Slashdot Mirror

Many of the most loudly trumpeted complaints in this vein [that Christians are persecuted] are, after all, complaints about the absence of special treatment: no special spot for the Ten Commandments in the courthouse rotunda; no pride of place for Christmas among those happy winter holidays; no exceptions for the Christian charity.

Since "special rights" has been a term of aspersion among conservatives for decades, would-be theocrats have at least the decency to be too ashamed to demand them explicitly. Instead, they've learned the power of the victim narrative, of framing the debate to cast themselves as underdogs.

...

The stratagem is so perverse as to be almost admirable: Take a holiday associated with sentiments like peace and goodwill, mix in some well-intentioned attempts to acknowledge it in an inclusive way suited to a pluralistic society, and then use the combination to generate fear, divisiveness, and high ratings. But whether we're impressed or appalled by that cynical ploy, whether we're gearing up for Christmas dinner or just a post-Ramadan pig-out, we can all breathe a little easier knowing that the anti-Christmas "jihad" is no more real (sorry kids) than Santa Claus.

It is a shame that our "corrections system" is more about vengeance and politics, isn't it?

Here's a nice article: http://www.reason.com/sullum/042304.shtml entitled "Pill Sham - A man seeking pain relief gets 25 years for drug trafficking."

IANACS (I Am Not A Climate Scientist), but while there are areaa w/ warming trends, there are also some odd cooling trends. Interesting quote from a link below:

Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2 C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987.

Some links:

• Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet
• Reason magazine article mentioning various conflicting evidence / dissenting views on global warming.
• SATELLITES SHOW OVERALL INCREASES IN ANTARCTIC SEA ICE COVER

Fun quote from a actual MIT climatologist, Richard S. Lindzen :

the Antarctic is not warming and there is nothing in the models that distinguish the temperature trends they predict in the Arctic from those in the Antarctic.

My favorite quote from the Reason article:

Climate is messy.

Michael Crichton touches on autonomous organization processes in his book Prey...however remember that Crichton is very very afraid of technology.

This reminded me of a fascinating article I read this week in the new issue of Reason Magazine (not yet online at http://www.reason.com/about how the Deputy CIO of the Office of Homeland Security (and former CIO of the Labor Department, who once worked in the Clinton Whitehouse) has been found to have purchased not only a Ph.D., but also her Masters Degree from a diploma factory located in an old Motel 6 in Wyoming. It turns out that this case provoked an audit of resumes by the GAO which discovered the Department of Defense has as many as 257 employees who bought their degrees from the same kind of "schools."

Now, don't you feel safer?

You have an extranious space (%20) in the URL caused by slashdot formatting.
The URL:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/sta tes/US/P/00/epolls.0.html/

VOTE BY EDUCATION BUSH KERRY NADER
TOTAL 2004 BUSH2000 2004 2004

No High School (4%) 49% +10 50% 0%

H.S. Graduate (22%) 52% +3 47% 0%

Some College (32%) 54% +3 46% 0%

College Graduate (26%) 52% +1 46% 1%

Postgrad Study (16%) 44% +0 55% 1%

AND the more generic:

VOTE BY EDUCATION BUSH BUSH2000 KERRY NADER
No College Degree (58%) 53% n/a 47% 0%
College Graduate (42%) 49% n/a 49% 1%

Libertarians should read Reason magazine!
http://reason.com/

Interesting article about conflicting / confusing global temperature data, mainly related to the poles. Things aren't as clear as you may think:

Odd warming and cooling trends, since 1917, warm in 1938, cooling down after 1940, warming back up again (maybe just returning to normal?) One pole's temperature moving the opposite of the other.

Check here for a fairly "balanced" discussion of why this may not be the case.

I'd have just linked to the studies that have conflicting conclusions, but that article does that and explains them better than I could.

-bs

Remember the Clipper chip? Ashcroft sided with the ACLU in opposing it. Even more ironically, Kerry supported it.

Remember the Clipper chip? Ashcroft sided with the ACLU in opposing it. Even more ironically, Kerry supported it.

Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit. But just for the record, I think smoking is a vile nasty habbit.

Thus the private sector comes out ahead if the administration overhead, plus the inefficiencies inherehent in a 3rd-party payment system, is less than the total income tax rate, which, with state & FICA, weighs in somewhere the 40%'s. So Kaiser-Permanente can waste almost half and still be competitive. A colossal gov't program gets the advantage of a monopsony, which can help efficiency, but doesn't get any competitive pressure, which gradually drags efficiency down (and stymies innovation). So gov't heathcare (for ordinary expenses) trades one problem (high cost in the private sector) for another (poor innovation and often poor service). The logical solution is to rationalize this perverse tax treatment, with IRA-like tax-deferred savings accounts for example.

There are other ways to do it, and other problems that need solved like physician licensure that blocks entry into the profession, inflating costs. And there are confounding factors like how to properly account for externalized costs. An MRI is an expensive piece of equipment, so gov't programs try to keep a deep backlog of appointments on it. That way you can serve more people with fewer machines, saving money. But when people have to take a time off to travel to their MRI appointment, that is a cost that doesn't appear on the books. A private-sector MRI operator won't only try to minimize costs, but also maximize revenue. I would pay $100 extra to not have to take a day off work or travel 500 miles for an MRI appt. So in this case higher medical costs are a good thing, because that $100 is cheaper than some other external cost. I touch on a lot of issues briefly here, but hey, this is just a /. post!

That's the regular predictable costs. True insurance, however is fairly easily marketized, using actuarial principles known since the 17th century. Gov't insurance, if FEMA is any guide, is always under pressure to levy premia at below-true-actuarial rates, and then require tax-paid bailouts when insovlency hits. So you are paying for those oceanfront Hampton properties, because tax money effectively insures them against nature's fury.

But at least one rich dude is kind enough to thank you for it.

The free market is NOT about serving the most people. Its just a common effect of the market to serve more people, better. Yet we *know* this is not the case with health care in the US: there are lots of people with little or no care, and lots with really great health care.

The US health care market is one of the most free, however it is not free in one very important way: it has effective price minima.

One of the best ways to inflate the price of a product in a market is to limit the supply. You can only do this if you've cornered the market, or are the government. In this case, it's the government.

The government limits:

• The number of doctors - through restrictions on the number of graduates allowed from medical schools.
• The amount and availability of new treatments - through the FDA.
• The lower-bound on the cost of production of medicine - FDA regulation of production plants.

That's just off the top of my head, but I think it covers the major points. These all serve to raise the cost of medicine.

Another effect raises the cost of medicine: our current price structure of insurance.

Markets have always been regulated to balance the other aspects of life (like fairness) with the power of production it enables. The balance of regulating the market excesses (like DRM,) against enjoying the production benefits (like cheap software,) needs to be changed: both in software IP laws, and drug research. Its not just a single issue of using Linux/FOSS in Brazil, but many issues of freeing information, and consequently reducing the power of vested interests. The issue is how to regulate.

Legitimate markets (as opposed to black markets) are supposed to operate within the law. The excesses you describe are either laws not being enforced, or laws which need to be changed. True "natural monopolies" are very rare, most of the time a company needs the government to bludgeon to death its competition so that the company may be without competition.

This "operation within the law" is not regulation of the market, as it is not directed at the market, but at individuals in the market. Much as how convicting someone of murder does indeed remove him from certain markets, but one would not say that it's "regulating the market."

If the RIAA has its way 100% should we say 'oh well, thats the market then' or should we be mad as hell at the political system which made it happen?

If the RIAA "had its way" and managed to get all its members to raise the price on their CDs to $25 apiece, then we probably should say "well, that's the market." If the RIAA "had its way" and got expansion of copyright powers, government enforcement of copyright, and had a mandated minimum price of $25 per CD, then we should scream bloody murder at a political system that allowed this to happen.

One is a function of the market, the other is a government action and is not under the power of the market.

I know you're going to get slaughtered for the above, which is a shame because you make a reasonable point but with a bad example. Anyway, I know this is heading offtopic but it comes up a lot on Slashdot. Let me be the first to say:

Dvorak is NOT better than Qwerty.

The original studies that 'proved' the superiority of Dvorak were conducted by none other than Mr Dvorak himself! The tests were repeatedly and ridiculously unfair, in that they compared groups of typists who could never be reasonably compared.

Subsequent fair tests by independent parties have shown that Dvorak is no better once the typist reaches a reasonable degree of experience, and until that point they will perform much worse than on Qwerty if they are transitioning, as would presumably be the case for anyone reading this.

You can read about the total debunking here, and here if you still don't believe me.

Lots of things which are better don't catch on. But like Betamax (vs VHS), Dvorak isn't one of them.

A modchip is not acting as a replacement part. It does not 'unlock' or permit operation of the console. The purpose of a modchip is to bypass the signing mechanism used to prevent you from playing pirated games.

Okay, time for a list of modchip uses:

- Playing unofficial/unlicensed software (ex: Game Enhancer, which was almost definately first developed with the help of a modchip, since absolutely ZERO Sony code or patents were used to complete the software)
- Using unofficial devices (ex: New max memory devices made by Datel)
- Cheating devices (ex: Game genie by Galoob)
- Playing backups
- Bypassing region protection

These are all locks placed on the device by the manufacturer in an attempt to stop the usage of third party items, such as:

1 - Third party discs not authorized by the console manufacturer
2 - Third party software not authorized by the console manufacturer
3 - Third party hardware not authorized by the console manufacturer
4 - Authorized software from the manufacturer that was not intended to be used in your country

As far as I know, in all three situations, doing those things is legal. It is legal for me to put Maxell media in an HP burner (item 1), it's legal for me to install Windows XP to a Mac (item 2), it's legal for me to use a non sony DV tape in my Sony DV camcorder (item 3), and it's legal for me to watch a PAL videotape in the USA (item 4).

Now, for some reason, the person who built the device decided for me they didn't like items 1 - 4. So they built the device not to allow this. Now this law says such locks are illegal. And since the actions were legal to start with, where's your beef?

That someone might do items 1 - 4 with an illegal intent? Yeah, they could. In fact, you could install a pirated Windows XP on a Mac using an emulator. Does that make the emulator illegal? You could copy a copyrighted gameboy game into a blank flash memory cartridge and play it on your gameboy. Does that make computer memory illegal?

This is no different than banning box cutters on airlines because you think a terrorist is going to slash your throat with one. You're using an (extremely poor) band-aid to cover up what is a societal problem that already has PLENTY of legal recourse against the act, and you are inconveniencing and embarassing people as you do it. It's nasty and wrong, and, quite honestly, it makes me, as an outsider, afraid to enter your country. It's no different than trying to ban chewing gum just because someone might stick it under a desk.

This is a classic case of the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. You read a news story about your field of expertise and you notice that the story is completely innacurate, and then you read news stories in fields you don't know much about and assume that they are accurate.

The public knows when Kerry is bullshitting about the Red-Sox and other sports ("Lambert Field") because we know more about sports than Kerry. Slashdot knows when Kerry is bullshitting about technology (his support for the clipper chip, etc...) because we know more about technology than Kerry. The MSM is good at detecting when Kerry contradicts his own past statements (flip-flopping) because the MSM is proficient with Lexis-Nexis and other search tools. We don't detect when Kerry is bullshitting when he is talking about subjects that we don't know much about, like economics, military strategy, health-care, science, especially stem-cells (people will get up and walk), and everything else. You can check out any Kerry blog to see informed writers exposing all of his bullshit.

And on that note, I got this interesting link off someone's sig hereabouts:

http://reason.com/hod/jb072604.shtml

My impression of Kerry from all sources is that he's in favour of more control over the people, so long as it doesn't involve controlling HIM personally.

"In the 1990s, government proposals to restrict encryption inspired a national debate. Then as now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and electronic privacy groups locked horns with the DOJ and law enforcement agencies. Then as now, Kerry and Ashcroft were on opposite sides. But there was noteworthy difference in those days. Then it was Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who argued alongside the ACLU in favor of the individual's right to encrypt messages and export encryption software. Ashcroft "was kind of the go-to guy for all of us on the Republican side of the Senate," recalls David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

And in what now seems like a bizarre parallel universe, it was John Kerry who was on the side of the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the DOJ. Ashcroft's predecessor at the Justice Department, Janet Reno, wanted to force companies to create a "clipper chip" for the government--a chip that could "unlock" the encryption codes individuals use to keep their messages private. When that wouldn't fly in Congress, the DOJ pushed for a "key escrow" system in which a third-party agency would have a "backdoor" key to read encrypted messages.

Full article here

"In the 1990s, government proposals to restrict encryption inspired a national debate. Then as now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and electronic privacy groups locked horns with the DOJ and law enforcement agencies. Then as now, Kerry and Ashcroft were on opposite sides. But there was noteworthy difference in those days. Then it was Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who argued alongside the ACLU in favor of the individual's right to encrypt messages and export encryption software. Ashcroft "was kind of the go-to guy for all of us on the Republican side of the Senate," recalls David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

And in what now seems like a bizarre parallel universe, it was John Kerry who was on the side of the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the DOJ. Ashcroft's predecessor at the Justice Department, Janet Reno, wanted to force companies to create a "clipper chip" for the government--a chip that could "unlock" the encryption codes individuals use to keep their messages private. When that wouldn't fly in Congress, the DOJ pushed for a "key escrow" system in which a third-party agency would have a "backdoor" key to read encrypted messages.

Full article here

The Man from Beacon Hill's "New War" on the Constitution

A great read for anyone who thinks Kerry will do anything to help you regarding the DMCA.

Why should anyone regulate VoIP?

Because you need some regulation in order to keep others' hands off of VoIP so that it does not get strangled.

Primarily that means the California PUC, which wants to license and charge VoIP providers as telephone operators.

It is also important that Democrat FCC Commissioner Michael Copps not become Chairman, because he is the biggest proponent for wire-tapping VoIP, censoring the media, and over-regulating broadband.

A mere 0.5 percent change in Earth's net reflectivity, or albedo, would solve the greenhouse problem completely. ... About 1 percent of the United States is covered by human constructions, mostly paving, suggesting that we may already control enough of the land to get at the job.

A few things. The democrats didn't think they could win this presidential election, so none of the strong candidates (like Hillary Clinton) ran. So, John Kerry ends up winning the primary, but it might as well have been any of several others (Clark, Dean, etc). Kerry has a problem, in that he has a record which indicates he likes to raise taxes, he isn't very religious, and he won't take strong positions for fear of losing the so-called swing voters. The problem is, he can't energize the far left (unlike Dean), and the swing voters are at best mildly interested in Kerry.

President Bush, on the other hand, has no problem holding his own base. He's religous, so the Christian right will vote for him consistently, he says he's against big government (even though his record indicates otherwise), and he's definitely been pro-business. Furthermore, he has a very strong, reassuring anti-terrorsit message. He went into the Iraq War with an extraordinarily high approval rating, and is still enjoying the benefits, even though his approval rating has since dropped.

Furthermore, Kerry is basing large portions of his campaign on asinine arguments. Saying the President didn't try hard enough to build a broad coalition is a recipe for disaster. Bush spent 11 months trying to convince the UN to go to war, and the "Coalition of the Willing" has 46 public members. Now, what he should be criticizing the President for is telling the UN we would go to war with Iraq with or without their help. That was practically asking that they stay out of it. Furthermore, a lot of Americans think we should have toppled Saddam in 1992, and didn't understand why we didn't at the time.

Kerry's criticism of the Patriot Act is also disingenuous, since he wrote part of it, and because he has a historically worse record on civil liberties than John Ashcroft. One of the big criticisms of the Patriot Act is that it's being used against drug dealers more than it is against terrorists, but that's exactly what Kerry has been working towards for years. So he's not getting much love from the undecideds on that account.

Finally, we have a nasty history (which is in more people's minds in the US than you would think... you can thank Hollywood for that) of half-assing things in the Middle East and making them even worse than they were before we went in. Witness our support for Afghanistan against the Soviets. After the Soviets were defeated, we pulled support and the country fell to the Taliban (who we also funded, and then pulled the funding for [funny how this keeps showing up]). A lot of Americans are painfully familiar with that now. Similarly, the CIA has supported numerous rebellions in Iraq, then pulled that support just in time for the rebels to be slaughtered. I could go on in this vein about Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, etc. Pulling out of the Middle East has never worked for us, and has always made things worse. So, a lot of Americans realize that while invading Iraq probably wasn't a good move, pulling out would be a disaster. Kerry keeps vacilating on whether or not he wants to pull out, and that isn't helping his chances of getting elected.

I could go on, if you'd like, but I think the above should give you some idea of what's going on here.

This one? Or did he change his mind? He scores less than 50% on the ACLU's test.

"You can sum up the problems with the Patriot Act in two words: John Ashcroft....The real problem with the Patriot Act is not the law, but the abuse of the law."

From his crazy lawyer. Jack Thompson, A/K/A "BatJack", apparently because he used to make public appearances in a Batman costume. Some of BatJack's prior hits here...

"You can sum up the problems with the Patriot Act in two words: John Ashcroft... The real problem with the Patriot Act is not the law, but the abuse of the law."

"John Kerry stands by his vote for the Patriot Act," says a March 11 campaign statement. "You can sum up the problems with the Patriot Act in two words: John Ashcroft... The real problem with the Patriot Act is not the law, but the abuse of the law."

Re:Civil Liberties vs. Constitutional Rights (Score:2)

the ACLU fights for the freedom of speech. Period.

No less an authority than G. Robert Blakely, the Notre Dame law professor who wrote RICO, warns that applying it to protesters will have a chilling effect on speech. "Everybody who loves the First Amendment has got to sleep uneasily tonight," he said after the verdict.

And I think it's also likely to lose some of its credibility in future cases where it tries to defend potentially harmful speech. True, they might reasonably argue that there's a difference between the speech they're trying to restrict here and the speech they try to protect elsewhere. But many in the public might not buy those arguments, and might see the ACLU as being unprincipled, and as simply trying to restrict speech that hurt its favored causes while protecting speech that helps its favored causes. And the ACLU's reputation for principled defense of free speech, and the grudging admiration that this has at times earned the ACLU even from some of its opponents, is one of its most valuable assets.

Re:The ACLU isn't sane. (Score:3, Funny)

You act as if the ACLU has an agenda that they are trying to disguise under the ploy of "Civil Liberties."

Oh, wait. They do.

Putting all that aside, I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.

I know that Kerry wrote some of the "financial crime" parts of the Patriot Act. I wonder if this was his? Does anyone know?

I question why you think that justifies the blood of 10,000 innocent people on our hands. Is it your argument that Saddam Hussein would have slain 10,000 more people in this time period?

Before the invasion, Chomsky claimed that the sanctions on Iraq had killed 1.5 M people. and so the sanctions must be ended.

So would you rather 10,000 died or 1.5M more died?

Of course, the 1.5M figure is probably B.S.. Even if is closer to 100,000, it is more than 10,000 (which is probably another B.S. figure, got a source, and a break down of how many were killed by "combatant rebels"?).

Hit & Run over at Reason magazine is pretty interesting. It is fundamentally a libertarian blog of various Reason contributors. This blog has the distinction of having contributors supporting three different candidates, and almost the full spectrum of opinion on the Iraq war.

Also like Virginia Postrel's Dynamist blog.

I then try and read some of NRO's blogs and Daily Kos and Atrios just to make sure I keep up with what people are saying outside my own little echo chamber.

In another e-mail, Rachel wrote, "This has to stop. I think it is a good idea for us all to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop. I don't think it's an extremist thing to do anymore. I really want to dance around to Pat Benatar and have boyfriends and make comics for my co-workers. But I also want this to stop. Disbelief and horror is what I feel. Disappointment. I am disappointed that this is the base reality of our world and that we, in fact, participate in it. This is not at all what I asked for when I came into this world. This is not at all what the people here asked for when they came into this world. This is not what they are asking for now. This is not the world you and Dad wanted me to come into when you decided to have me."

I'm surprised no one's mentioned Reason magazine's blog Hit & Run.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned Reason magazine's blog Hit & Run.

Here's a sampling of the best I've found:

Vodkapundit. Stephen Green's blog. Probably the best match for my own political views. Hawkish libertarian and consumer of fine ethanol-based beverages.

Instapundit Glenn Reynold's blog. Another decent match for my own viewpoint. Glenn's more of a linker than a commentator, but he's one of the best about linking to all sides of the blogosphere. When he does extended bits (such as at his MSNBC site or his TCS columns), he's quite cogent. Has a lot of outside interests (electronic music, space policy, nano-tech, constitutional law) that dovetail into my own and make his site more interesting than the politics-only blogs. Frequently mentions Slashdot and links to relevant discussions.

Reason's Hit and Run Another libertarian blog, run by Reason magazine. Much more in tune to the Libertarian Party than the above.

Virginia Postrel YALB (Yet Another Libertarian Blog). Postrel is a former editor of Reason. More of a social commentator these days and has written some fascinating books recently. Seems to have become ever-so-slightly more hawkish since 9/11.

The Corner National Review's blog. Conservative and largely Catholic, it's best feature is Jonah Goldberg (the token non-Catholic), who has a pleasantly snarky, pop-cultural laden view of current events. Least pleasant on the blog in John Derbyshire, who is quite the math geek but is way out there on the borderline-racist right (quite pleasant in email, though).

Andrew Sullivan. Classical liberal, Oakeshott conservative. A very incisive and passionate writer, he has an infuriating habit of demonizing the opposition. Originally very pro-war (and spent much time fulminating against the "fifth columnist" element on the left), he's now got a new enemy (those opposed to gay marriage/gay rights), so all those who were the enemy last year (the Democrats/John Kerry) are friends, and all those who were friends last year (the Republicans/George Bush) are enemies who can now do no right. When his emotions are not ruling his thinking, though, he's very, very good.

Mickey Kaus Slate's resident blogger, Mickey is a DLC "New" Democrat. He's one of the more honest of the bloggers (zings his own side often, recognizes good arguments on the other side) and a good source of insider media stuff.

Josh Marshall Establishment Democrat. I found his stuff to be really good a few years back, but recently he's spending more time rooting for the team (DNC/Kerry) than being objective. Also, darkly hints at constant "breaking soon" scoops that either never appear or completely underwhelm. Very bright guy, though, and insightful when not attempting to spin too obviously.

Kevin Drum Another Establishment Democrat. Kevin tends to be more self-reflective than Josh, which stands him in good stead. Great place to capture the mood of the DNC political types.

New Republic They have a couple of blogs (&c. and Campaign Journal). &c. is by far the better of the two. Skews left, but a sort of rationalist left (understands that while America may suck at times, other places suck more).

Tapped This used to be a great blog back in the

Why does this nonsense always pop up? FOX is "!rightwing" because it presents news at an angle you don't like?

Perhaps because the news chief at FOX News is Roger Ailes? Perhaps because it is owned by Rupert Murdoch? The New York Times editorial page is certainly left of center, but their news reporting at least makes an effort to be balanced. The blatant editorializing that characterizes FOX coverage is well documented and widely acknowledged (even on the right!).

See, for example http://www.reason.com/0410/co.mw.unbalanced.shtml, an editorial in the libertarian rag, Reason, that suggests rather than bothering with tedious fact-checking and presenting all sides of an issue, other media outlets should follow FOX's lead and become blatantly partisan.

Mr. Badnarik,

I have several questions.

(1) As a Republican-turned-Democrat-turned-very-briefly-Soc ialist-turned-Libertarian-turned-libertarian (all changes occurring throughout my undergrad years as a Comp. Sci major, Economics minor), in the 2 years since I've become a convert to the libertarian mindset, (specifically to Milton Friedman's very-rational, very-reasonable brand of libertarianism - I am a diehard Friedmanite), I've seriously considered starting a Libertarian organization at my university. But I am faced with the realization of a few problems:

1) It is difficult for me personally in good conscience to found a big-'L' Libertarian organization which would promote the Libertarian Party, a party which I have always seen as having at least 2 distinct problems:
A) The "Ralph Nader Effect." No matter the few advances the LP makes, it is not going to be very effective. Nor has the LP ever been effective; the highest popular vote for any LP Presidential was for Ed Crane, back in 1980 -- and he received about 1% of the popular vote. Even Socialist Eugene Debs did better during the 1912 and 1920 elections (6% and 3.2%, respectively, the latter of which he received while sitting in jail).

Love it or hate it, the LP is a 3rd party, and no 3rd party in the 228 year history of the U.S. has ever had any real significance. Ross Perot ran as an independent, once winning some 18% or so of the popular vote. But he was pulling votes from the left and right, so he wasn't blamed for "stealing" votes from the GOP or Dems (as though by rightful barony they should be given those votes).

And where is Perot now? Sitting on an oil rig somewhere, surely still listening for that "giant sucking sound" he thought he heard with those big ears.

B) The extremism and Randian doggedness to stick to principle. Love it or hate it, politics in a democracy is necessarily a game of compromise, because the votes of a diverse set of individuals remove the extrema of points from most actions in government. The LP takes a no-compromise, highly-principled stance on all its issues; this makes working with the LP in a practical sense rather difficult. This problem, I believe, contributes strongly back to problem A.

2) The LP is filled with nuts, and I'm sorry, but to be bluntly honest, you fit that stereotype like an expensive suit. Who else but a big-'L' Libertarian would be caught dead saying they would blow up the U.N. building on their eighth day of office, or avoiding registering for a driver's license?

Look, I agree with your principles 100%. I agree we should keep the U.N. at arm's-length and not let them make any decisions whatsoever about the direction of this country. And I agree that driver's licenses shouldn't require a fingerprint or SSN; nor should they have a barcode or really any other identifying info besides one's name, DOB, and license expiration date. But let's be serious -- these things exist whether we like them or not, and unless you take the issue to the courts, they are not going to be changed anytime soon, and childish daydreams of blowing up the property of those we don't like and running from the cops don't help your case in the eyes of most of the public.

Hence, do I want to start an organization promoting people whose intentions and general views I sympathize with very strongly, but the principles of which I realize cannot reasonably be fulfilled without compromise? Why, as a rational user of my time, should I waste my time starting such an organization in that case?

Mr. Badnarik, it is in my view that organizations such as the Cato Institute and The Economist magazine, and Reason magazine do a vastly-superior job of promoting libertarian philosophy than the LP ever has. Why should I start an organization which p

Badnarik? Rich? Ha! Badnarik's just a teacher who offers a one-day class on the Constitution.

I've been following Badnarik's ascent to the LP's candidate in Reason Magazine, which covers a lot of libertarian issues, and one thing is for sure: this man had almost NO funding whatsoever in his campaign.

In fact, leading up to the LP convention, he drove around in his Kia Sophia campaigning with just one other guy, and they would often run out of money and have to rely on the generosity of random supporters to even have a place to stay. For example, when the LP convention came around, it was held in a Marriott hotel or something like that. Badnarik couldn't even afford a room! Fortunately, an impressed supporter offered Badnarik the chance to use his room as a "base of operations" of sort, which allowed him to talk to more delegates and win the nomination.

"As the president has repeatedly pointed out in response to the terrorist attack, "We can't love our country and hate our government."

Well, if he really said that, then I think we've found a reason why someone might hate him.

Were we supposed to love Nixon's presidency? Ignore his little flaws, and look on the positive side?

Dude, check it out - the most - MOST - basic tenet of our way of life is the idea that EVERY citizen of this country is expressly granted the right to criticize our government WHENEVER it is seen to be going in the wrong direction.

That's kinda the point of a democracy, dig?

The only people who want to suppress the criticisms of the populace are the people who KNOW that they will be the target of those criticisms. Describing honest political dissent as unAmerican is itself the most unAmerican behavior I can think of.

Well, I wouldn't call criticism of President Clinton "hate," but a lot of his supporters did -- and were more than willing to exploit the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing to do so. The whole "talk radio equals hate radio" and "the NRA's fund raising letter motivated McVeigh" were just some of the memes being tossed around by the mainstream media and pundits on the Left. (See Virginia Postrel's 1995 column "Fighting Words" for more on that subject.)

It hasn't always been an easy year for America. There have been moments that tested our national community. In the wake of the terrible bombing in Oklahoma City, which took the lives of 169 people, our nation reached out and recognized the bonds that hold us together. And out of the ashes of that tragedy, a new sense of national spirit took hold. We affirmed once again that all Americans are in it together. We recognized, once again, that we can't love our country and hate our government.

-President Bill Clinton, December 30 1995

and earlier that year:

Remarks by the President of the United States
Spartan Stadium
Michigan State University
May 5, 1995

[snip]

I would like to say something to [those of you] who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from ... beyond our borders, but from our own government.

[snip]

I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to question our government when you disagree with its policies. And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so.

But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy.

[snip]

But the Weathermen of the radical left who resorted to violence in the 1960s were wrong. Today, the gang members who use life on the mean streets of America, as terrible as it is, to justify taking the law into their own hands and taking innocent life are wrong. The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong.

[snip]

How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny.

[snip]

[T]here is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other.

[snip]

(emphasis ad

There is a related article on Reason http://www.reason.com/rauch/082704.shtmldiscussing Thurston Howell III's supposed senate campaign. This was posted on 8/27, it appears that the Monetary Economics article was inspired by it.

I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.

Nadine Strossen
President of the ACLU
"Life, Liberty, and the ACLU"
Reason. October 1994.

Even _The Anarchist's Cookbook_ ?

I hope you don't take away the idea that any books are banned in the US. With the exception of _Anarchist's Cookbook_ and, unfortunately, books with gay subjects, very few public school libraries won't carry these books. None of them are illegal to sell. (Admittedly, I have no experience off the liberal west coast.) Certainly not Huck Finn or Bridge to Terabithia. Actually, I think every public library I've ever been to has had this very list on display during Banned Books Week.

The only book I've ever heard of being legally challenged in the U.S. (I mean, actually being censored as opposed to just not published or carried in libraries) is explained here. I work for a bookstore - we've sold books like _How To Manufacture Methamphetamines_ without fear of legal retribution.

Now, Germany on the other hand actively bans nazi memorabilia (including books) and holocaust denial, and France bans those as well as "hate speech". In the U.K., you will be sued for selling Sean McPhilemy's _The Committee_. Not just writing it. Selling it.

Try out this article from Reason Magazine in July.

Ten Truths About Trade

It goes into the concepts more than the numbers. Could make it easier to explain to others.

Last August John Gilmore was on the cover of and interviewed in Reason. Good reading from a great magazine.

Last August John Gilmore was on the cover of and interviewed in Reason. Good reading from a great magazine.

Last August John Gilmore was on the cover of and interviewed in Reason. Good reading from a great magazine.

I'm really tired of people like you telling others what is and is not quality programming. I happen to enjoy watching many programs on the History Channel, TLC, Discovery, ESPN, AMC, Bravo (well, actually NBC aired "The West Wing", Bravo just plays old episodes I missed), and NESN (gotta watch the Red Sox) and believe they are quality programs. HBO occasionally produces some excellent movies though I have to rent or purchase them since I don't get HBO or the other movie channels. I wound up buying "Band of Brothers" after seeing teh first episode on The History Channel. You might not like these programs but that does not mean they are not quality programs.

Two articles that are on this topic

cleanliness causes asthma

Lack of Protective parasites causes asthma