Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Letter to a writer at The New Yorker

I wrote to Raffi Khatchadourian,
I feel disappointed you didn't touch base with me on the facts of the story you wrote on Bob Barr, published this week in The New Yorker. As the member of Minnesotans for Limited Government (MNLG) who was the catalyst behind Bob Barr's invitation to the Langford Park picnic, I was privy to the full context of the situation, the tension between the Ron Paul and Bob Barr campaigns. There was a story beyond what you saw, which you might have learned had you asked, that would have balanced your presentation. In short the Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty people were not happy that MNLG had invited Bob Barr, from what I was told. I was told they were trying to get MNLG to renege on the agreed upon time. I, myself, encouraged both sides, MNLG and the Bob Barr campaign, to speak directly with one another and act honorably. Fortunately MNLG acted with integrity as I knew they would. Regardless there were bad feelings on the part of the Bob Barr campaign towards the Ron Paul campaign, the after-effects of which you witnessed. If you had asked, you might have understood this full context, which few are aware of. Unfortunately you only painted half the picture, the latter half at that.

Robert Kraus writes of a pattern -
This pattern is something that we never wanted to disclose but holds true to previous treatment where staff members for Paul's campaign tried on more than one occasion to have Bob Barr uninvited from events, including Bob's gracious introduction of Ron Paul at last year's CPAC conference.

I do doubt that Dr. Paul was aware of these antics.
(There's also a hearsay report which deserves additional investigation if the full story behind these tensions is of interest.)

Meanwhile Ron Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin, a candidate whose 2004 campaign bragged about an endorsement from the League of the South. I would encourage this story to be more fully explored given the allegations of James Kirchick in his New Republic article Angry White Man. Ron Paul had no compunction in inviting Baldwin to speak at a rally in Washington, DC. I see people in the Ron Paul campaign acclimatizing themselves to an anything-goes mentality at the state level, and I mean "anything goes". Walter Block, an economist of whom Ron Paul speaks highly in his response to the TNR article, has even written in favor of slavery. I hope I am wrong about my worst fears here.

As Charles Sumner wrote,
Where liberty is there slavery cannot be, and where slavery is there liberty cannot be.

Meanwhile our country, by reasonable accounts, is quickly becoming a closed society, where civil liberties are being curtailed acceleratingly. Torture, wiretapping, loss of habeas corpus, journalist and mass arrests (and an alleged torture) at the RNC, brutality at a protest outside the last debate, domestic military operations (which Barr commented on in April [15:41-15:50] when he announced his exploratory committee), who is speaking out about these, apart from Bob Barr, Amy Goodman, and Naomi Wolf? This is the big story. In my introduction to Bob Barr at Muffuletta I spoke of how we Americans need to rally 'round our liberty. We used to raise liberty poles to symbolize how, as Americans, we treasured our freedom, regardless of party. This is the story. I have supported Bob Barr because I believe he is in the best position to reverse this curtailment of our civil liberties. I fear Congress has not the courage now to do this but could regain it with the right President and the right message from the electorate, if informed.

In contrast to this big story, I read a petty account of how one of the sign holders for Bob Barr complained about the task of holding his sign. Who knows? My guess is that he was saying this with a sense of humor, knowing the two involved. Did you know for a fact he was a big-L Libertarian? I know one of them was a Bob Barr supporter, but not a member of the Libertarian Party. That was me. I was off to the side except when the campaign people asked me to come close for the cameras. Moreover, both of us were in fact asked by the campaign to hold the signs earlier that morning. Why did you write "unbidden by the campaign"? Did someone tell you that? That was false.

I enjoyed meeting you. The story I mentioned to you about Asma Jahangir in Pakistan in so many ways now reflects the situation here. Will our country retain a respect for individual rights? I hope so. I believe in fact that by doing so we will be in a stronger position to confront the real dangers of the world, having built stronger bonds of trust amongst ourselves.

I wrote this letter in response to the article in this week's New Yorker magazine
Earlier, on September 1, 2008, I had sent Khatchadourian my contact info, as he had requested, with the following note -
It was great meeting you at the Bob Barr dinner. You did meet a lot of the people there, didn't you? I was the one, before dinner, who commented on the wonderful article on Asma Jahangir last year in the New Yorker, which I'd read. We later discussed forms of election, including a novel one which would be party-neutral and eliminate spoilers, by allowing primary candidates to throw their percentages towards leading candidates, the top two of which, after this coalescing, would go on to a final run-off. It's simpler, more straightforward, and so less vulnerable to fraud than IRV, which passed in San Francisco a few years ago, passed in Minneapolis in 2006, and is on the ballot in St. Paul this year. I believe that much of our problem lies with the rigidity of the two major parties and the privileged position they enjoy unnecessarily.

I hope you enjoyed the event.

Update (Oct 29, 2008): I have confirmed by email that the other sign holder did in fact say what he said "with a humorous sarcastic tone...not from the point of view of a reluctant or disgruntled supporter."

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

A vote for McCain is a wasted vote

Food for thought to a Republican

"A vote for John McCain is a wasted vote" says Bob Barr. There's no practical excuse for not voting your conscience now. A vote for Barr is a protest vote against the unlimited spending, the bailout, and the warrantless wiretaps, which now seem inevitable, unless Obama is a closet classical liberal, hah! At best one can only hope he's a moderate. A vote for Barr is a way to make your vote count by giving it meaning.

Here are the facts.

inTrade.com shows Obama today with an 87% chance of winning and McCain at a mere 13%.

The electoral college is predicted to be 364 to 174. If you place the states in order, either Colorado or Pennsylvania, each at the electoral 50% mark, would put McCain over the top, each showing an 85% chance of an Obama victory. There are 6 other states leaning Obama that would also have to switch over, FL (63%), NC (64%), OH (65%), MO (70%), NV (73%), VA (81%).

Barack Obama, copyright, and the surveillance society

Food for thought to a Democrat

Is Obama's support for warrantless wiretapping related to his wife's professional background as an "intellectual-property" lawyer? I learned about her work in Barack Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope. Are she and her former colleagues egging him on?

Don't laugh. Some wonder if the dramatic erosion of our civil liberties is connected to this decade's efforts to enforce copyright in an acceleratingly draconian fashion. Richard Falkvinge of the Swedish Pirate Party makes this argument (not about Michelle Obama in particular), that unscrupulous copyright lobbyists want surveillance.

Bob Barr on the NewsHour

Friday, September 12, 2008

On the Barr-Paul brawl

  1. Robert Kraus, Acting Executive Director of the LP wrote,
    This pattern is something that we never wanted to disclose but holds true to previous treatment where staff members for Paul's campaign tried on more than one occasion to have Bob Barr uninvited from events, including Bob's gracious introduction of Ron Paul at last year's CPAC conference.

    I do doubt that Dr. Paul was aware of these antics.
    Last week I was privy to negotiations in Minnesota during the RNC week which strongly corroborate the pattern described by Kraus.

  2. Is the hearsay reported here true? Does anyone have evidence?

  3. The worst vitriol seems to come from the seething tensions of rule-of-men advocates. If I'd met Ron Paul last week, I would have asked him directly his own opinions on the inalienability of rights and due process, two issues regarding which rule-of-menners tend to devolve, though only perhaps at the state level.
Version 1.1 - added detail to point 1

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Bob Barr speaks at September 1 picnic hosted by Minnesotans for Limited Government

Bob Barr spoke September 1 at Langford Park at a picnic event hosted by Minnesotans for Limited Government (MNLG), of which I'm a member. Soon afterwards Ron Paul took the podium. Langford Park is in the St Anthony Park neighborhood of St Paul, Minnesota. This was the day before the Rally for the Republic.

My second liberty pole

Related Post:

Here I am meeting Bob Barr

"Ron Paul has done a tremendous job," says Barr in St Paul, Minnesota

The other day Bob Barr expressed his appreciation for what Ron Paul has accomplished and argued,
As the nominee for the Libertarian Party, I have the honor and the ability to do what Ron Paul cannot do. He is not the nominee. He was a great candidate on the Republican side and did a tremendous job getting these ideas out there, and he's continuing to do so, but the only way that we can go to the next level is through my candidacy with the Libertarian Party between now and November 4.
Barr spoke on September 1 at a dinner with the Minneapolis Bob Barr Meetup at Muffuletta in St Paul, not long after two speeches, one by him and another by Ron Paul, in Langford Park a few blocks away at a picnic hosted by Minnesotans for Limited Government (MNLG).

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Nader discusses National Press Club press conference with Barr, Paul, and McKinney

Ralph Nader at his "Open the Debates" rally in Minneapolis on Sep 4, 2008, discussed the upcoming National Press Club press conference on Wednesday morning, Sep 10, 2008, with Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Cynthia McKinney. He revealed 4 points of common agreement.
Next week we're going to have a news conference with Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, and Ron Paul in Washington, D.C. We will have a preliminary manifesto where we agree on four categories....

  1. to reverse the militarization of foreign policy ...
  2. to hold the Federal Reserve accountable ...
  3. to repeal the Patriot Act ...
  4. to treat the massive deficit ...

We obviously see a convergence of people on both sides of the political spectrum on things like civil liberties and the militarization of foreign policy ...

The video of Nader's statement has been uploaded to Vimeo and should be available there soon, too.

Update (Sep 9, 2008, 9:16 pm Central): According to a Houston Chronicle blog, Texas on the Potomac, "Houston Chronicle Washington correspondent Bennett Roth obtained an advance copy of Rep. Ron Paul's remarks planned for delivery tomorrow at the National Press Club." The blog has posted the purported copy.

Update (Sep 9, 2008, 11:00 pm Central): CNN Political Editor Mark Preston reports information from senior Ron Paul aide, consistent with purported copy of Paul's planned remarks.

Update (Sep 10, 2008, 10:30 am Central): Here's the official statement Ron Paul made to the National Press Club.

Update (Sep 10, 2008, 11:11 am Central): What about Bob? by David Weigel at Reason. By the way, I met Austin Petersen last week at the Libertarian Party booth at Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic.