doing the right thing with your money."

- "creator," a blogger at Truth Realm

Subject: Big Business Loves Big Government

Politicians tell us that government protects the people from the cut-throat practices of Big Business. But in truth, Big Government is in bed with Big Business. If I were CEO of a major corporation - let's call it the Big Widget Corporation - I would love Big Government. That's because I could:

• lobby Congress to subsidize the widget industry, explaining how vital widgets are to the economy.

• lobby for tariff protection against imported widgets. This will allow my company to gouge American consumers with higher prices.

• lobby for regulations that would drive my smaller competitors out of business.

But what is good for the Big Widget Corporation's shareholders isn't necessarily good for the American taxpayers, who must pay for this special treatment. That's why we want the Big Government-Big Business marriage to end in divorce. We can break up the marriage by changing the way Congress does things.

• John Shadegg's Enumerated Powers Act would would require Congress to reference the specific clause(s) of the U.S. Constitution that grant them the power to enact the law they are considering. Because the Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to subsidize industries or grant special favors for particular businesses, Congress will have an impossible time justifying special-interest legislation. Tell Congress to pass the Enumerated Powers Act here.

• Downsize DC's One Subject at a Time Act would prevent Congress from adding unpopular or special-interest legislation into otherwise popular and much-needed bills. You can tell Congress to introduce this bill here.

• Downsize DC's Read the Bills Act (RTBA) would prevent bad provisions and special favors from sneaking into bills at the last minute. If you have not sent a message to Congress telling them to introduce the RTBA, or haven't done so in a while, you can do so here.

You can also help us by joining the Read the Bills Act coalition. Visitors to your blog or website will see our web-ad, which will take them to the RTBA campaign page where they will learn more. In turn, we will link to your site at our blog and announce your membership in a Downsizer-Dispatch. For information on joining the Coalition, click here.

This week we welcome three new members to the Coalition:

Thunder Radio's March of Liberty
Liberty's Haven
A Republic, If You Can Keep It

Finally, over the past two weeks the House passed 28 bills totaling 725 pages, while the Senate passed 29 bills totaling 286 pages. A list of these bills can be found below my signature at the home blog version of this Dispatch.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

Labels: Downsize DC Read the Bills Act, Enumerated Powers Act, One Subject at a Time Act

  7:07 AM permanent link 0 comments

  Further Thoughts on "Divided They Fail" Suppose you see yourself as a hard-core libertarian. Who would you rather win an election: a pro-gay marriage candidate who wants to nuke Iran and invade the Sudan, or an anti-gay marriage candidate who wants to end undeclared wars and bring the troops home? To me, the answer is clear: I want peace, liberty, and legal equality, but peace must come first.

Likewise, I want to get rid of the national oppressor before the local oppressor, because the national oppressor oppresses more people. In elections, would prefer Libertarian Party candidates first, Constitution Party candidates second, and nobody else third, because of this.

What sparked my piece "Divided They Fail" was the fact that Libertarian Party members were embarrassed and angry that Mary Ruwart, seeking the Party's nomination for President, takes the libertarian position on child sex and child pornography.

It's as if Ruwart was disqualified as a spokesperson for libertarian principles - which is essentially what an LP Presidential candidate is supposed to be - because she held to libertarian principles even in a particularly tough and controversial case. It made me, like this commenter G.E. at Third Party Watch, think that I'd rather vote for the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin and know I'm getting a "consistent Constitutionalist" than support an LP candidate who somehow draws the best line between aiming to be principled and aiming to please.

The LP's problem is that it tries to do two things. First, it tries to be ideological, and recruit individuals willing to "certify in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals." Second, it tries be a political party dedicated to shrinking the size of government - the federal government first and foremost. It can do both, but it can't succeed at both.

• If the LP is to be radical and hard-core, its leader should be a consistent libertarian. Of course, this won't win many votes or lead to long-term growth, which makes one wonder if the Libertarian Party as an outreach tool was a good idea whose time has passed in the Internet Age.

• If the LP's purpose is to win elections and take power on a small-government platform, well of course Ruwart's position on child porn won't help. But if there are differences of opinion on this issue, then there will definitely be differences on major issues as well. Libertarians will differ on specific solutions and the next steps to take. One says sales taxes are worse than income taxes, another says the opposite. Person A says get rid of the welfare state first and then immigration laws, Person B says says the order of what gets repealed first doesn't matter. The one will accuse the other of "betraying" libertarianism.

I respect LP members who want to remain hard-core. It just seems to me that those who would agree with the hard-core position the most will take it to the logical conclusion of not voting and not participating in party politics at all. It is very conceivable that a person could move from frustrated Republican or frustrated Democrat, to being drawn to the Libertarian Party message, to getting deeper and deeper into the libertarian philosophy, to becoming a non-voting anarchist - all within a two-year election cycle. Guess what - the Libertarian Party would have done its job! All too well, in fact - it never does get this person's vote. I respect the hard-core line, but I would suggest building agorist activist organizations and educational institutions would be a better use of their time than campaigning in elections. If nothing else, ballot access laws make their efforts inefficient at best. The sheer irony of a "libertarian" party trying to win power is another drawback. But if that's how some hard-core libertarians want to spend their time and money, I respect that.

I have a bigger problem respecting LP members who a) condemn Mary Ruwart, and/or b) supported Ron Paul, but would never consider an alliance with Constitution Party members. (For the record: I'm not a current LP member, I agree with Ruwart, and I supported Ron Paul.) They won't forgive Ruwart for her consistency, they will forgive Ron Paul for his deviations, but they'll write off the CP as theocrats - even though their differences with libertarianism are in many of the the same areas Ron Paul deviates from it.

I'm not sure what the problem is. The CP opposes abortion because, supposedly, they're religious nutjobs, whereas Ron Paul and pro-life libertarians have a different but principled view of when human rights begin. The CP doesn't believe the First Amendment applies to the states because, supposedly, they're theocrats, whereas Ron Paul - who has sponsored legislation expressing this view - just has an unorthodox but logical interpretation of the Constitution. (For the record, I agree with Paul's view: if the First Amendment was meant to apply to the states, either it or the Fourteenth Amendment would have said so explicitly.)

I think the objections are special pleading. I think libertarians resent the paleoconservative's finger-wagging condescension toward libertarianism, and I think paleoconservatives resent the libertarian's stridency and abstractions. Both sides (except the most hard-core of each) give Ron Paul a pass, and are willing to disagree with him on a few points and still love him, but they won't support anyone else who could bridge this divide.

I'm not asking members of either party to set aside their principles. I'm asking them instead to come together and form a party based on their many points of agreement.

I'm calling for a national party focused strictly on the national issue of the size, scope, and powers of the federal government. Statewide and locally, there may be LP candidates who want legal casinos in the state and strip clubs in the county, and CP candidate who want both banned. Fine - but they can all sign on to a national agenda of downsizing the size, scope, and power of the federal government:

• bring the troops home; no entangling alliances; only Congressionally-declared wars from now on;
• no ceding of legislative, executive, or judicial authority to international organizations;
  
• repeal post-9/11 curbs on civil liberties; restore crime control as a state function; defend the Second Amendment;
  
• cut spending across the board; abolish unconstitutional departments and programs such as the Department of Education;
• deregulate and desubsidize the energy industry;
• work toward a free market in health care;
• simplify the tax code and cut taxes;
• restore a Constitutional money system.
  

Allow differences on these issues:

• the specifics of tax reform;
  
• immigration restrictions;
• tariffs and trade;
• the role of Congress and the federal judiciary on First and Fourteenth Amendment issues pertaining to state and local laws;
• state and local controversies.
  

The goal of downsizing the federal government are the same in both the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. There, and only there, can they and should they work together. Perhaps a national platform could be a new "contract with America" based on points of agreement that could be signed by all party candidates. They can run against each other in primaries emphasizing issues where the platform allows for differences. But if and when elected, they will support the contract they had singed onto.

So everyone gets to keep their principles and ideology, while they support a national party that is dedicated to a smaller federal government but doesn't advance a particular ideology. Say what you will about Republicans and Democrats, but they swallow both their principles and their pride to vote for candidates who differ with them on major issues. Indeed, they do this all the time. Why can't advocates of small government do the same, especially if their differences are minor or technical?

Maybe for the same reason we never succeed: most of us who want small government are driven by principle, not power - and although we are all principled, we continually disagree on which principles. So even when we're in agreement 80% of the time, we go nowhere because those who should be our strongest allies are instead our bitterest enemies.

Perhaps non-voting anarchists and spiritual gurus were right all along: we will never achieve freedom through politics.

Labels: chuck baldwin, Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, Ron Paul, third parties

  6:37 PM permanent link 0 comments

  Divided They Fail My latest at the Partial Observer, wondering "If they both support Ron Paul, why don't the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party merge?" Excerpt:

I don't know if it was ever strategically sound to promote philosophical principles through a political party. Principles, to remain principles, must be untarnished, whereas politics works through compromise, which means tarnishing principles. In any case, the Internet has made the dissemination of libertarian principles, and education in the libertarian philosophy, much easier than it used to be. If the Libertarian Party exists to educate, I don't know if that is necessary anymore. If anything, it could lead people who take the philosophy far enough to see the contradiction of the LP's own existence.

But if the purpose of the party is to win elections and govern, it would do well to disband or change its name to something more generic and non-philosophical. It could then do a better job of advancing libertarian ends without allowing the various, necessary and inevitable compromises to besmirch the libertarian philosophy. This is where joining together with the Constitution Party, Ron Paul Republicans, and others come in. If the immediate and primary goal is to downsize the federal government, the various groups that support this goal can no longer be divided against themselves.

Labels: Constitution Party, elections, Libertarian Party, Partial Observer, politics, third parties

  10:51 PM permanent link

  No Country For Old Men I recently saw the Coen Brothers film No Country For Old Men. The setting is West Texas, circa 1980. The "old men" in question are people like Tommy Lee Jones's character, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell. Jones the actor is in his early 60's, and so presumably is the character. Bell came from a family of sheriffs, and had been a sheriff himself since the age of 25.

Bell recalls that in the older days several sheriffs in nearby counties never even carried a gun. But now (i.e., 1980), the illegal drug trade brought with it big money, gang shoot-outs, and roving hitmen. This level of evil, this disruption of a once quiet and peaceful life, is too big to overcome and too discouraging for old men.

And what, again, is the cause of this new kind of evil? The fact that drugs were illegal. That's not to say other cultural changes didn't take place that could cause disillusionment, and the villain is an unstoppable force for evil who may have arrived in many different contexts and situations. Nevertheless, illegal drugs was the occasion for this lawlessness and this evil, and simply wouldn't have taken place if drugs were legal.

Labels: Culture, Entertainment, War on Drugs

  4:20 AM permanent link 0 comments