The strangest thing about Ron Paul and next year's election is that he's the only candidate whose supporters seem excited about his candidacy.

Everyone I've met who supports Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, etc. is either clearly into politics as a career, or resigned to voting for the one barely adequate candidate.

Posted November 12, 2007 9:28 AM by Dom

Yeah, I've been *wondering* why otherwise reasonable people have been putting Ron Paul links in their forum and email signatures. The whole 'he's a liberal republican' logic has been a head-scratcher to me ever since I learned his position on abortion.

(he claims that in his years as an OB-GYN, he never had a patient who needed an abortion for medical reasons, and that therefore there's no such thing. I'm not even sure where to start on that).

Posted November 12, 2007 9:32 AM by annalee flower horne

This seems a typical pattern of American politics -- seize upon a single attribute of a candidate (e.g. Kinky Friedman is funny! Har, har!) and ignore their, you know, actual agenda. I suppose it's a combination of media laziness looking for synecdoche, and candidates intentionally hiding views they know the mainstream will abhor.

(Having said that, and not wanting to divert the conversation too much, but I believe that, slightly modified, the Electoral College is highly preferable to a national direct election. So I can't fault Paul for that.)

Thanks for doing the good work to point out the substance. I have to think that Paul doesn't stand any real chance, though, does he? Hard to imagine him breaking past the five candidates ahead of him.

Posted November 12, 2007 9:35 AM by Alex Cohen

annalee flower horne @ 2

and that therefore there's no such thing. I'm not even sure where to start on that).

I'd start with the Hippocratic Oath That fact that Ron Paul is ignoring basic medical ethics first propounded more than 2,000 years ago makes him an ultra-conservative rather than a moderate.

Posted November 12, 2007 9:45 AM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

I can't get past misreading him as 'Ru Paul'.

Posted November 12, 2007 9:46 AM by xeger

Thank you for posting that last link. I asked about him on my LJ and all I got were comments along the lines of "he's horrible" with nothing to explain why.

Posted November 12, 2007 10:09 AM by Linda Lindsey

I'd start with the Hippocratic Oath

Which bit? "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy." Sounds like he's upholding it, not ignoring it.

Posted November 12, 2007 10:11 AM by Adrian Smith

The whole 'he's a liberal republican' logic has been a head-scratcher to me ever since I learned his position on abortion.

Libertarian Republican. Completely different animal.

Posted November 12, 2007 10:16 AM by Sean O'Hara

Please don't let Ron Paul and his supporters define the words liberty or freedom, or let him make those an embarassment to the rest of us.

Posted November 12, 2007 10:23 AM by Brian Sniffen

Everyone I've talked to who supports Ron Paul is mesmerized by the white hot, phosphorescent glow of him being an Anti-War Republican. The glare from that shuts down their brains and they just seem not to notice that he's just as much an authoritarian as Giuliani, only serious about the religious nonsense. And he wants to return the Gold Standard. You'd think that right there would tip people off to the fact that the man should be outfitted for comfy pajamas and a Thorazine drip, not sizing up the Oval Office.

But when it comes to Republican candidates, he's the stopped clock that's right twice a day. Why people think this is a good thing rather than a sign of our screwed up political process and the warped values of the GOP still baffles me.

Posted November 12, 2007 10:49 AM by Keith

I think a lot of people are fascinated by candidates who say outrageous things, since most candidates are utterly scripted. The McCain boomlet was fueled by that. In Paul's case I suspect there's a bit of "I have libertarian sympathies, and he says he's a libertarian" as well.

No question that a lot of Republicans agree with his views on church-state separation, which doesn't seem like a very libertarian position to me.

Posted November 12, 2007 10:51 AM by DaveL

Ron Paul is Ross Perot without the bad haircut. Just like Ross, everyone wants to sleep with him, but no one will want to marry him.

Posted November 12, 2007 10:57 AM by Steve C.

FWIW, I've never found myself crossing up Ron Paul and Ru Paul.

Instead, my mental circuitry usually supplies "Wrong Paul".

Posted November 12, 2007 11:11 AM by A.J.

But I'd totally vote for RuPaul!

Posted November 12, 2007 11:15 AM by A.J. Luxton

I'm going to be seeing Ron Paul tomorrow evening. Any questions you want me to ask him?

Posted November 12, 2007 11:37 AM by James D. Macdonald

Jim:

ask him, when he dismantles the Department of Education, if he'll also reinstate child labor, as otherwise, what will we do with all those kids?

and a follow up:

When we're back on the Gold Standard and our economy collapses, will he regret all those outsourced American manufacturing jobs or will he just chalk up the crushing poverty to the caprices of the Invisible Hand?

Posted November 12, 2007 11:51 AM by Keith

James #15: I'd love for him to explain his continuing close connections to racist organizations such as Stormfront and the Taft Club, and of course the Patriot movement. Not that I expect that to slow down his avid supporters much, but it might give folks who would otherwise plunge into that group some pause. (Add'l reference)

Thanks.

Posted November 12, 2007 11:55 AM by Bruce Adelsohn

James, sure:

1) Does he support Cheney being investigated in an impeachment inquiry?

2) Does he support retroactive telecom immunity for illegal wiretapping?

3) Does he support continued funding to Musharraf and why (either way)?

4) Who does he think represents the top 3 or 4 threats to the US and again, why?

Posted November 12, 2007 11:55 AM by Kevin Hayden

Ron Paul is so far outside of normal democratic and republic ideas it is difficult to believe that anyone on either side supports him. He also needs to read a little history...the pilgrims didn't celebrate Christmas...so if he is basing his ideas based on those early Americans he's wrong.

Posted November 12, 2007 12:06 PM by Anne

Ask him where shrimp appears in the Constitution as a power granted to the Federal government.

Most hard-core libertarians would read the list linked to above and mostly say "Good for him!" This one, however, is going to may the libertarians queasy.

Posted November 12, 2007 12:14 PM by Alan Hamilton

Keith,

The Department of Education was created in 1979. I strongly doubt eliminating it will mean a return to child labor in this country, considering that child labor became (mostly) illegal in 1938 with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Posted November 12, 2007 12:24 PM by Marty Busse

Speaking of things you wish you knew the name for, is there a word for people who are actually libertarians? Because the big L Libertarians have done a great job of attaching the definition "wingnut you would never want to let near government office" to the word.

Posted November 12, 2007 12:59 PM by Matt Jarpe

Interesting, this appears to be Ron Paul day on my friends list.

Here's an interesting (damning, from my POV) collection of his legislative history here.

His 2008 campaign web site looks mostly unobjectionable, but he gives off vibes of reactionary repressive wingnutism, so I'm not surprised there's all this stuff in his history.

Posted November 12, 2007 1:00 PM by David Dyer-Bennet

Marty @21:

Oh, I know, but child labor suites the Libertarian/ Dikensian outlook of life as it is lived in Ron Paul's inner 19th century novel.

I'm sure part of his platform also involves that damn Carnegie and his steel monopoly, not to mention keeping an eye on those wily Germans, these new fangled horseless carriages and various and sundry legislation to control the popularity of gramophone recordings.

Though, by his interest in Letters of Marque and Reprisal, perhaps he's also concerned about pirates, so there's no telling how far back in time he's traveling. Were he to take residence in the White House, he might call for a Declaration of Independence from the British Empire or a meeting of the Algonquin Round Table.

Posted November 12, 2007 1:15 PM by Keith

What happened to "East Ham?"

Posted November 12, 2007 1:27 PM by Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey

Everyone I've met who supports Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, etc. is either clearly into politics as a career, or resigned to voting for the one barely adequate candidate.

Dom at #1: I don't agree. I've met quite a few people in my area who are hopeful and even passionate about Obama. Of course, I live 10 miles or so northeast of the People's Republic of Berkeley. Folks there get passionate about trash collection.

Posted November 12, 2007 1:40 PM by Lizzy L

One of the stated reasons for going to war in Iraq was to "bring democracy and stability" to the region. (See here for a 2003 statement).

I don't want to argue (especially on this forum) as to whether or not this stated reason is valid or true. What I do want to point out is that this is a variant of "making the world safe for democracy" which was a liberal / Democratic Party policy from 1918 to at least 1963.

Ron Paul's opposition to the war is rooted in the idea that we shouldn't be interefering in the affairs of other countries unless they attack us, or at least attack "critical national interests." This was Republican Party policy from, well, 1918 to 2002. For example, Republicans argued against intervention in Bosnia, stating that Bosnia wasn't a critical interest.

So Ron's popularity in Republican circles is partially because he's one of the few people advocating "old school" principles.

It's ironic that what was an old school Republican principle is now becoming a new school Democratic one.

Posted November 12, 2007 1:45 PM by Chris Gerrib

Keith:

Perhaps you could replace all these comments with a blanket "I don't like libertarianism," and be done? I really don't get how you link Ron Paul to authoritarianism, and the child labor comment would fit a Rush Limbaugh show.

I like Kevin's questions at #18. Another really good question to ask would involve global warming, as this is the sort of thing libertarianism doesn't handle well. Like:

"Assume that you've been convinced by the evidence that human-caused global warming by CO2 emissions is a real phenomenon, and that it's poised to cause the kind of problems that are predicted now by global warming activists. What would you do, as president, to address this?"

Another interesting question is what effect he thinks his proposed changes in foreign policy will have, short term. Even if you accept (I do) that a much less activist, interventionist foreign policy will be good in the long run, I worry about the instability we'd see short-term, as countries that are presently deterred from bad behavior by the threat of our intervention suddenly find themselves free to do what they like.

Posted November 12, 2007 1:51 PM by albatross

Paul must have reached Serious Contender status if Making Light is, well, making light of him.

Posted November 12, 2007 2:15 PM by JonathanMoeller

Wow. That Orcinus post is really something. I'd been aware that Paul had some crazy opinions, but I hadn't realized just how deep the crazy went.

Posted November 12, 2007 2:24 PM by Avram

I think it's funny that secularists are somehow organized enough to wage an ongoing war against not just one religion, but every single religion out there.

Indifference isn't a battle plan. I've sat through a couple homilies about how society hates religion, and I still roll my eyes.

It's not a war, or hatred. It's 'indifference'. I reckon that's about the most dangerous thing faith can face.

Hm. "Culture has become completely indifferent to religion!" seems to be less of a rallying cry. Also, when people stop caring about religion in culture, it's usually because of the religion, not because of the culture.

I hope Ron Paul wins the republican nomination, if only because he's going to guarantee a win for the Democratic candidate, and thusly America.

Posted November 12, 2007 2:44 PM by jmmcdermott

The Department of Education was created in 1979.

You are technically correct (the best kind of correct). However, what happened in 1979 wasn't the creation of a brand new department but a reorganization of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (which was created in 1953) into two departments, Health & Human Services, and Education.

Posted November 12, 2007 2:48 PM by Sean O'Hara

My libertarian friends are going apeshit over Ron Paul.

Of course, I've been disillusioned with libertarianism since 1980, when the movement rallied en masse behind the presidential candicacy of a brutal dictator who had gassed his own people.

Posted November 12, 2007 2:57 PM by Alan Bostick

Although he seems a bit less likely to commit genocide than most of the other candidates, there are three critical strikes against Ron Paul:

1. He wants to murder NASA.

2. He wants to murder Medicare (which would result in my untimely death).

3. He is anti-choice (and not just in a finicky states rightsy sort of way).

Too bad we can't cherry pick issues from different candidates and smoosh them together into a utopian frankencandidate.

Posted November 12, 2007 3:04 PM by Earl Cooley III

Sean,

Thanks for the correction.

I still don't see how eliminating the department will mean a return to child labor..even if it actually gets put into effect, since Congress would have to approve it. (Ronald Reagan swore to eliminate the Department of Education, and so did Newt Gingrich..and yet, it is still there. I think Paul is probably more sincere than either of those two, but I suspect most of his desires to get rid of government departments would not go too far in Congress.)

Posted November 12, 2007 3:08 PM by Marty Busse

jmmcdermott @31:

It's not a war, or hatred. It's 'indifference'. I reckon that's about the most dangerous thing faith can face.

Exactly! It's also very frustrating for the faithful's demands for Biblical righteousness and flowery prose to be met with a resounding shoulder shrug.

***

And albatross @28:

I don't like Libertarianism. I think it's silly, selfish, nearsighted, obtuse, quotidian and whole host of other adjectives. And seriously, if I can't make a Dickens joke here, then where can I?

To listen to Ron Paul speak is to realize he should be named Lord Harold Wattle and tutting about 19th century London, making merry hell for Nicholas Nickleby and obsessing about those damnable Chinamen and their opium.

Posted November 12, 2007 3:11 PM by Keith

Keith @ 24: I've seen some quite recent stories about piracy still taking place.

Posted November 12, 2007 4:17 PM by Seth Breidbart

The all-vegan, all-organic, darn-near-zero-waste fast food restaurant near my house (V. G. Burgers, yes, they're that cool) has been pushing Ron Paul's candidacy, which has me boggled. Maybe I'm just naive, but I thought that the very concept of "organic" as a meaningful term of labeling and communication between the industry and the consumer required too much government interference for a libertarian to support it. So why a small business that believes in organic practices with the fierce fires of a glowing Boulder idealism would support an anti-guvmint-reglation libertarian, I don't know. Maybe Ron Paul is more nuanced than that, or maybe he's fooled people into thinking he is.

But. Not quite the point. Point is, this place has flyers for him on their counters. I read one of 'em. Got a list of all these Great Things he'll work for. One of those things he'll work work, according to these flyers, is revoking "birthright citizenship" for the children of illegal immigrants.

Uncle Jim, you wanna ask him how he plans to do that, given that "born on U.S. soil = citizen" is spelled out right there in the Constitution? That's how Mr. Ron Paul became a citizen, I'm willing to bet. Does he really think he has enough support to amend that away? Will he replace "natural born" citizenship with "born to parents who are citizens" or will every baby need to be naturalized? And how much harder is he going to make the naturalization process, and for whom?

Does he mean to make citizenship easier to revoke, too?

See, having followed my friend's attempt to become naturalized after being a 19 year permanent visitor, and watched the FBI, Homeland Security, and INS give him the runaround, attempt to intimidate him in person, and what reasons they gave for denying his application (this is still in appeals)... I've come to some disturbing conclusions about what some people in our government would prefer to see in a U.S. Citizen. What they cite as reason to deny a naturalization application may point to reasons they might wish they could revoke citizenship from the rest of us. So I get nervous when I see anyone proposing changes to normal, everyday citizenship channels.

Posted November 12, 2007 4:33 PM by Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

Dom, #1: "The strangest thing about Ron Paul and next year's election is that he's the only candidate whose supporters seem excited about his candidacy."

It's only the third-party candidates who can take real stands; the geographic coalition system that wins elections in the USA makes most major party candidates desperately try to be all things to all men & women.

Still supporting the IRV, here.

Posted November 12, 2007 4:33 PM by Randolph Fritz

Seth Breidbart @37: I've seen some quite recent stories about piracy still taking place.

Sure, off the coast of Somalia, which is a tragedy. But until the Jolly Roger flies once more over Port Royal, not a real issue at stake in US political horse races.

Posted November 12, 2007 4:51 PM by Keith

I can't help it - you people who are so anti-child labor are ridiculous. It's easy to sit up in your towers and judge. How many of you have ever been to an impoverished nation? I have, and if it weren't for child labor, those children would starve. But I guess then they wouldn't have to work.

You talk about children earning their keep, like it's a bad thing. You people just sound elitist. You're the type of people who advocate a minimum wage. Well if a minimum wage is so beneficial, why don't we just make it a million dollars per year? Then we could all be millionaries, and there would be no poverty.

Of course, it is ridiculous because all it would really do is create unemployment for anyone not worth a million dollars per year. But that is exactly what happens now. Minimum wage creates unemployment for the people why can least afford it. Child labor laws are no different.

I am voting for Ron Paul because he is willing to do the one thing that no other politician is willing to do. Decrease the power of the Federal Government and the Executive Branch in particular. Every other candidate with a halfway descent shot at nomination wants to grow the Federal Government, and grow the power of the executive branch. I vote for Paul because I am anti-monopoly, and no monopoly represents the threat today like the territorial monopoly on juisdiction and taxation held by our un-Constitutional Federal Government.

Posted November 12, 2007 4:51 PM by rhys

Matt Jarpe @ #22: Speaking of things you wish you knew the name for, is there a word for people who are actually libertarians? Because the big L Libertarians have done a great job of attaching the definition "wingnut you would never want to let near government office" to the word.

Matt, all the libertarians I've ever met who were really libertarian (as opposed to phonies like Ron Paul who picks and chooses among government interventions before deciding which ones he does not like) are actually one or another flavor of anarchist. However, that's a word that got poisoned by its own set of dangerous wingnuts long and long ago.

Also: The true libertarians I've met, you couldn't get them near "government office" with a stick and a team of mules.

Posted November 12, 2007 4:56 PM by Daniel

rhys @ 41
Well, if you want twelve year old kids to work in machine shops or coal mines, with no federal or state safety standards, and do it for starvation wages, which is what 'no minimum wage' really means, then you will deserve what your government gives you: absolutely zero. You'll be paying up front for police, fire, and ambulance services, all the paved roads will be charging tolls, and you won't be able to access websites that don't meet with the approval of the government watchdogs, the phone companies, or the ISP censors.

Oh yeah: you won't get to complain when the guy next door sets up a plating company or a pig farm. No zoning laws or building codes, either.

Welcome to the word of 'unfettered capitalism'! No entry without admission, and the ticket booth wants an arm and a leg - yours, for preference.

Posted November 12, 2007 5:03 PM by P J Evans

Uh oh, "you people" alert in Aisle 41! Duck, we have incoming!

Posted November 12, 2007 5:03 PM by Daniel

rhys @ 41 -

Good luck with that. Let me know when this Libertarian Utopia is achieved. I'm sure the shade of Ayn Rand will be floating over it in beneficent blessing.

Posted November 12, 2007 5:03 PM by Steve C.

22 Matt Jarpe

Speaking of things you wish you knew the name for, is there a word for people who are actually libertarians?

Well, "council communism" or "anarcho-syndicalism" work for me, but you might not like those much either.

Posted November 12, 2007 5:04 PM by bob mcmanus

The secularists are wagging an ongoing war against religion? No wonder America has gone top the dogs.
("It's 'waging', not 'wagging'")
Nevermind.

Posted November 12, 2007 5:11 PM by Serge

Rhys @41: I am voting for Ron Paul because he is willing to do the one thing that no other politician is willing to do. Decrease the power of the Federal Government and the Executive Branch in particular.

Because if history has taught us anything, it's that, once in power, rulers always want to give large portions of it away out of the generous spirit of Freedom and Democracy that swells their heart near to bursting.

(This explains my authoritarian statement made up thread, in case albtross is still lurking about. GOP presidential candidates are a humble lot, not at all attracted to power for it's own sake.)

Posted November 12, 2007 5:11 PM by Keith

Adrian Smith @ 7

I was thinking of "Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief" in the sense of not applying your own political or moral agenda to the patient.

Posted November 12, 2007 5:15 PM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

Left Libertarianism

But I am just trolling from the opposite wing, and this has nothing to do with Ron Paul. Or actual American politics, unless you are interested in the radically Green. My apologies.

Posted November 12, 2007 5:19 PM by bob mcmanus

I can see the appeal, though; as a no-chance candidate, Paul can say what he actually thinks without any danger. Thus he sounds much more interesting than the wooly-blanket platitudes all the serious candidates are mouthing, out of fear of giving offense.

It's also a comment as to the complete lack of appeal of the major Republican candidates that Paul sounds appealing by default.

Posted November 12, 2007 5:21 PM by Matthew Brown

Daniel #42:

It matters whether you think "libertarian" means a consistent set of positions, or a direction. I'd like to see the country move in more libertarian directions in most areas, but don't buy the whole package, even though it's pleasantly intellectually consistent.

Nicole #38:

I don't know Ron Paul's ideas about that, but the general libertarian idea is that you ought to be able to buy/sell whatever you want. The only part I think a libertarian would object to is having a government label called "organic" rather than a private organization providing the label and protecting it with trademark laws. (And I think there are private organizations that do this kind of labeling.)

Posted November 12, 2007 5:27 PM by albatross

Wow, another drive-by bozo.

Long as he keeps driving by, that's fine.

Posted November 12, 2007 5:39 PM by Xopher

you won't get to complain when the guy next door sets up a plating company or a pig farm

Either that, or everybody will be filing nuisance lawsuits alleging that some noisy or smelly activity next door is interfering with their quiet enjoyment of their own property. Also...

* Air travel will become hideously expensive, because the airlines will be sued for civil tresspass if they don't buy up the rights-of-way along their flight paths.

* Few people will dare to become officers of a company that might ever incur significant debts or tort liabilities, because without the state-created legal fiction of "the corporate veil of accountability", company directors could have to pay out of their own pockets to pay the company's obligations.

* Heirs of American slaves will sue the heirs of the masters of those slaves, demanding that damages for violence done to the slaves be repaid out of the estates of the slavemasters. With interest.

Good times!

Posted November 12, 2007 5:40 PM by Seth Gordon

albatross @ 52

The problem with having 'organic' defined and monitored by a private group is that they'll be under a lot of pressure to label stuff as organic that isn't. (If you've ever heard of the 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval', it's basically for sale.) We have federal regulation because of previous abuse, so it isn't like it can't happen again.

Posted November 12, 2007 5:42 PM by P J Evans

Having said that, and not wanting to divert the conversation too much, but I believe that, slightly modified, the Electoral College is highly preferable to a national direct election. So I can't fault Paul for that.

Wasn't the purpose of that something like "to protect the minority from the depredations of the majority", where "the minority" turns out upon cursory inspection to mean "the rich"?

Posted November 12, 2007 5:48 PM by Adrian Smith

Matthew #51: I think this is a huge part of Ron Paul's appeal. There is simply no way to get elected president from either party when you're opposed to an interventionist foreign policy, and won't offer federal dollars to hundreds of locally important causes, help out politically important industries, etc. And nobody who gets to the White House seems to think much of limits on executive power, just as nobody who gets control over any part of the federal government seems to really believe in federalism, other than as an excuse to not do stuff they don't want to do.

So he can't win, but at least he can talk about directions that a lot of us wish the country would move in, like having a smaller, less powerful government, a much less interventionist foreign policy, much lower taxes, etc. It's sort of a dream, before we go back to listening to the candidates argue over which one will more efficiently run a surveillance state, invade another ten countries, take a third of your income to mostly give it away to people with effective lobbyists and generous campaign donations, etc.

Keith #48:

Fair enough, maybe he'd break those promises if he somehow got into office. His voting record in Congress is some indication that he might not, but who knows? But the alternatives all pretty openly plan to have more powerful, larger, more intrusive government. It's not like there's anyone running who's more likely to decrease the size and power of government, or bring about an actual lowering of the tax burden.

Posted November 12, 2007 5:56 PM by albatross

PJ #55:

But that's also common in governmental regulation, at all levels. For example, there have been some pretty big stories of the FDA making or delaying approval decisions based on effective lobbying by drug companies, and even activists. "Regulatory capture" is a real phenomenon.

There's no way to get grading/labeling/testing authorities that are inherently above question. All you can do is make sure that you pay attention to how useful their ratings are, and what happens with them.

Is a federal agency more or less likely to be captured? I don't know. It probably depends on specific details of the situation. If the people being regulated are politically powerful, or are in a position to offer cushy jobs to the regulators when they retire, federal regulators seem to be reasonably susceptible to influence. If the private rating organization has a financial interest somehow in keeping the rated organizations happy (like if they get the reviewed products for free, but only if they keep giving out good reviews), then they're likely to be captured, too.

Probably the best situation is where the rating organization has a financial incentive to get the ratings right. The car insurance industry does a set of safety ratings on cars that's probably pretty good, since they have a big financial incentive to get it right.

Posted November 12, 2007 6:06 PM by albatross

Daniel @ #42

Anarchism certainly implies an endpoint rather than a process. I think the world is gradually evolving toward anarchism but I don't think anyone is ready for the complete lack of government. So I can't call myself an anarchist unless I'm singing along to the Sex Pistols.

Bob @ #46

I'll take anarcho-syndicalism. Talk about smaller government...

Posted November 12, 2007 6:08 PM by Matt Jarpe

#58

Agencies used not to be captured so easily, although there have always been problems (some agencies have been problems for years). One of the reasons for capture, I think, is that people who are inside an industry are seen as knowing what the problems are and thus appropriate to be regulators. That tends to ignore their tendency to want to avoid antagonizing all their former associates by actually making them follow the rules.

How we get around this, I don't know. I think there's some point in the middle that would work, but it's unstable so that regulatory agencies end up either being captured anyway, or being so out of touch with the industries being regulated that they might as well not exist.

Posted November 12, 2007 6:28 PM by P J Evans

PJ Evans - 55:
The problem with having 'organic' defined and monitored by a private group is that they'll be under a lot of pressure to label stuff as organic that isn't. (If you've ever heard of the 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval', it's basically for sale.) We have federal regulation because of previous abuse, so it isn't like it can't happen again.

Perhaps (although on a brief glance, I would want some substantiation of this claim, beyond some possibly hinky advertising deals in the magazine). On the other hand, the Underwriter's Laboratories, and Consumer Reports both have pretty damn good reputations. The fact that Good Housekeeping may have chosen to sell its reputation does not mean all such organizations will.

And it can certainly be said that organizations like the FTC, FCC, FAA, FDA, OSHA, etc. can, have, and will be subjected to influences from major players in their respective industries - the evidence of this is all around us, is not tied to "Republicans Bad, Democrats Good" in origin, and has gone on for far longer than this one administration. Holding up some kind of "Government oversight is the panacea to all ills" placard is just as misleading as "The Invisible Hand will solve all ills."

Posted November 12, 2007 6:39 PM by Scott Taylor

Governmental organizations can be as imperfect as private ones, but they are, at least in theory, accountable to the electorate.

Posted November 12, 2007 6:48 PM by Steve C.

Steve C. - 62
Governmental organizations can be as imperfect as private ones, but they are, at least in theory, accountable to the electorate.

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." - the great Yogi.

A fundamental difference, however, is that you can choose not to do business - in theory - with a corporation or private entity.

One cannot tell the FDA to go stick it in their ear, you've read their reports on the safety of (insert medication here), and determined that the efficacy of the drug on your symptoms is worth the risk to your long-term survival.

I could go out and buy non-UL labeled electronics, or the like - I choose not to, because they are, in fact, safer. I cannot go out and buy (experimental drug X, for symptom Y) legally in the US, because the FDA has not certified it.

Posted November 12, 2007 6:59 PM by Scott Taylor

Scott @ 63 -

One can't dictate to the FDA, but one can vote for the member of Congress that helps form policy for federal agencies.

Like I said, not perfect. And there are certainly areas where private sector is better. I just don't buy the automatic "government = bad" equation I see so often.

Posted November 12, 2007 7:11 PM by Steve C.

Okay, I would probably vote for Ron Paul in a federal election against Clinton, Obama and maybe John Edwards. I'd do that knowing that a Paul presidency would involve another 4-8 years of foot-dragging on global warming, health care reform, and even, god help me, a fifth "pro-life" Supreme Court justice. I'd do it because I think Paul is the only candidate with any imaginable shot in either party (it's an obvious long shot in the Republican party, but not completely impossible in the way Kucinich or Gravel are impossible) who is at all likely to try and roll back the security state (composed of interventionist foreign policy, domestic surveillance, government secrecy, and the war on some drugs), as opposed to merely slowing its growth. I don't expect to have to bite this bullet, as I fully expect the Republicans to nominate a wanna-be tyrant like Giuliani, but if it came down to it, I would.

(Part of the reason for this is that he obviously wouldn't be able to go to the gold standard, or abolish social security or medicare, or any number of other things he'd like to do. But he would be able to set military policy immediately, and affect at least federal law enforcement as well.)

Posted November 12, 2007 7:15 PM by Tom Scudder

Even with the occasional gaffe, screw up and bribe, the FDA does more good than harm. Unless you're prepared to argue that patented medicine was just a natural result of the Free Market and that, if left to their own devices, the manufacturers of Old Granddad's Snake Oil Liniment would have eventually stopped adding turpentine to the recipe, in favor of something that was more expensive and not poisonous, of their own volition.

Posted November 12, 2007 7:15 PM by Keith

I think Tom just summed up Ron Paul's appeal: symbolic resistance!

Instead of the actual hard work of trying to get a decent human being elected to office.

Posted November 12, 2007 7:18 PM by Keith

the general libertarian idea is that you ought to be able to buy/sell whatever you want.

Which is just another way to state that there is no such thing as "the general Welfare," aka "the common good." All hail Privatization!

Posted November 12, 2007 7:22 PM by Lizzy L

Keith (#66): Maybe they could replace the turpentine with diethylene glycol. Another horrible example of the FDA interfering with business!

Posted November 12, 2007 7:23 PM by Christopher Davis

Is Paul::Conservatives as Nader::Liberals?

Posted November 12, 2007 7:43 PM by Stefan Jones

I find it interesting that a 'libertarian' would be anti-choice, although I realize the actual big-L libertarians are split on the issue.

My definition of libertarian thought includes an extreme preference for the liberties and responsibilities of the individual, as opposed to government and institutional direction.

So, applying that framework, he's only a libertarian for male voters - but an especially nutty right wing conservative for his female constituents.

A little scary, a return to 19th century paternalism.

Posted November 12, 2007 8:03 PM by Jeri

rhys #41: You people just sound elitist. You're the type of people who advocate a minimum wage. Well if a minimum wage is so beneficial, why don't we just make it a million dollars per year? Then we could all be millionaries millionaires, and there would be no poverty.

That sounds good to me. I'd like to be a millionaire. Now, plz. By the way, you should be aware that the commentariat of Making Light is actually elite. If you keep it up instead of limiting yourself to a drive by, people here may compose sarcastic double dactyls or villanelles about you. heh.

Steve C. @45 re #41: Let me know when this Libertarian Utopia is achieved.

Such a utopia will only work if I'm in charge, ruling by decree, with the powers of Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence. I'm the only person on the planet who can be trusted with that kind of power. As a public service to humanity, I'm willing to volunteer for that.

Posted November 12, 2007 8:31 PM by Earl Cooley III

Stefan Jones @70:

Is Paul::Conservatives as Nader::Liberals?

Nader has done real good for the country, what with the whole consumer safety and awareness crusading thing. Paul has... made us all laugh. Which is good but not quite in the same way.

Posted November 12, 2007 8:46 PM by Keith

Even just skimming this is depressing. What we really need is a pre-campaign poll that goes like this: Everyone puts their name in, and we all vote on the whole list. Up or down. If a large enough percentage can't find anyone worth voting for, then the whole lot is banned for running, their entire collective campaign coffers get donated to UNICEF or the Red Cross or something, and the whole process starts over again.

Posted November 12, 2007 8:46 PM by C. Wingate

Jeri #71:

I think you're making the assumption that people on the other side of that issue believe the same things you do. If you believed that abortion was the same as infanticide, you would not consider it a womens' rights issue, or a parents' rights issue. It's only because you don't have that or some closely related view that you see this as a womens' right issue.

As far as I can tell, libertarians in general are split on this issue because the moral status of a fetus is pretty much independent of all the other beliefs underlying libertarianism. Also, abortion is a major defining issue for the Democratic / Republican split, so knowing which party someone prefers gives you a lot of information about what they think of abortion. Libertarians aren't defined so much by that split. (But I think Greens are overwhelmingly pro-choice, so maybe my model is all wet.)

Posted November 12, 2007 8:47 PM by albatross

Earl Cooley @ 72... people here may compose sarcastic double dactyls or villanelles about you

So says the local chapter of the National Rhyming Association.

Posted November 12, 2007 8:49 PM by Serge

Stefan Jones #70: Is Paul::Conservatives as Nader::Liberals?

I think that's a valid comparison in the case of the scenario where Paul loses the Republican nomination and decides to keep running for President as an independent candidate and contributes to the loss of the election for the Republican candidate by bleeding away a critical number of conservative votes.

Posted November 12, 2007 9:03 PM by Earl Cooley III

Keith #67:

Supposing someone actually wanted to see a reversal of the trend toward a police state at home and an empire abroad, who would you recommend voting for and contributing to? The people who appeal to me at all on either side have major things I also dislike, and the mainstream candidates are pretty awful, as far as I can tell.

Now, Ron Paul has no chance I can see of winning. I'd love to see him win the Republican nomination, because I'd like to see the small-government wing of the Republican party gain some clout in the party.

But he won't, because the small-government position isn't, as far as I can tell, very popular among Americans. We're not having a police state or an empire imposed on us, we're asking for it. The torture and wiretapping scandals got a collective yawn from the people, which is why they didn't have much impact on the politics of the country. Our empire-building adventures are unpopular because they're failing through incompetence, not because many people see that they're wrong.

There's this kind of creepy progression here, right? If you vote for anyone but the candidate or two that have been anointed, you're wasting your time, on the fringes. If you vote for a third party, even when both major parties are running people you think will wreck the country, you're throwing away your vote. If you even try to get someone you like, who's not anointed by the party powers and the media, to be the nominee of one of the two big parties, it's symbolic resistance. Is there anything we're allowed to do to try to get our ideas heard, besides quietly voting for whichever of the four or five people the party and media elite have decided will be our choices, a year and more before the damned election?

I'm guessing most people sending money to Ron Paul know he's not going to win. Think of it as like taking the quack cancer cure, knowing it will almost certainly not help, because your oncologist has just told you that another round of chemo is just going to make your last months miserable.

Posted November 12, 2007 9:17 PM by albatross

albatross @ 78
The torture and wiretapping scandals got a collective yawn from the people, which is why they didn't have much impact on the politics of the country.

They didn't get nearly as much attention from the media as they should have. When Congresspeople and judges think that '24' is fact, or, worse, instructions, that lack of attention becomes much more of a problem.

Keith @ 73
Nader has done real good for the country, what with the whole consumer safety and awareness crusading thing.

The results are not that positive. Around here, Nader is a five-letter four-letter word.

Posted November 12, 2007 9:31 PM by P J Evans

I think Tom@65 highlights some of the reason for Paul's appeal to parts of the Left as well as the Right. A number of people on both sides see a problem with the US federal government becoming an increasingly authoritarian, self-serving, belligerent entity. (We've said as much here in various threads.) And the major candidate that's speaking most directly to that issue is Paul.

What do you do when you've got a regime that you see as increasingly corrupt and out of control? Well, there are three basic choices:

(1) Ignore it / work around it
(2) Reform it
(3) Get rid of it / diminish its power

Option (1) is getting increasingly difficult (at least for the folks who don't just move abroad.) Option (2) would be the ideal, but the Democrats and the other significant Republican candidates haven't given us much hope for that thus far. (Democrats are now a majority in both houses, and we *still* see votes for funding the war indefinitely, turning a blind eye to torture, and granting retroactive immunity to illegal wiretapping? Doesn't give me much hope for rolling back the war on the Constitution with a change of administration.)

Which leaves option (3), which is basically what Ron Paul's campaign is about. (Well, that plus some weirdness about immigrants and shrimp and the like.) I'm not surprised that it would have an appeal to multiple segments of society, especially without someone making a convincing case that they're willing and able to make real, needed reforms (which would mean ceding power, not just redirecting it).

Posted November 12, 2007 9:37 PM by John Mark Ockerbloom

Albatross @72 - I'm sorry, I must not have communicated clearly.

I'm not suggesting that the libertarians of the world should be pro-abortion. Shoot, I can't tell my husband and children what to believe!

I am admiring the logical inconsistency of a political belief system that highly values privacy, self-determination and personal choice over government regulation --- then decides that it's going to go ahead and be pro-regulatory intrusion as it pertains to women who may be pregnant.

IMHO, that makes women third class citizens in the libertarian phylogeny - men, children, then women.

But I'm off topic. Ron Paul actually amuses me as the politician who's mostly against everything. He doesn't have a whole lot of 'for' planks in his platform.

Posted November 12, 2007 9:39 PM by Jeri

John Mark Ockerbloom,

The Democratic candidate who seems most likely to roll back Bush's unitary executive theory is Chris Dodd. He's pushing a return of habeas corpus as one of his major issues (here are capsule summaries with links to his other ones).

Posted November 12, 2007 9:48 PM by Linkmeister

Seth @ 37 - re piracy; yes. Here in the Caribbean (yes!) there are pirates of a sort -- the sort that vary drug running with a little piracy when they run across you out in the middle of the Caribbean, unfortunately. I've been told that you don't want to sail too far from land for that reason, unless you want a bunch of jerks with machine guns to rape your womenfolk before shooting you.

But of course, that is due to the War on Drugs, which has made it immensely profitable to be on those boats with those machine guns. If we'd just legalize the damn things, the drugs would be on nice, safe airplanes, get taxed, and those jerks with machine guns would be unemployed again, as God intended.

Would Ron Paul undo the War on Drugs? Seems like he might. Man -- get us out of the War on Drugs, out of the GWOT, out of the UN? Wait, I don't agree with that last one...

@54 - none of that seems to be logical consequences of libertarianism to me. YMMV...

PJ Evans @55 - you know that the FDA now allows the "organic" label to be applied to any food that includes ingredients which are not organic (not inorganic! just not organic!), but which would cost more if they were organic. Right? (Example: beef can be labelled as "organic" if the cows are fed conventional grain, because organic grain is more expensive. Or so I understand it.) Good thing the government is there to not do that, eh? (Of course, the fact that it's this administration is what makes that perversion possible. But still. We'd be better off with private certification, if that private certification were accompanied by an open process.)

Steve @64 - yeah, that'll help.

albatross @ 78 - re what America wants. I wish it weren't so, but you're 100% right.

Posted November 12, 2007 9:55 PM by Michael Roberts

Keith #40: When did Jamaica become part of the US?

Posted November 12, 2007 10:48 PM by Fragano Ledgister

The funny thing, we had pretty much a libertarian society in this country about a century ago. But it was far from a paradise. And if we transported any of these free-market starry-eyed dreamers back to that time, they would be screaming to be brought back into the present.

I have a sneaking feeling that life always gets more complex, and not simpler. Pain in the ass, at times, no doubt. But RuPaul isn't going to fix it.

Posted November 12, 2007 10:49 PM by Steve C.

rhys #41: Wanting everybody to have a minimum standard of living is elitist? Since when?

Posted November 12, 2007 10:50 PM by Fragano Ledgister

If you think oddball minority party candidates never get elected, remember Minnesota had Jesse Ventura as governor for 4 years. And he did a better job than the current office holder. No major bridges fell down while Jesse was governor. Lest you think this is a non sequitor, Pawlenty, the darling of the Taxpayers League (which is actually very against paying taxes) vetoed the funds that might have fixed the bridge, or at least started the process.

I just looked at the Ricardson for President site, and was amazed how much his positions lined up with mine. Get us out of Iraq ASAP, check. Pro-GLBT rights, check. Pro-Choice, check, etc. His health care plan is rather vague, but so are most of them, lest they offend the Great Insurance Gods who would smite them.

But he is too far down in the polls for anyone to take him seriously. I really wonder where they get those polls.

Posted November 12, 2007 11:01 PM by Magenta Griffith

Fragano @ 86... Wanting everybody to have a minimum standard of living is elitist?

And public financing of political campaigns smacks of communism. Or so my neighbor thinks, as I discovered at a neighborhood meeting.

Posted November 12, 2007 11:10 PM by Serge

Ron Paul's "heroes" - just like Martin Luther King

Why were Ed and Elaine Brown heroes? Because, in order not to pay taxes on millions of dollars in income (they live in New Hampshire, where I imagine that's a fair chunk of change) they did this

The government has taken custody of the home and wooded property of convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown after clearing the area of homemade bombs and booby traps.

U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier says it took nearly two weeks for explosives teams to find, remove and blow up a large number of homemade bombs.

The Browns were arrested this month after they welcomed federal agents, pretending to be supporters, to their secluded home. Officials said Thursday that the 110-acre Plainfield property where the couple stayed for months, disputing the existence of the federal income tax and refusing to surrender to authorities, now is posted with "No Trespassing -- Government Property" signs.

...

Officials said all explosives found on the Browns' property were removed and destroyed.

"Though a slow and painstaking process, safety was our first and foremost concern," said ATF Special Agent Glenn Anderson. "All known (improvised explosive devices) have been properly disposed of, and are no longer a threat."

The Browns' arrests ended a standoff that began in January, when Ed Brown, 65, a retired exterminator, and Elaine Brown, 67, walked out of their federal trial in Concord. She returned to the trial but soon joined her husband at home, where they promised a violent end to any attempt to remove them.

In fairness, I should say that he did a follow-up interview in which he said that when he called the Browns (who are racists, antisemites, militia members, rabid conspiracy theorists and great pets of the New Hampshire Free State libertarians) heroes, he didn't know anything about them except that they'd refused to pay taxes to support the country they earned all that money in.

This is the bastard politcal child of Pat Buchanan and Helen Chenoweth. I can't believe how many people are cutting this lunatic slack.

Posted November 13, 2007 12:31 AM by julia

Ron Paul is not only anti-choice but believes that the states should have the right to govern anything they consider immoral. Lawrence v. Texas was wrong, in his opinion. I would imagine that if he doesn't like that or Roe v. Wade he doesn't believe in Griswold v. Connecticut either. So in Ron Paul's ideal world any given state could ban abortion, birth control and any form of sexual expression they didn't like so long as the majority approves of it. And the Supreme Court could not intervene to safeguard minority rights if he got his way either. Yet the fanatical Ron Paul supporters constantly write and speak of his love for liberty.

The other thing I've never understood is how some people can look at his stranger notions and somehow think that just because he can't get them enacted without congressional backup it makes it OK to vote for him like those views doesn't say something about him so basic that it most definitely should disqualify him from consideration by reasonable people. In the modern global economy he thinks that we could eliminate the Federal Reserve and return to the Gold Standard. Has he ever really researched the history of the gold standard? I doubt it. He also believes that in the age of Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, Duke Energy and the current wave of product recalls he would eliminate all federal oversight of corporations. With George W. Bush we've seen how much damage just the President can do with the "right" kind of appointments to regulatory agencies and I have no doubt that Ron Paul could do the same. And what kind of person would Ron Paul appoint to the Supreme Court? Yet some people overlook almost everything after finding one or two things about him that they like.

Posted November 13, 2007 12:50 AM by Jim Satterfield

I get it. Ron Paul's stance is that the Federal Government has been unconstitutionally curtailing the States' liberty to oppress their minorities and women.

I have actually heard it argued that the Bill of Rights should not be interpreted as applying limitations to the States' ability to curtail individual rights, but rather only to the Federal Governments ability to do same. I think ex-judge Moore wanted to squeeze by on that argument. But I've never heard anyone advocating that interpretation whilst on the campaign path.

This rhys character has actually been a pretty persistent conversationalist over at Dave's blog (Teresa's last link in the OP). I'm surprised he only did a drive-by here. Not disappointed, understand. Just surprised.

Maybe a little disappointed. Over there, rhys reached breathtaking heights of illogicality which I may have to use for writing prompts later on.

Posted November 13, 2007 1:25 AM by Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

Michael Roberts: Organic isn't FDA, it's Department of Agriculture, and actually applies to a very limited set of foodstuffs.

Because organic is a certification of the soil (in that it has less than 'X' pesticides in the soil, less than 'Y' pesticides applied to the plants; and those from an approved list).

Hydroponic, can't be organic. Meats, eggs, etc., can't be organic.

Or so Maia was taught in her various classes when she was studying agriculture and meat production.

Posted November 13, 2007 1:28 AM by Terry Karney

whatever happened to rupaul?

Posted November 13, 2007 1:42 AM by jello

Woo... a link to a bunch of bills with zero context except to imply that Ron Paul is Eeeeeeeevilllll... Not only is there a stunning lack of research on why Ron Paul introduced the bills, nor how he even voted on the bills, nor is there any effort to examine the speeches given during the bills introduction.

Maybe in the future you'll go into some detail, and not just cherry pick one or two things, but actually examine what he said about each bill....

Maybe run an entire blog series listing the text of the bill as well as his speech on each bill, then explain in each entry why he's so utterly wrong and evil.

Do that, and you'll have my respect. because if I can do it, then so can you.

Posted November 13, 2007 2:08 AM by Mark

I speculate Ron Paul's candidacy is going to be good for everyone: it'll divvy up the Republicans into nice, easily defeatable camps. That's about the extent of his influence, I think. I hope.

Matt Jarpe @ 59: I call myself an evolutionary anarchist.

"Are we there yet?"

"No."

"Are we there yet now?"

Tom Scudder @ 65: ...say that again with a womb.

Posted November 13, 2007 4:06 AM by A.J. Luxton

Dom @ 1: "Everyone I've met who supports Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, etc. is either clearly into politics as a career, or resigned to voting for the one barely adequate candidate."

That hasn't been my impression--certainly not regarding healthcare. From what I've read, healthcare wonks are actually kind of deliriously happy at the uniformly solid universal healthcare plans that Obama, Edwards, and Clinton have put forth. If they don't show much of a preference, it's because they're all so good, not because they're all so terrible.

Personally, I don't have a strong favorite much for the same reason. While there are places where I disagree with all of them, I think our crop of Democratic candidates is pretty great. (Though if Obama keeps harping on how Social Security is "broken," he might drop off the list.)

Chris Gerrib @ 27: "What I do want to point out is that this is a variant of "making the world safe for democracy" which was a liberal / Democratic Party policy from 1918 to at least 1963."

Wrong--saying that you're making the world safer for democracy has never been a liberal policy: actually doing so has been. Merely saying so, however, has long been a favorite of imperialists and free-market advocates.

albatross @ 78: "We're not having a police state or an empire imposed on us, we're asking for it. The torture and wiretapping scandals got a collective yawn from the people, which is why they didn't have much impact on the politics of the country. Our empire-building adventures are unpopular because they're failing through incompetence, not because many people see that they're wrong."

Funny, but I don't recall Bush riding into office on a wave of pro-torture, pro-wiretapping rhetoric. As I recall, both of these were done in secret without the approval of the American people. They were actually scandals, back when people first heard. They were then normalized and justified by Republican apologists, aided by a disengaged and apathetic media--not the American people. Did I mention that even after that, the American people still don't support either? It might be more accurate to say that the American people's continued rejection of both warrantless wiretapping and torture has gotten a collective yawn from the administration and the media, which is why it hasn't had much of an impact on the politics of this country.

Similarly, I don't recall the Iraq war being sold as "Let's get us some OIL! YEAH!"* If I recall correctly, even mentioning that as a possible motivation for the Iraq war was enough to get you tarred as a dirty hippie with nothing useful to say. Rather, the war was sold as an absolutely unavoidable necessity for protecting America from another terrorist attack: expressly NOT as an exercise in empire-building. Might this not suggest that there isn't really any support among the populace for American empire?

It boggles my mind that you can lay the responsibility for this mess at the feet of the American people, when the signature reality of this age is an utter disregard for the wants and desires of the common person. Has our lethargic response to the seething insanity of the Bush administration been an embarassing failure? Undoubtedly. Is it a driving force behind what has been happening? Emphatically no.

*Except on the Chapelle Show, of course.

Posted November 13, 2007 5:03 AM by Heresiarch

Politicians whose supporters are excited:

John Edwards. About his health care plan, among other things.

Dennis Kucinich. He actually got a bill to impeach Cheney as far as the floor of the House. And when interviewed by people like Tucker Carlson or Hannity he wipes the floor with them simply by sticking to the facts and his message:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/8/231544/951

Not to mention his policies are what used to be standard Democratic Party policies. See also:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/vidal

Chris Dodd. He's actually trying to prevent retroactive telecom immunity for massive illegal warrantless wiretapping:

http://chrisdodd.com/blog/meet-press%3A-fisa-%2526amp%3B-retroactive-immunity

Good points about Ron Paul:

HR 3835, which starts by repealing the Military Commissions Act, and goes on from there:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3835

Where are all the Democrats on this one?

Questions for Ron Paul:

1) If you're against the Iraq war and U.S. interventionism in general, why did you vote to table Kucinich's bill to impeach Cheney?

2) Explain how government-mandated prayer in public schools legislated by Congress and the states and paid for with tax dollars is not establishment of religion?

3) Re: HR 5078, explain how displaying the Ten Commandments in public places supported by tax dollars is not supporting a few denominations (Christian and Jewish) over many others (Buddhist, which does not believe in God, Islam, which does not believe in the Ten Commandments, Wicca, which does not believe in a single God, agnostic, which does not believe, atheist, which believes there is no God, etc.)?

4) Once you dismantle most of the federal government, what's to stop AT&T, Verizon, Time Warner, and Comcast from solidifying their stranglehold on the Internet and limiting public discourse to the point where someone like you who doesn't have the party apparatus or money to buy huge amounts of TV airtime could never get elected again?

Posted November 13, 2007 7:27 AM by jayskew

Map of reported pirate attacks this year.

Posted November 13, 2007 7:59 AM by Neil Willcox

Avast! Pirates in Liverpool Docks! Belay the outspan! Man the scuppers!

Posted November 13, 2007 8:09 AM by Niall McAuley

Bruce Cohen @49
I was thinking of "Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief" in the sense of not applying your own political or moral agenda to the patient.

Yabbut, if you read on from there it sounds like it was particularly the application of the physician's genitalia to everyone in his path they were concerned about. Political and moral agendas, I dunno.

Posted November 13, 2007 8:32 AM by Adrian Smith

PJ Evans @79:

The results are not that positive. Around here, Nader is a five-letter four-letter word.

I think being able to drive a car that won't explode is a net good. But if some people get their kicks flirting with vehicular immolation, whom I to judge?

Posted November 13, 2007 8:35 AM by Keith

albatross @78:

Working within the system we have is really the only way to change things, short of civil war. And wouldn't that be fun?

Symbolic protest votes may give me a refreshing burst of idealogical purity but it doesn't change the fact that we have some screwed up politicians already in power. Ideally, we'd flush the system, get a whole new crop of responsible people in place and then draw from a pool of better, smarter, more capable politicians to elect as president. Now, that takes time to do and doesn't satisfy the electorate's innate laziness and desire for instant change, or barring that, a big middle finger to The Man. So yeah:

Hard work! Better Democrats! Republicans who aren't creepy! Onward to the immediate future!

Or something like that.

As to who to support in this homely horse race? I'd prefer Dodd or Kucinich myself but I live in Georgia where we don't have a primary to speak of and it's a foregone conclusion that all my electoral votes belong to the GOP.

So, I don't know. But I hear Canada is lovely in the Fall.

Posted November 13, 2007 8:47 AM by Keith

Keith, #101: It might have something to do with Nader's org working hard to have one med Teresa (and a number of other people here) need to be more or less functional taken off the market due to rather small hazards to a well-defined group of people medicated with it.

Posted November 13, 2007 8:50 AM by cd

Mark@94: a stunning lack of research

This is what we've come to, folks: people who think they can just go off and say that David Neiwert hasn't done enough research on the American right wing, and expect us to not only believe them but to bow and scrape to win back their respect.

Keith@101: This discussion would be the one cd is talking about.

Posted November 13, 2007 9:06 AM by Anticorium

cd @103:

Which is unfortunate and a shame. I'm not saying Nader was a saint, just that I like not blowing up when I go for a drive.

Again, Nader, like the FDA, has done more good than harm. Sure, he goofed on the drug thing and yes, his running for president was perhaps ill-advised. But we're all better off in a number of ways due in large part to the hard work of Nader and others like him.

***

And my crack about Pirates and Port Royal was meant to characterize the lack of interest the general American public shows of anything that isn't perched on the end of their nose, pecking them in the forehead.

Piracy is still a problem and one, as mentioned up thread, that could be greatly curtailed, at least in the Caribbean, by ending the War on Some Drugs.

Posted November 13, 2007 9:09 AM by Keith

#99: Avast! Pirates in Liverpool Docks!

I'm reminded of Bogie's line in Casablanca - "Major, there are certain sections of New York that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade."

Posted November 13, 2007 9:12 AM by ajay

Keith @ 105... And my crack about Pirates and Port Royal was meant to characterize the lack of interest the general American public shows of anything that isn't perched on the end of their nose, pecking them in the forehead.

This reminds me of Ambrose Bierce's comment that war is God's way to teach Americans about geography.

Posted November 13, 2007 9:13 AM by Serge

Keith #105:

Nader's consumer protection campaigns may have done more good than harm, though that's not 100% obvious to me. It's not always a win to put more safety devices into cars, and at least some (the horrible buzzer that wouldn't stop buzzing till the seatbelt was fastened, those engineering attrocities that made you automatically have part of your seatbelt on when you got in the car (not enough to protect you in a crash, but enough to make the car hazardous for the old or infirm to ride in), and the earliest airbags (which seem to me to have simply been shipped before the engineering was done) are all examples. There are surely others.

Nader's effect on the Florida 2000 election, on the other hand, is pretty unambiguously bad. I don't think Gore would have been a great president, but I find it hard to believe he'd have matched W. Boring competence would be kind of refreshing, at this point.

Posted November 13, 2007 9:24 AM by albatross

Heresiarch #96: The wiretapping scandal was front-page news for several days in major newspapers. The media didn't put as much importance on that as it should have, but this wasn't being hidden. Not too many people appear to have been outraged. I was, and many of my friends were, but we're a weird bunch.

Similarly, the Abu Girab photos were about as public as they could be. The later torture scandals (basically where "a few bad apples" turned out to mean "the guys at the top of the Justice and Defense departments, as well as several thousand CIA and DIA agents, soldiers, and civilian contractors") were also front-page news. Again, this wasn't hidden from anyone who wanted to know about it. Reports of mistreatment of detainees has been consistent from the beginning of the war. Who cared about it?

Maybe I'm just too gloomy (my last post about Ron Paul makes me sound like I'm about to jump off a bridge--I'm honestly not that depressed in general, just about the future of my country), but it looks to me like the Democrats won a lot of seats in 2006 because of Katrina and the obvious disaster in Iraq, not because of wiretapping and torture. I just didn't see the Democrats campaigning on those issues much, probably because the answer to such campaigning would be "See, those Democrats don't want us to keep you safe."

In general, the biggest evil steps we've seen taken by the government, which we've been discussing here and elsewhere on the net for the last several years, came with links to stories in the New York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal. They weren't hidden.

Is there poll data somewhere on Americans' reactions to the torture and wiretapping and related scandals? My sense is that most people didn't care much.

Posted November 13, 2007 9:35 AM by albatross

albatross @ 108... Gore, boring? I diasgree. He's passionate about this, obviously. He simply expresses it in his own way. By the way, did you known he was a fan of the original Star Trek? I wonder who his favorite character was. (Scene from an alternate rality where Al becomes President: "First on our to-do list... Let's redecorate the Oval Office to look more like the Bridge of NCC-1701.")

Posted November 13, 2007 9:36 AM by Serge