The Present in Plain Text

100 years of Progress...

From Richard Russell via The Daily Reckoning comes this list:

HOW THINGS WERE DIFFERENT IN 1904

1. The average life expectancy in America was 47.
2. Only 14% of the homes in the U.S. had a bathtub.
3. 18% of American households had at least one full-time servant or domestic.Only 8% of the homes had a telephone.
4. A three-minute call from Denver to New York City cost $11.
5. Sugar cost $0.04/pound. Eggs were $0.14/dozen. Coffee cost $0.15/pound.
6. There were only 8,000 cars in the U.S. and only 144 miles of paved roads.
7. The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.
8. Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and Tennessee were each more heavily populated than California. With a mere 1.4 million residents, California was only the 21st most populated state in the Union.
9. The average wage in the U.S. was $0.22/hour.
10. The average American worker made between $200-$400/year.
11. A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000/year, a dentist $2,500/year, a veterinarian between $1,500-$4,000/year, and a mechanical engineer about $5,000/year.
12. More than 95% of all births in the U.S. took place at home.
13. 90% of all U.S. physicians had no college education. Instead, they attended medical schools, many of which were condemned in the press and by the government as "substandard."
14. The five leading causes of death in the US were:
    
1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart Disease
5. Stroke

15. The American flag had 45 stars. Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii and Alaska hadn't been admitted to the Union yet.
16 The population of Las Vegas, Nevada was 30.
17. One in ten American adults couldn't read or write.
18. Only 6% of all Americans had graduated from high school.
19. There were only about 230 reported murders in the entire U.S.

The worst part, of course, is that no matter how far we've come it has been in spite of government interference, not because of it.

Ta,

Political Addiction?

This morning from Bretigne Shaffer. There's little that I disagree with in the article, which is honest, passionate and personal. For her first offering it is quite a success. Ms. Shaffer rightly identifies not only the Catch-22 of political activism but the willful ignorance of those who wrongly believe they can alter natural law. I have felt many times exactly the way she does, and (honestly, in my heart of hearts) know that the problem is unsolvable. The other day I was at work driving to Jacksonville with some co-workers, neither of whom are Americans. One, who is Brazilian, asked me whether I watched any of the Democratic Convention the night before, to which I replied, "What? Caligula's Barn-Raising?!..." He looked at me for a second and I said simply, "That would be a 'Hell No!'" We then proceeded to discuss all manner of aspects of the political process, mostly with me ranting on for long stretches at a time. My Brazilian friend is nothing if not extremely polite and patient. I explained that there were always consequences to the actions we undertake, no matter how well-intentioned they are, and the dreams of the 'wide-eyed exuberant' young man in Ms. Shaffer's article fit this description. Just because we would like to solve a particular social ill does not mean that the passing of a law will achieve that end. I explained, in painstaking detail, how, for example, minimum wage laws or consumer safety laws harm the very people they are intending to protect, and worse, force them to pay for the enforcement of said laws that are limiting their employment and/or food options. I barely even scratched the surface of the secondary pressures of such laws on things like health care and the school system. My friend is a very smart man, and at one point he looked at me and said that it seemed to him that I was something like an anarchist. My reply to that was, "No, I'm not 'something-like an anarchist,' I'm just an anarchist." Then he good-naturedly called me a "Radical!" The conversation the turned to how can we make things work for everyone, because he had real fears of people's rights being trampled. He had listened seriously to my arguments and conceded that in many ways my analysis was correct but, was unwilling to cotton to the idea of a state-less society. I had my confirmation of his acceptance, in principle, of the problems inherent with government (and like all thoughtful individuals thought this was just another problem to be solved), when he said "There needs to be some government, so let's perfect it." My reply was simple, "To perfect the state, you must destroy it. " He started to tune me out at that point, thinking I wasn't listening. I salvaged the conversation by telling him that there's no way I'd want to grab control of the government and destroy it tomorrow, that would be irresponsible and dangerous. I continued by saying that the point of this conversation was to establish a philosophical principle, one that he had never encountered, as a guide-rope for policy decisions. By first doing this, then it is possible to plan a course of action to implement it. One of the many problems we Libertarians have in presenting our ideas to the public is that we spend the limited time/opportunity we do get establishing the philosophy and not offering ideas about implementation. If we leave that up to our listeners who are, as Mr. Shaffer astutely points out, addicted to the state, they will conjure up all sorts of hobgoblins and freak-show scenarios to justify their rejection of something so alien to them. This is a problem that the LP of Florida identified a couple of years ago and have begun instructing the candidates to focus on implementation and less on philosophy. In the end, Ms. Shaffer's conclusion is that we must break our addiction to the state. I agree. That is philosophy. Implementation, in my opinion, starts with removing yourself as much as possible from the state-controlled monetary system. Your money should be yours. The U.S. Dollar is controlled completely by the state. If you want to lessen the amount of power the U.S. Government wields over us and the rest of the world (and end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) , as an individual, the most effective thing you can do right now is to buy gold and silver. There is no way to control the Federal government as long as the Dollar is free from the natural discipline of an asset-backing. This is the source, the life-blood, of an Imperial Empire. Voting in this election for the only hard-money candidate, Libertarian, Michael Badnarik, is an ancillary action to achieve synergistic effects. The role of a Presidential campaign for people like us is Educational. It is about reaching as many people with the truth as possible. Electoral success, in my mind, is a distant second on the priority list. So, to Ms. Shaffer, I would say, don't give up hope, just understand what you good you could do within the context of the electoral process. Ta,

Rasmussen and the LWV

From California Politics Today comes the following two interviews (if you have time): Scott Rasmussen in explaining the ins and out of conducting polls. and Xandra Kayden of the LVW explaining what she thought of the poll Mr. Rasumussen's agency conducted. The issue here is that the League of Women Voters has set a threshold for inclusion into the California Senatorial Debates they're sponsoring of 10% in an 'independent poll.' Judge James Gray is the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate, who's running against Barbara Boxer and Bill Jones. Judge Gray would like to be included in those debates but has yet to poll high enough to satisfy the LVW. The other problem is that most (to my knowledge) polls the LVW would consider 'independent' refuse to include Judge Gray's name their candidate lists. His response was to pay the Rasmussen Polling Service $2000 for them to conduct a poll to determine what his level of support was currently. Judge Gray's numbers (which have now been widely reported) were 8%. There is no argument from anyone that 8% is greater than the 10% required by the LVW. The argument is in Ms. Kayden calling the poll a 'push' poll, and not an 'independent' poll. A statement which Mr. Rasmussen soundly rejected, and with good reason. You see, the main point Ms. Kayden used to defend her position was that the poll included questions regarding specific issues that put Judge Gray in a favorable position. If those questions were asked first then Ms. Kayden's assertion of the poll's invalidity would be accurate. The problem is that they were not, according to Mr. Rasmussen, who frankly has more to lose (like the major portion of his business that has nothing to do with politics, by the way) by lying about this than anyone else involved. The question pertaining to Judge Gray's support was asked first This was asked right after some general questions designed to get the most accurate result for ascertaining the support that Judge Gray currently has. Every question asked after that could be considered a 'push poll,' certainly, and that point is not being argued by anyone involved. In reality, the Gray campaign paid to get some more feedback about issues so that they could better focus their strategies in the coming months. Push polling (for those who don't have 30 minutes to listen to all of Mr. Rasmussen's comments) is the process of cold-calling a significant portion of the electorate to influence the outcome of an election. The questions are inherently misleading and designed to put the opponent in the worst light possible. I've been push polled before, during the last presidential election season by the Democratic Party, and the questions asked by the Rasmussen agency were not of that variety. Ms. Kayden's assertions of the poll's invalidity are specious at best, and conspiratorial at worst. Considering the League's position, historically, vis a vis Progressive Politics, I'm not surprised. What was suppressing was the level of support judge Gray had. Again, this bodes well for the future of LP politics this election season. With a little luck and a lot more hard work, there may be a few more suppresses in store come this November. Ta,

Super Majority Want a Choice!

According to Rasmussen Reports 68% of Americans would like to see Michael Badnarik participate in the Presidential debates this fall.   This is absolutely flabbergasting news from my standpoint.  It implies a great deal of either name or party recognition that has not been there previously.  It is my imperfect memory's belief that the numbers were not nearly that good in a similar poll conducted in 2000 for Harry Browne. 

Now, to be fair, Rasmussen seriously over-estimated Browne's support in the last campaign, so some amount of NaCl should be sprinkled over these results, along with any other general caveats to people's frustration.  And, honestly, I distrust the 3% general support for Badnarik more than the Debate support, simply because the MoE is reported to be 3%, meaning it is still technically statistical noise, albeit louder noise than we normally receive. 

If (and hopefully when) that general support number pushes past 5%, then we know we are really going to have an effect on this election.  Regardless, this news is quite encouraging for us activists who spend an inordinate amount of time trying to make a difference. 

If these numbers can be confirmed by Zogby or, shock, Gallup, then there might actually be some untapped momentum that can be generated coming into November.  My hope is not only will Badnarik get enough votes to rate a sincere mention on the national election but sweep up our congressional and state legislature candidates to higher vote totals, and (dare to dream) electoral success.

Guys like Walt Augustinowicz, Frank Gonzalez, and Jerry Cameron will have a much easier time getting elected in Florida with a strong showing from Badnarik.  The goal is synergy, and if this report from Rasmussen shows anything, it's that we are in the early stages of that synergy happening.  Now, it's just a matter of paying it off, and pushing even harder. 

Ta,

 

HHH Institute Poll Results...

While the final numbers in the three states (IA, MN, WI) covered by this poll are similar to what we saw during the Browne campaign of 2000 what is much more interesting is the professed willingness to consider a Third Party candidate by those voters.

Over 70% of Independent/Undecided voters at this point would consider voting for a third party!!!  That's the good news, but going a little deeper into the numbers is more worrisome for someone like Badnarik.  Most Und/Int's favor Government Control of Health Care (nearly 8 in 10),  and the same level of, if not more, gun control.  This screams votes for Ralph Nader/David Cobb rather than for Badnarik.  Of course, they're really confused, IMO, as they'd prefer a more fiscally-conservative approach to things.  Obviously the voters who took this poll did not think through how to pay for the Government-Provided Health Care.  Perhaps that's why they are so 'undecided.'

On the subject of Troops in Iraq the news is better for Mike and the Libertarians, with a majority of Und/Int's wanting to see the number of troops there Decreased.  What's interesting to note is that there is very little ambivalence in these groups on this issue with less than 3% answering 'Don't Know'.  Therefore, this seems to be the tact that Badnarik and local libertarians need to take.  Stay away from Health Care if at all possible, even though it was identified as the third most important 'Single Voting Issue' for the sample group as a whole. 

Interestingly, there seems to be a pattern in that those who are 'undecided' tend to lean more towards statism than those who were identified as 'Independents.'   Fewer undecided voters favored 'Cutting Taxes' and 'Free Trade' than independents did.    

In terms of single issue strategies the two biggies are truly 'The Economy' and 'Iraq.'  Nearly half of Urban voters identified these 2 as the most important issues, with little to no equivocation.  The People in the cities of these three states have their priorities.  Again, we need to pound the Iraq War as an issue.  It needs to be made abundantly clear by both the Badnarik Campaign and the Congressional/State Legislature candidates in these states that the Libertarians are the only real Anti-War/Pro-Economic Freedom Choice.  Focus on these issues and don't get side-tracked on explaining 5 thousand years of intellectual progress.  That stuff is for between the campaigns. 

In the suburbs the choice of issues isn't so clear, though the Economy dominates (27.5%) over the other issues, with the next 4 all receiving similar weight in the minds of these voters, which are Iraq, Health Care, Terrorism and Education.  That a great many IND/UND's prefer less Federal involvement in Education we should focus on that and again stay away from Health Care.
 
Gay marriage is a distraction to these people, as is abortion.  Focus on the things that matter.  Their pocketbooks and their security.  Make the inextricable link between the two, and get their votes. 

Lastly, it comes as no surprise to me that the numbers overall for our support are the highest in Wisconsin where, in 2002, Ed Thompson ran a wonderful campaign for Governor.  Use that base he built to 'budge that needle.'  Nearly 4 in 10 voters in all three states care most about 'The Economy' and 'Iraq', and on these two points both Bush and Kerry are extremely vulnerable. 

There is significant voter apathy in these states with a strong anti-incumbent bent.  We have to grab some of them and hold on tight.

Ta,

 

Spidey Follow Up

Upon further review of Jeffrey Tucker's article on LRC this morning I would like to clarify that the problem with the article was the premise that there is a Marxist structure to Spiderman's story.   The purpose of my comments was to point out that I didn't think that there were such inherent structures in the Spiderman's milieu.  The fact that marxists embrace him is irrelevant.    A couple of other points to admire about Spiderman II:

• Peter's problems all stem from his decision to keep his secret at all costs.  Because he refuses to be honest with anyone (namely Harry Osborne and MJ), and takes on responsibilities that are not his to bear, those around him work from incomplete information (or a lack of an adequate pricing model for their emotions, to put it in Austrian-speak) and set in motion things that no one could forsee.  The unintended consequnces of good intentions.  Sound Familiar?
• Doc Ock's story is similar to Peter's in that he's attempting to do more than he is truly capable of handling because he erroneously believes he has a higher calling and a greater responsibility than others do, by virtue of his genius.  Well intentioned?  Yes.  Hubristic? Absolutely.  It is this hubris which gets twisted into something dangerous. 

One last thing I'd like to point out about this movie.  My wife and I have worked at writing a screenplay.  It is damn difficult work.  The quality of our work is irrelevant to this discussion, but whenever we watch a film now it gets looked at from the PoV of apprentice screenwriters who are seeking to improve their work.

When the end credits began to roll on Spidey II, my wife turned to me and said, "You know, the stories don't have to be deep.... They just have to be good."

Spiderman II was a damn good story.  It set up it's punchline perfectly, "Isn't it about time someone saved your life?"  And at this point in my life it gets my highest praise I can give a film which is, "Now that's a story I wish I'd written."

Hubristic?  Prolly.

Ta,

 

LRC on Spidey II

The nattily-dressed Jeffrey Tucker tries valiantly to make points this morning on LewRockwell.com about marxist subtexts in Spiderman II , but unfortunately, he fails miserably.  The first half of the article painfully tries to make the point that Peter Parker's life is a study in class struggle, when in reality Jeffrey conveniently avoids the real issue, which is that Peter Parker chooses to not exploit his powers for egregious personal gain, both because of the harm it would do to those he loves (if anyone ever found out who, in fact, he was) and out of a sense of responsibility ('With great power comes great responsibility').  Where Peter makes the marxist choice is in deciding unilaterally that those who love and care for him can't help him wage his war on the murderers and thieves of NYC.  He makes their choices for them, and suffers the same consequences as any real-life central planner who has assumed responsibilities that are not his... There's a chronic shortage of the commodity in demand, i.e. Peter's time.    The first act of Spidey II is a brilliant illustration of the economic principle of time-preference, something that Mister Tucker misses entirely, and much to his argument's distress and chagrin.  Peter has made the decision to take it all upon himself without setting any priorities.  He has to work, fight crime as Spidey, go to college (and he's not studying sociology, but physics, you know, a real science that demands real attention), and keep up his relationships with friends and family.  There simply isn't enough Peter Parker to go around and this is a lesson that he has to learn.      His analysis of Mary Jane Watson is really strained:  

Mary Ann's face appears on thousands of advertisements all over the city – she is beautiful after all – but even her act of image commodification doesn't somehow pay the bills. Her face is merely exploited in the service of consumer vanity and corporate greed. As a way out, she considers marrying "up" by attaching herself to some handsome young society man, but we discover later that he is the son of a newspaper editor who himself is probably one generation away from proletarian roots, and she doesn't love him anyway. Her true love is Peter, who embraces his class identity.

First off, Mary Jane has no trouble paying the bills.  It is Mr. Tucker's imagination that Mary Jane is beig exploited by consumer vanity and corporate greed.  More importantly character-wise is that Mary Jane was explicitly rejected by Peter Parker in the previous film.  A moment that broke her heart.  Mary Jane has been presented as an actress (not just professionally) Her arc in the first film was to finally realize that being herself was not only possible but preferable and the only time she can accomplish this simple task is when she is with Peter Parker.  It is Mary Jane's success as a model/actress that affords her the opportunity to meet a real-life superhero, astronaut John Jameson, which suggests a retardation of the growth she exhibited in the first film; in essence falling back on her school-girl crush on Spiderman.  The inclusion of the Oscar Wilde play may have more to do with commenting on Mary Jane's current situation than any class struggle.  The fact that Mary Jane refuses to let Peter fall into the self-destructive trap of over-reaching his responsibilities underscores the strength of the character making her worthy of being his partner.    This article is living proof that libertarians should not try and think like Marxists, it's so alien to them they do it badly.   Peter's arc, in this film, now that he has accepted the responsibility of Spiderman, is to place it in a context where he can succeed maximally.  In economic terms, Peter has to learn the Division of Labor.  He's good at being Spiderman and saving other people, she's a proven breadwinner.  Each has leveraged their strengths to their advantage and combining them (at the end of the movie) means that each is that much stronger.   This was a voluntary transaction.   Another misinterpretation by Mr. Tucker:  

As for Spiderman's choice – he can give up his superhero status and marry the love of his life, or he can dedicate himself to his calling above all else – is merely the re-rendering of the mythical professional revolutionary of socialist lore. In the stories told on the left, history is filled with great heroes who gave up private pleasure to dedicate themselves to the cause of bending history toward its rightful path: Marx, Lenin, Che, et al

This is a non-choice that Peter has created himself, and that Mary Jane dispels when she confronts him in his apartment.  Again, this is about making choices for other people.  Peter made Mary Jane's choice for her, which is not his right to make.    "Isn't it about time someone saved your life?" Mary Jane asks him.  The entire movie is about Peter accepting the rewards from other for his selfless acts as Spiderman.  He gives it up in Act II because he doesn't see the benefit to himself.  In other words, he's not willing to be destroyed by his calling even though it is truly what he wants to do.   If anything Peter's guilt over the death of his uncle is just more of the same problem.  He's assuming responsibility for something that he didn't cause.  He didn't shoot his uncle.  His only crime was in not being able to see the future.  Peter did the right thing in letting the thief go, the owner of the wrestling pit deserved what he got.  It was not Peter's fight.  Just because that decision led to a terrible thing for Peter and his uncle does not make the former decision the wrong one.  Peter assumes a responsibility that is not his, and, in effect, becomes Spiderman for the wrong reasons, to right the wrong done to his uncle and a misguided sense that because he has these powers he must use them for the good of all.  It is only after he's given up being Spiderman and confessing his role in Ben's death can he come back to his calling with a clear conscience and the right frame of mind.   There's a big difference between wanting to be Spiderman and having to be Spiderman.  Peter is really no different than anyone else, he wants to have his cake and eat it too. 

What's irritating about all of this is that there's plenty of marxism being paraded in front of us daily from the hacks in Hollywood, it does a disservice to libertarian and Austrian thought to see marxist hobgoblins where there really aren't.  I don't discount the idea of a class-struggle subtext in Spiderman II, but in my opinion, it seems more to be a product of Mr. Tucker's bias than textually consistent. 
 
Now, that being said, his analysis of Spiderman's role as metaphor for the incompetence of public-security providers, namely police and fire, is spot on, and I encourage those reading this to skip the first half of the article and just read the second. 
 
Personally, I think the filmmakers did quite the admirable job of teaching a central tenet of Austrian Economics, namely time preference,  and how Peter comes to terms with this.   This film is more about busting the myths of central planning than reinforcing them.  Peter's struggles are of his own devising and come from him making uneconomic decisions and forsaking the community he has pledged himself (willingly, because he has the right skill-set) to protect.  His journey is one of purging socialist baggage not being a slave to it.
 
Ta,

 

Fundraising and Political Success

Bruce Cohen, LP Congressional candidate has this to say on his website:

At this point in the game, fellow candidates, there are only two things that can budge the needle:

1. Earned Media.
2. Paid Media.

Anything else you do is just a distraction. No amount of bumper stickers, signs, refrigerator magnets or brochures will make the tiniest dent in your opponents vote totals.

Bruce goes on to make some very good points about why money is needed and that becoming a good fundraiser is part of being a good candidate, all of which I agree with.  But, the basic premise of the article is wrong.
 
Money doesn't win you a campaign until you've got the name recognition and political power base to make a difference.    money without those things is wasted money.  Period.  If you're in a three-way race and polling 15%, then media advertising will make a difference in your vote totals, you could break from 15% to 25%.  If you're at 1% you'll budge that needle alright... All the way up to 1.5 or 2%.  That's the cold truth.  We've seen it in the LP dozens of times, and have lost good candidates because of burnout and disappointment.   We nearly lost a candidate/activist in Florida last year because he wanted the State Party to show support and throw some amount of money his way because he was under the illusion he could win, when in truth he was just laying a foundation for future runs for office.   BTW, the story has a happy ending and he is a candidate again, this time around. 

Where I'm from, Gainesville Fl/Alachua County, I saw personally how you can 'budge the needle' with very little money.  In 2002, Darrell McCormick ran for Alachua County Commission as a Libertarian.  Nearly his entire campaign consisted of him ( and a couple of volunteers) standing on busy intersections in and around Gainesville during morning and evening rush hours with signs.   He ended with 8.05% of the vote in a three-way race.  For a county with 0.35% Libertarian registration, and the general consensus being that he would get 1-2%, that was definitely 'budging the needle.'   BTW, Darrell did no print or TV advertising for the campaign.  But, he succeeded in getting his name in front of thousands of eyeballs every day, multiple times, and when it came time to vote for someone, the undecided's, presumably, remembered Darrell and blacked in his bubble.  
Ed Braddy won his Gainesville City commission seat by walking his district twice during his campaign.  He won handily on the first ballot and the newspapers barely covered his campaign.

Bruce's argument and article is persuasive but also disingenuous and counter-productive.  The Badnarik campaign is not a national one, it is thousands of local campaigns staffed by local activists.  Whatever they do (short of getting arrested/embarrassing Badnarik or the LP) to get his name in front of people is a great thing, and worthwhile in terms of time invested.  Grassroots politics works just fine when you consider the long-term picture.  We are not campaigning for any one LP candidate when we're out there doing what we do.... We're campaigning for the candidate that will come along and be able to win because of the work of those before him. 
 
Personally, I don't think Mike Badnarik is that candidate, though I fervently wish here were.  Mike's a great guy and a shining example that it doesn't take money or advertising to win an election.    But, Mike campaigned for 15 months to be the candidate to help build the party, strengthen it's internal structure, and I believe he succeeded in doing so.   The key to his success was not flash-in-the-pan style tactics. It was a slow, steady presence that built through time.  His hard work won him the respect of enough delegates to eventually win the nomination.  Hard work is what wins elections. 
 
Here in Florida we've told all of our prospective candidates that they must run 3 times, at a minimum, to win.   They have to do the very hard work of following up on their contacts between elections, joining local organizations, volunteering for citizen's advisory boards and the like.  But, most importantly, they need to connect personally with as many citizens in their districts as possible.  Guys like, my friend, Bill VanAllen in Sarasota have done just that.  I have not and it is why am a blogger and not a candidate this time around.    People vote for people they know.  And no knowledge is better than personal knowledge.  Advertising is suspect on that point in particular and a political strategy based on it will fail. 
 
It's easy to pay the qualifying fee or put an ad in a newspaper. 
It's easy to write an article in a local newspaper.  
It's easy to call into the local talk-radio show and pimp yourself
It's easy to give a speech at a political rally where 75% of the attendees are candidates/party officials.
 
But,
 
It's hard to stand on a street corner and shake people's hands.
It's hard to ask them to sign a ballot-access petition
It's hard hold a go door to door and ask people to vote for you
It's hard to pick up a phone and ask people to contribute to your campaign (point in Bruce's favor)
 
So, therefore, a bumper sticker here, a group on a street corner there, a booth at the local arts festival somewhere else.  These are the things that will lay the foundation for the advertising you may or may not do.  Fund-raising is important, and having raised money does give you legitimacy in the eyes of newspaper editors but it will not create electoral success without an organization to follow up on it.   Otherwise, and this point is the most salient, the money spent will be wasted, and could have been much better spent in other ways.
 
Locally, I've made it plain that the Alachua County Libertarian Party needs to be out on street corners campaigning for Badnarik and our Florida House Candidates, Brooks Nelson (Dist 22) and Ray Roberts (Dist. 23).   My personal goal in Alachua county is to get three times the number of registered libertarians in Alachua county to vote for Badnarik...which is currently 488, so around 1500 votes.  That would be over 1.2%  and unheard of for a Libertarian Presidential Candidate.  Darrell McCormick, Brooks, Ron Johnson, John McElligott, Grier Ellis, myself and my wife, Camille, all gave people in this area a chance to vote for a libertarian in 2002, getting them over the biggest hurdle, actually voting for someone other than an R or D.  Now, we follow that up.

Remember, it is the illusion of support that creates the kinds of vote totals we see.   Advertising certainly helps aid that illusion but it is cerntainly not the ony path to creating/maintaining one.
 
Ta,

Soy is Poison.

From mothering.com this morning by way of lewrockwell:

The process of making soy protein isolate (SPI) begins with defatted soybean meal, which is mixed with a caustic alkaline solution to remove the fiber, then washed in an acid solution to precipitate out the protein. The protein curds are then dipped into another alkaline solution and spray-dried at extremely high temperatures. SPI is then often spun into protein fibers using technology borrowed from the textile industry. These refining processes remove "off flavors," "beany" tastes, and some of the worst flatulence-producing components. They improve digestibility, but vitamin, mineral, and protein quality are sacrificed, and levels of carcinogens such as nitrosamines are increased.17-22 SPIs appear in so many products that consumers would never guess that the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) decreed in 1979 that the only safe use for SPIs was for sealers for cardboard packages.{23}

Yummy... I always thought the packing paenuts made from Potato starch tasted good with a little salt, but now, I know that I can not only order a book from Amazon but lick the package it came in, for a little more of that 'beany' goodness. *sigh*

That's just one of the many reasons to stay away from Soy. The part that I find really amusing is that most of the people I know who rail against FrankenFoods and the like buy this stuff at the local supermarket by the ton, with the expressed goal of being healthier, and presumably (judging by the terms in which these things are discussed) being closer to a higher plane of existence.

We shouldn't eat cows because the nasty cattle farmers use antibiotics and hormones. So, the alternative is to fry up something, in soybean oil (as opposed to lard), that was made using industrial processes that I barely understand and I have a B.S. in chemisty, all the while decrying corporate America for every ill under the sun, forgetting that it was ADM (and the subsidies thereof from FedGov) that produced the very stuff they're putting in their mouths, along with the 'research' that proves why they should be eating it.

Ta,

Okay... Goldberg's Just Plain Nuts!!!

Here's another gem of unstructured incoherence masquerading as cogent commentary from Jonah Goldberg at Townhall.com

Essentially he disagrees with Bush about why we needed to get rid of Saddam but that doing so was a good idea. He never actually states where Bush was wrong vis a vis his own policy, just that Goldberg "saw the case for the invasion of Iraq slightly differently than Bush did."

He then goes on to comment that the architects of the invasion could only agree on one reason why the U.S. should invade Iraq and oust Saddam.... WMD's. So, that's why it was presented the way it was. That and Tim Russert. When that reason turns out to be horribly untrue, no matter, Saddam still needed removing, because, well you know he might, one day, you never know get his hands on enough uranium to kill a couple of people.

Oh, and I love this part:

Still, if you assume that the prewar status quo was permanently sustainable, we would probably be safer if Saddam were still in power, murdering thousands of his own people, rewarding suicide bombers in Israel, and cheering al-Qaida (Saddam publicly applauded the 9/11 attacks, if you recall).

Which, in essence admits that we would have been better off not spending billions of dollars, forcibly extracted at gunpoint or created out of thin air bringing us to the edge of currency collapse, and hundreds of lives on an ouster of a bad guy.

His list of things that would still be in effect if Saddam was still in power is even more laughable:

First, murdering thousands of Iraqis... Now we have open warfare all over the country. Hmm.... okay, so I guess it's better that the killings have been decentralized. That's an argument only a Randian could love.

Second, rewarding suicide bombers in Israel. AFAIK point in Goldberg's favor... But, if they're suicide bombers, what do you reward them with? Statues? Flowers?

Third, Cheering on Al Qaida... hmmm, last I checked that's not something you can't do from a jail cell. Go 'Sama.... Go 'Sama...

Putz.

The worst part about this is that, ultimately, Goldberg can't make a case about invading Iraq without resorting to WWII analogies. Worse, he extends it in time to the Truman/Ike years saying we were less safe then but are more safe now. If we, as the grandchildren of the Greatest Generation are so safe now, why did we have to invade Iraq in the first place, I thought Grandpa kicked ass all over the Huns and the Nips for that precise reason?

Honestly, shills like Goldberg have no soul and less shame. Thankfully, there's still enough of a semblance of a free market in this country that I'm not forced to read his drivel as he spews it forth, only on those occasions when I want to work up a really good 'outrage' and remind myself of why I'm better than he is.

Also, as I'm new to this whole blogging-in-public thing I needed an easy target.

Ta,