I am a libertarian. To contrast this with Democrat and
Republican: we might say that the Republicans (at their core) want the
government to stay out of our financial lives, but control what we do in
our bedrooms (morality/religion). Democrats (at their core) want the
government out of our bedrooms, but control how we manage our financial
affairs (welfare/regulation/wealth redistribution). Libertarians want
the government out of our financial lives and out of our bedrooms.
Libertarians stand for the individual rights to life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness according to our own conscience. They believe that
the purpose of government is to protect the freedom and rights of
citizens through a police force to protect us from the initiation of
force by other citizens, court system to protect us from fraud (enforce
contracts), and a military force to protect us from foreign invaders.

The libertarian stance on foreign aggression is: commerce with all
nations, alliances with none.  Libertarians not only want us out of
Iraq, they want us out of Japan! (and our other 800+ military bases
around the world!)  Let them hate us for our freedom and wealth, without
the military presence/force that forces that freedom and wealth down their
throats.

My reasons for being libertarian are simple. I believe that history has
demonstrated (in every time. and in every part of the globe) that the
more power you give to government, the more those who hold the power
will be corrupted by lobbyists (business, religious, bankers, racists,
populists, etc.).  As PJ O'Rourke put it, "When buying and selling are
controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are
legislators."  The more money and favors/regulations the government
controls, the more money and favors the lobbyists can afford to spend to
buy them, because (although it is somewhat of a gamble) the return on
investment for lobbying is typically 10 to 1. As a lobbyist, I can spend
$50 million dollars influencing various politicians in order to get a
$500 million dollar annual contract, and $1 billion to get $100 billion
contract. Smart business always follows the clearest incentives, and
competing for government largess is clearly incentived.
People/politicians are corruptible (especially through blackmail, which
money buys easily), and so governments become corrupt. The solution is
to reduce government power to reduce the scope and destructiveness of
its corruption and keep it maximally accountable to its core functions.
Hence, Libertarianism.

The American Constitution/experiment, was created by men whom, by todays
standards, are radical Libertarians, for the exact reasons stated above.
I believe that they created the most beautiful social contract in human
history, and I find it tragic that it is being increasingly ignored and
distorted. I am patriotic in this sense: I believe that the ideals and
values of life, liberty/freedom, protection of our right to use our
property according to our own conscience (as long as we are not
violating the identical rights of others) are worth cheering about and
if necessary, fighting to maintain.

Upon reading it several times, I became progressively dismayed, although fascinated by the clarity with which it typifies “green/Boomeritis” arrogance, including the hypocrisy and self-refuting logic at its heart. This article examplifies a common stance taken by those whom I consider the most politically active people in my life. My opinion, which I offer reasons for below, is that it expresses a fundamentally dishonest and destructive perspective that is at the heart of much of the “transformational” community’s conversation about politics.

Specifically, it is built on a narrative that claims/implies that it is inclusive and integrative (2nd tier, in Spiral Dynamics terms) , but is deeply self-absorbed and parochial (1st tier), and hence blind to its blindness.

It is written as if it is the only rational perspective possible, as if Deepak (and by extension Obama, or the reverse) are so right that there is no need for conversation about the accuracy of their propositions and conclusions, only about how to deal with them. This marginalizes all the values of people they disagree with - the very thing that their stance accuses all other perspectives of.

Deepak (and those who agree with and write similar pieces) pretend as if the “ground” that he is standing on and writing from represents an “enlightened/superior/higher” perspective BECAUSE it includes more information than its competing perspectives (in this case, conservatives like Palin). However, he demonstrates no understanding of the people he is critiquing. In place of understanding, he creates a straw man that burns so easily they he feels the need to apologize for how cruel he must seem to destroy his opponent so utterly. It is as if his opponent is so obviously wrong he doesn’t even need to establish the verity of his points, all there is left to do talk about their consequences…

Examples: In almost every sentence, he speaks an an unquestionable authority, and with a tone that indicates that disagreement is a sign of the stupidity that he is decrying (and, as it is said, you can’t argue with a sneer):

- Impulses that are different than those He (Barack and Deepak) promotes are “their worst impulses.”
- BECAUSE He calls people to “higher impulses,” Palin’s responses and values (and others who disagree with Obama’s policies) can by DEFINITION be simplified to “anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of “the other” , and hence written off as unworthy of consideration or inclusion.
- “Small town values” become “a denial of America’s global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.” - (What the hell?)
- “Family values” become “anti social justice.” (Huh?)
- Patriotism becomes “a fallback from a failed war.” (I know my patriotism is sourced from this…)
- her political position, including all of the changes she wants to make becomes “I’m all right, Jack,” and “Why change? Everything’s OK as it is.” - (of course, to disagree with someone who wants a specific change is to be against change in general. I knew that…)

He says: “there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. ” Well, if it is so obvious, why can’t they see it? because they are stupid? because they are victims of patriarchal bourgeoisie values (which they are too stupid to go beyond)? How about because they believe that feminism is a postmodern movement that is nihilistic in nature, substance, and rhetoric, and proposes ideals that conservatives like Palin believe are destructive and soul-deadening to living, breathing people? Such a response is simply not a possible legitimate stance to take in this article. It does not exist as a possiblity in Deepak’s world.

This is the hypocrisy. Lack of understanding leads to projection of the enemy onto Palin - against which Deepak establishs his hero stature, which stature is supposedly integrated, compassionate, and wise.  All bullshit.

AND, the intellectual elite of the country and the political left do not even question or challenge him. This article has been sent to me by 4 different people - more than any other political article yet this election cycle. All of them have included positive or self-congratulatory introductions to it. None have mentioned its utter arrogance. So, here I am…

Jason Alexander (the philosopher of capitalism, not the actor), used to chide me, saying “Remember, people get the government they deserve. If the people are unWholeSum, the government will be unWholeSum.” I have spent the last decade losing my will to try to prove him wrong.  Welcome to election year 2008.  

This article is even more painful for me because I have severe concerns about the conservative side of this issue as well. However, an enemy of my enemy is rarely my friend, just as two wrongs don’t make a right, and someone disagreeing with someone who is wrong is not thereby correct.

Sad times for the most beautiful political experiement/culture in history - the American Revolution of Self-Responsibility and Individual Rights.

I tried to keep an open mind going in. I have a good friend who is working hard to pass Proposition A — the $450 Million Public School Repair/Upgrade Bond. A lot of his work brings him into and around the San Francisco Public School system. He urged me to support Prop A., even invited me to work on, and donate to, the campaign.

But I just can’t. Not when our school system is so rife with waste, mismanagement, shenanigans, and cronyism. And I don’t see that changing any time soon, unless perhaps if we stop shoveling money into the dysfunctional system (and it’s worth noting that San Francisco passed a $300 Million School Repair and Upgrade bond just 3 years ago. Where does it stop?)

I said to my friend, “we have to stop feeding the beast.” And he tried his best, but he couldn’t bring me over to his point of view. And the School Bond is perhaps he most compelling item on the ballot. The other stuff is just economic poison or political grandstanding — or both, in many cases. Force all employers to provide paid sick leave (Prop. F)? Say Buh-bye to jobs for San Franciscans (ahhh.. who needs ‘em, anyway?) Or how about Prop. H, which would force all landlords to increase the current $1,000 per tenant “relocation charge” for Owner Move-In or repair evictions to $4,500 per tenant (up to $22,500 per unit)? And people wonder why apartments are being converted into condos at a breakneck clip and nobody wants to build apartments here. Great for the few tenants who receive these exorbitant, extorted payments, very very bad for everybody else (including any tenants who are looking for a new place to rent.)

And on and on it goes.

In a way, the horrible crop of ballot propsitions will make it very easy to vote on November 7th. Just mark “NO” next to every San Francisco measure. Simple!

Below are the San Francisco Taxpayers Union ballot arguments. The SF Taxpayers Union is a worthy organization dedicated to injecting some restraint and some much-needed economic sanity into our turbulent and often screwy economic and political climate, so go here to sign up for their updates and information. They boldly assert: “San Franciscans pay enough to live and work in San Francisco without having our pockets picked every Election Day.”

Indeed. Here’s the SF Taxpayers Union:

Taxpayers Beware!

There they go again! Here are some good reasons to vote against everything and save your money:

Prop A - Another School Bond . . . . No

$450 million with no guarantee how it will be spent? We know they spent part of the 2003 bond on schools that were later closed and that most of this one will be spent on a disabilities lawsuit settlement, Until responsible people come up with a long-range spending plan, there are better uses for property taxes.

Prop. B - Supervisors Stay Home . . . . No

Taxpayers deserve the opportunity to confront the people who take and spend their money. Make them go to work like everyone else.

Prop C. - Politicians Get a Big Raise . . . . No

The Sheriff gets $55,000 more and the Mayor gets $40,000 more if this passes, plus all of the trickle down raises to staffers whose salaries are tied to elected officials – labor costs will skyrocket. There are no incentives for performance – they can do a lousy job and still get a raise.

Prop D. - Privacy Protection . . . . No

It’s one thing for the city to be uncooperative with the Federal Government, but it’s quite another to force city contractors to do the same. Another attack on business.

Prop E. - Higher Parking Taxes . . . . No

This 25% parking tax increase and 35% valet parking increase is not even going to MUNI - it’s going into the General Fund for the Mayor and Supes to spend as they will. Driving a car is already too expensive - save your money for gas.

Prop F. - Mandatory Paid Time Off . . . . No

Forcing small businesses to provide benefits without regard to whether doing so will drive them, their customers, or the taxes they generate to other cities is foolish..

Prop G. - Anti Formula Retail . . . . No

This will require a Planning Commission hearing for every new formula retail store (like Starbucks), and enable the Supes to ban them outright in more commercial districts. Just another anti-business and anti-taxpayer move.

Prop H. - Renter Relocation Benefits . . . . No

Property owners would be forced to pay thousands of dollars to renters [up to $22,500 per unit] for temporary relocation, even if they are repairing/improving their buildings for the renters’ benefit!

Prop I. - Fun and Games at City Hall . . . . No

While we agree it would be fun to watch the Mayor try to answer questions from the Board of Supervisors every month nonsense such as this belongs in a comedy routine, not on a ballot.

Prop J. - Impeach Bush/Cheney . . . . No

The Board of Supervisors needs to stay out of national and international debates. Ballot clutter like this costs tens of thousands of dollars for each proposition, money better spent on police officers and gardeners.

Prop K. - Feel Good Housing Policy . . . . No

A policy debate that belongs in Board chambers, not on the ballot.

Here’s more Berman on the subject (but do check out his book.)

Also…we blogged about Berman and the meaning of Iraq at awhile back.

Personally, I am thrilled that Bush is finally articulating this.

The narrative here is of how the combination of Hezbollah’s media management and modern photo-journalism has turned the recording of a tragic event into theatre, in the best tradition of Michael Moore.

As best we can, we have pieced together the jumble of evidence which surrounded the production of the iconic photographs which were published around the world, and put them in perspective. Many of the photographs have been used before, some are new to this site and others are video “grabs”. But it is not the pictures, per se, that tell the story, so much as their ordering and analysis. Make of this what you will, but I can assure you that you are not supposed to see them in this light.

The “story” - for that is what it is - starts here, in the wreckage of the buiding at Qana which is performing the temporary and unwholesome function of a morgue. It is from here, that the bodies are extracted, the essential props of this theatre. And standing on the left of the frame is one of the two star characters of our story, Mr “White Tee-Shirt”. With equal accuracy, though, we could call him Mr Hezbollah, for reasons which will become apparent [...]

As I have watched the press and media around the global warming issue, it reminds me heavily of this “McCarthyism” style of debate. I am watching every climatologist I am aware of who questions Gore’s (and the IPCC) data or agenda being written off as spurious or even malicious. This time, instead of “communism” these previously well-respected climatologists are smeared with “corporatism.” They lose funding, get their articles rejected without review, and become fodder for the “conspiracy” theorists in the global warming camp.

Gore regularly smears (meaning asserts without proof or context) the more prominent anti-global warming climatologists with “ties to oil interests” and “their work has been discredited.” This public comment gets reprinted thousands of times. Meanwhile, the scientists themselves question how and where their work has been discredited. They offer systematic defense of their work which are not published by the journals that publish their status as discredited.

What about the funding that these people get, and the political power and fame? Are those, perhaps, motivations that equal the supposed “oil” ties of anti-global warming hysteria?Alvin Gouldner pointed out that in Marx’s system of capitalists, workers, and landlords, he left out the intellectuals. By leaving them out of the equation (he happened to be one, go figure), Marx’s system leaves room for them to dominate the system, which they did and have. When we add them back into the equation, we see that the leaders of the communist revolutions have all been intellectuals, and those in power after the revolution as well.

In the same way, I question whether we might want to add “alarmists” to the political/scientific equation around global warming. Why is it that people are so quick to jump on Gore’s bandwagon? Why do they so easily write off those scientists who claim that the data does not lead to a preponderance of evidence for HUMAN impact on global warming? Why do they listen intently to scientists whose speciality is not climate but ignore the climatologists that dare to question Gore’s Claims? Why are they so easily led by those who use clearly ambiguous scientific reports to mean certain “proof” of their position?

And what are the source documents that the politicians and pundits use to “prove” their case? Upon what basis do they claim “scientific consensus?”Several critics point out the variation between the substance of major reports and the “summary findings” that end up in the conclusions, showing that the DATA suggests major uncertainty, but the summaries suggest that the issue is decided. Here are a couple examples cited by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.  http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597