Minnehaha Creek Mugwump

Letter to a writer at The New Yorker

2008-10-28T22:23:00.016-05:00

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

The Third Man: Bob Barr's Libertarian run for the White House
by Raffi Khatchadourian

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."

A vote for McCain is a wasted vote

2008-10-22T20:57:00.005-05:00

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.

Libertarian Barr says McCain can't win presidency
by Shannon McCaffrey

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

2008-10-22T20:45:00.007-05:00

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

2008-10-22T01:37:00.002-05:00

On the Barr-Paul brawl

2008-09-12T00:54:00.015-05:00

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.

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

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

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

2008-09-10T04:02:00.006-05:00

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

2008-09-10T03:20:00.002-05:00

Grapes and liberty pole

Here I am meeting Bob Barr

2008-09-10T01:05:00.002-05:00

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

2008-09-10T00:18:00.012-05:00

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).

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

2008-09-09T20:45:00.012-05:00

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....

to reverse the militarization of foreign policy ...
to hold the Federal Reserve accountable ...
to repeal the Patriot Act ...
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.

What's good for the goose - Bob Barr in Texas

2008-09-09T12:08:00.010-05:00

My mother warned me long ago that the day might come when 2 + 2 would equal 5. In Texas, there's some basic arithmetic now in play. What day is 1 day before the November 4, 2008, election? What day is 70 days before the November 4, 2008, election? I just looked on a calendar. 70 days would be 10 weeks. That day would be Tuesday, August 26, 2008. Apparently the Democrats who filed on August 27 disagree.

The Bob Barr 2008 campaign is fighting to keep the Democrats off the Texas ballot.

Why so adamant? What's a day among friends?

Well, the problem is that third parties have been regularly left in the wilderness when it comes to ballot access. I've seen the barriers to political competition over the past decades. The two major parties rigidly claim preferential treatment both in the form of election and debate access. Let's make a deal. If the Bob Barr campaign pulls back and lets Texas let the Democrats off the hook, then let's have some quid pro quo.

What's the quid?

A debate open to civil candidates with noticeable percentages, such as Bob Barr and Ralph Nader. Perhaps the time allotted could be weighted by their polling percentages, apart from equal time in their opening and closing statements.
A truly general form of election with no favoritism towards the two major parties.

There may be a problem with the Republican Party's candidate filing, too, in Texas. The Bob Barr 2008 campaign thinks it has a case. I highlight the Democratic Party's failure to file on time because it is so clear-cut.

What a week! - RNC 2008 - part 2

2008-09-09T10:07:00.012-05:00

According to Amy Goodman in this interview, when Goodman asks how the press could do their job without arrest and charges, St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington made to her a sordid suggestion, that the press be embedded in the "police mobile field force". (!!!!!)

How about citizen journalists with a Flip video? How do citizens peacefully assemble and exercise the 1st Amendment, and do so with witnesses?

Someone I know was arrested blocks away from a concert in Minneapolis she was leaving, trying to leave, other streets having been blocked by police.

Were the troops wearing names and jurisdictions? Do they need badges?

How does one stay innocent? How does one disperse when the question "Which way?" goes unanswered? How does one witness?

Need we be embedded citizens?

Update (Sep 9, 2008, 2:00 pm Central): Melissa Hill, whom I trust on this, writes,

I was arrested on Wednesday night after the RATM concert on 7th Street. I stayed on the sidewalks and didn't do anything but apparently I'm being charged with "obstructing traffic??", being a "public nuisance" and "unlawful assembly"??? They handcuffed us and we had to sit there for hours on the street. They also arrested MN Peace Team members and freelance journalists and people simply going home.

Source: Wall on public Facebook group "I went to the RNC 08 and all I got was arrested!" (Sep 8, 2008, 7:56 pm Central)

As I understand it, the MN Peace Team tries to mollify crowds.

Update (Sep 9, 2008, 2:47 pm Central): Why We Were Falsely Arrested by Amy Goodman

What a week! - RNC 2008 - part 1

2008-09-09T02:08:00.009-05:00

Video by Melissa Hill
Song: Handlebars by Flobots

Dinner with Bob Barr in St. Paul, Minnesota

2008-08-30T22:46:00.011-05:00

It's all set. Bob Barr is coming to have dinner with supporters on Monday at Muffuletta, in the St. Anthony Park neighborhood of St. Paul. He's planning to give a speech and answer questions afterwards.

Tomorrow is the Liberty Parade. I just finished painting the base to a 15-foot, pine liberty pole I made with a red liberty cap. I plan to raise it somewhere in Loring Park during the concert in the afternoon after the parade.

Meetup event - Dinner with Bob Barr

Dinner with Bob Barr in Minneapolis/St. Paul - Labor day, September 1

2008-08-28T17:30:00.008-05:00

Bob Barr, candidate for President, is coming to town, and he'd like to meet with us for dinner. Please join us. This is your chance to hear him speak and answer your questions in person. This is not a $1000 per plate affair. We're just getting together to have dinner and talk with Bob Barr.

This event is scheduled for 5 pm, Monday, September 1, Labor Day evening. We'll chose a location once we have a better sense for the size audience we'll have. We just found out 2 days ago that he'd be available. Please let others know if you would.

Here's a link to the invitation, where you can sign up - Dinner with Bob Barr

Bob Barr is coming to Minnesota

2008-08-15T15:35:00.004-05:00

I just got off the phone with Mike Ferguson, Midwest Regional Coordinator for Bob Barr 2008. According to Ferguson, Bob Barr is coming to the Twin Cities in late August or early September.

Update (Aug 26, 2008): Barr is coming on Aug 31 and will stay through Sep 1 at least, according to Ferguson, with whom I just spoke on the phone.

Article in Sunday Star Tribune by Jill Burcum

2008-08-10T00:07:00.004-05:00

There's an article in the Sunday Star Tribune written by Jill Burcum, assistant managing editor, which appeared on the front page of the opinion section. She mentions Bob Barr and his 8% showing in Minnesota and Iowa in the recent Zogby poll.

This is no accident. The other day she interviewed me and four other people active in the liberty movement. Jill's initial focus was on the Ron Paul phenomenon, but she learned from us (and perhaps others) that the movement was more than just about one man.

The first half of the 4th-to-last paragraph reflects what I discussed with her. I pointed out how I came from a staunch Democratic Party background. I mentioned how I grew up in San Francisco in the 60s and felt strongly about our entering wars such as Vietnam, Haiti, and Iraq without constitutional process. I also strongly emphasized the importance of civil liberties in this election. So I think she was looking at her notes from her discussion with me for those sentences. I also mentioned to her how Barr was in this to win. I mentioned the Zogby poll, which surprised her (as it had me, when I had first heard about it). She asked me for info on it via email, which I sent her later.

The great thing about the whole conversation was the tone. It was friendly and relaxed. We put our trust in her, and I think she sensed that. You know there's a great deal of power in what editors can do with your statements. I was very pleased tonight to see what she had written.

Burcum's article is not online yet, that I can see. It'll probably appear at http://www.startribune.com/opinion later this morning sometime. The title is It's not the man--it's the movement.

Update (August 10, 2008): Here's the article.

Baby steps for Bob

2008-08-08T12:51:00.022-05:00

Calling all Minnesotans

Remove your party blinders, and help restore civil liberties.

Baby steps for Bob -

Baby step #1 - Walk around a lake. Think about things.
Baby step #2 - Construct a pair of blinders. I did it for just a few bucks. I bought a mask and some black cardboard paper at a party supply store on Ford Parkway in St. Paul. Cut two 8" x 3" rectangles and fold them in half. Staple them at the loose ends with the elastic string of the mask inside. 2 staples each will do. Place the mask on top of your head and the elastic under your chin, positioning the two black cardboard blinders forward at eye level.
Baby step #3 - Walk around the lake again, this time with the blinders on.
Baby step #4 - At the end of your walk, symbolically take off your blinders
Baby step #5 - Sign the nominating petition for Bob Barr

Adult step #1 - Join the Minneapolis Bob Barr Meetup.

Update (August 10, 2008): At Rejaw, I wrote -

Bob Barr is in this to win, but he can't do it without you.

Help us remove the party blinders from people.

I don't see a check on power. Obama fails on surveillance, McCain on torture.

If you cherish due process, habeas corpus, and privacy, then please consider doing something. Baby steps for Bob.

A college friend of mine wrote me via email, commenting on the two issues I brought up regarding the other two candidates. In response, I added -

I picked two issues of great importance, which I care deeply about, where each has done a 180 or at least a 90 degree turn.

Regarding McCain…

A college friend of mine, who read this, felt, if I understand him correctly, that McCain was just pandering to the Republican base, but would, once elected, come to the rescue and stop the torture.

My perspective is different. At a debate Nov 28, 2007, shown on two big-screens at a local hotel, McCain came out strongly against torture. I nearly broke my arms applauding. Later in February he dropped the ball, I believe. See this article from the San Francisco Chronicle's SFGate.

McCain supports Bush veto of bill banning harsh interrogation tactics
Doesn't want CIA limited to methods used by military
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, March 9, 2008

Regarding Obama...

Obama said he would filibuster a bill such as the recent FISA bill. Instead he voted for cloture. Here's a CATO podcast on the issue by Tim Lee.

Warrantless surveillance and torture, is this America? I don't see a check on power rising from either of the two parties, in contrast to the Watergate era.

Baby steps for Bob...

When you go to the Minnesota State Fair, please do stop by the Liberty Center and sign the petition. We need your help. It's close by. If you look at the map, you can see that it's about as far to walk from one end of the fairgrounds to the other as it is to walk to the Liberty Center. -

5 minutes by car

30 minutes by baby steps

Update (Aug 13, 2008):
The Liberty Parade

Maybe we could do this as part of the Liberty Parade!! It would fit in perfectly with the spirit of the parade. We'd wear party blinders and symbolically take them off when we arrive at Loring Park. What's funny is that the organizers of the parade are encouraging people to be creative and use cardboard paper. What a coincidence!

Triggering a war with Iran

2008-08-03T00:03:00.014-05:00

Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker reports that someone at a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney seriously suggested that a fake incident be staged to provoke the American public against Iran, to start a war. Who was this man? Has he been fired? Where is the outrage? If there is a unitary vice-presidency :-/, Cheney, if he condoned a breath of this behavior, if he did not drum him out, adds a count, a count to his impeachment. Where is Congress?

Cascade Creek

2008-07-25T16:53:00.005-05:00

Yesterday at the Borders Bookstore in St. Paul, I saw an old map of Minneapolis from 1849. With the help of a magnifying glass, I discovered that Minnehaha Creek used to be known as Cascade Creek. The name means the same thing. I'm glad it changed.

Source: Map of the Territory of Minnesota Exhibiting the Route of the Expedition to the Red River of the North, in the Summer of 1849 By Captn John Pope, Corps Top Engrs. Drawn by P. S. Morawski.

Minnehapolis - "City of the Falls"

2008-07-25T15:18:00.018-05:00

Years ago I researched the meaning of the name Minneapolis at the Minnesota Historical Society. Now thanks to Google Books you can see for yourself... The name Minneapolis comes from a combination of "minnehaha" meaning waterfall and "polis" meaning city.

Source #1

An interview with Daniel L. Payne, who at that time was working on the St. Anthony Express, was published shortly before the death of Payne a few years ago. In this interview Payne said that during a meeting called a the office of Col. John H. Stevens, to see if a better name than Albion could be found, Colonel Stevens suggested that Minnehaha be compounded with the Greek word polis in some way. [George D.] Bowman suggested dropping "ha" from the combination, making the name Minnehapolis. Payne advised dropping the other "ha", leaving Minnepolis. The conference ended by taking "hah" from Minnehaha and attaching polis. Minneapolis was the result. The combination of polis with Minnehaha was no doubt first suggested by Charles Hoag and seconded by Colonel Stevens; but the exact way in which the combination was made was probably as stated by Payne. Bowman advocated the name so persistently that it was finally adopted.
Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society, Volume X. Part 1. (1905), p. 262

Source #2

The name of a place is so important that the manner in which our city was christened ought to be known to everyone. In the beginning, not to be outdone by St. Paul and St. Anthony, the citizens on the west side of the river called their settlement "All Saints," and so it was known to travelers. Possibly it seemed to some of the residents that there was too much saintliness. At any rate discontent arose over this name, and various artful schemers tried to better it. "Albion," "Lowell" and other names were suggested in vain. Finally Charles Hoag, one of the crowd at the St. Anthony jewelry store club, wrote the editor of the Express the following letter:
Minnehapolis, opposite St. Anthony, Nov. 5, 1852.

Mr Bowman: We are accustomed on this side of the river to regard your paper as a sort of exponent of public sentiment and as a proper medium of public expression. My purpose in writing this letter is to suggest a remedy for the anomalous condition we occupy of dwelling in the place selected by the constituted authorities of Hennepin County, as the county seat, which yet bears no name unless the miserable misnomer "All Saints" shall be considered so thrust upon us that the unanimous determination of the inhabitants cannot throw it off. It is a name that is applicable to no more than two persons in the vicinity of the falls and of doubtful application even to them.

The name I propose is Minnehapolis—derived from Minnehaha, "laughing water," with the Greek affix "polis," a city, meaning "laughing water city" or "city of the falls." You perceive that I spell it with an "h" which is silent in the pronunciation.

The name has been favorably received by many of the inhabitants to whom it has been proposed, and unless a better can be suggested, it is hoped that his attempt to christen our place will not prove as abortive as those heretofore named. I am aware other names have been proposed such as Lowell, Brooklyn, Addiesville, etc., but until some one is decided upon we intend to call ourselves—Minnehapolis
...

From that time forward all other names were forgotten and Minneapolis, dropping its silent letter in spelling, became famous for its beautiful name as for its useful products.
Ernest Dudley Parsons (1913) The Story of Minneapolis, pp. 52-53 [bold emphasis added] (photo p. 173)

Source #3

You remember that John Stevens, "The Father of Minneapolis," came in 1849, and in two years a settlement began to grow about his house, for which, of course, people wanted a name. Goodhue, the editor of the first St. Paul paper, said that everything in Minnesota was named after a saint, and so, as the names were almost all used up they ought to call this one "All Saints." Though no one liked it then, the name stuck for quite a while, as a nickname will. Afterward they tried calling it Lowell, then Albion, and finally Charles Hoag thought of Minnehapolis, spelled with an "h," which name at once pleased everybody and has been the name ever since. We often hear people say "what's in a name?", but perhaps there is a good deal, for the little town began to grow and grew so fast that before many years it had outstripped all the older ones. As the fur trade grew less and the lumber and wheat trades greater, and after the railroads came, it wasn't important to be the head of navigation, and very much more important to have the great water power, which was a cause, of course, for the mills.
Hester McLean Pollock (1917) Our Minnesota, pp. 157-158.

How Bob Barr became liberty-minded

2008-07-25T14:35:00.001-05:00

Bob Barr speaks about how he has come around and how important it is for others to move forward, too,—that's you and me—to rally around our Liberty.

Zogby shows Minnesota support at 8% for Bob Barr

2008-07-09T10:21:00.002-05:00

Bob Barr approaches double digits here in Minnesota. A recent Zogby poll breaks it down state-by-state. 8% of Minnesotans already support Barr. I was surprised and pleased. That's a number you can really do something with.

To live peacefully

2008-07-06T15:30:00.002-05:00

Astounding point. This was news to me. Even if you wish to be independent, to live peacefully, after the age of 65, you can't really, because government will punish any service that provides you with an alternative. This can't be true, is it?

Bob Barr's final point with George Stephanopoulos

2008-07-06T11:04:00.014-05:00

Bob Barr, in his interview with George Stephanopolous on ABC's "This Week" this morning, made an important point. We Americans must do something about the two-party state. We must open up the electoral system. Barr said,

Success will come from opening up the electoral system here so that no longer after this cycle will Americans feel themselves bound to the artificial constraints of the two-party system.

This was his closing point.

Are we going to help? Short of changing our way of voting, short of making elections party neutral, short of eliminating the "spoiler" argument (see For a Truly General Form of Election), what can we do now?

I argue that, if you're concerned about Barr being a spoiler, if you're not sure he can pull a Ventura, then there's still a way for you to help. Simply answer the polls honestly by stating whom you really support. If there's insufficient support by election time, you can always switch back to McCain or Obama. Answering a poll doesn't hurt the election. If, on the other hand, Barr does gain a potential winning plurality of support as shown in the polls, then you can feel good about voting your preference.

So - (1) Express yourself in the polls, and (2) Vote as you will at election time.

Grapes and liberty pole

2008-07-05T00:44:00.006-05:00

I raised a liberty pole tonight for the first time outside. How long ago was the last liberty pole raised? A century ago?

Bill Clinton or George Bush?

2008-06-27T19:23:00.005-05:00

People like asking Bob Barr, "Bill Clinton or George Bush?"

The man who wrote the book The Meaning of Is (2004) and led the impeachment effort a decade ago chooses Bill Clinton.

Full shows -

The Third Man? - Jane Hamsher and Bob Barr - bloggingheads.tv
Bob Barr - Daily with Lindsay Campbell - moblogic.tv

Not with fear in their eyes but love in their heart

2008-06-27T18:34:00.005-05:00

... men, women, children, government leaders all around this great world from all different countries will once again look to America not with fear in their eyes but love in their heart and respect for what we will be fighting for ... that is, to restore the bill of rights, to restore the constitutional precepts of freedom and privacy, and to restore liberty to America... [6:18 - 6:43]

Minnehaha Falls

2008-06-23T23:06:00.003-05:00

Minnehaha Creek flies here, on its way to the Mississippi, at Minnehaha Falls. The word minnehaha means waterfall. The name of the city was originally Minnehapolis, meaning "waterfall city", as its activities in the mid-1800s centered around the waterfalls on the Mississippi and the mills powered by them, cutting timber and grinding grain. The letter 'h' was quickly dropped to facilitate breathing.

The name Minnehaha Falls beautifully hides its superfluity.

Related post:

Minnehapolis - "City of the Falls"

Muskrat in Minnehaha Creek

2008-06-23T21:44:00.007-05:00

I went on an expedition last Wednesday to Minnehaha Creek, after hearing about a sighting there the week before. One block east of the 34th Avenue bridge here's what I saw, a beaver, paddling along, carrying a branch with lots of fresh green leaves. Hope to get a closer shot next time.

Correction (Jun 29, 2008): After seeing it closer yesterday, I now think it's a muskrat, not a beaver.

Will you help?

2008-06-19T15:48:00.009-05:00

Liberty is a team effort.

Click here to check out
The Minneapolis Bob Barr Meetup!

The dog of war unleashed

2008-06-10T16:06:00.017-05:00

Preface: For all my Democratic friends who go on about President Bush and his precipitous moves in the Middle East, this article is for you.

In a parallel universe, Presidents of the United States of America are held accountable for unconstitutional threats, invasions, and occupations.

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces ... while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies,—all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.
- Federalist LXIX

Whereas "We, the people," as stated in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America, did "ordain and establish this Constitution" in order to, among other ends, "provide for the common defense."

Whereas the Constitution of the United States enumerates the limited powers granted therein by the free people of the United States and vested in the specified branches of the Government of the United States.

Whereas, according to Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States, "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay ... for the common Defense ... of the United States," and not for intervention.

Whereas, according to Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States, "The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War," and not the President.

Whereas, according to Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States ... when called into the Actual Service of the United States," and not before.

Whereas, according to Thomas Jefferson, the Constitution of the United States "expressly requires the concurrence of the three branches to commit us to the state of war, but permits two of them, the President and the Senate, to change it to that of peace, for reasons as obvious as they are wise."

Whereas, according to Thomas Jefferson, referring to the Constitution of the United States in a letter to James Madison, "We have already given, in example one effectual check to the Dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose, from the executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay."

Whereas the President has presented Congress and the American people with a fait accompli in his threatened invasion and occupation of Haiti.

Whereas the President, in response to the question, "Mr. President ... do you intend to make as a pattern using military action without the consent of Congress or the approval of the American people?" answered: "With regard to Congress ... I think we'll have to take this on a case by case basis. In terms of popular approval, the American people, probably wisely, are almost always against any kind of military action when they first hear about it unless our people have been directly attacked. And they have historically felt that way, and obviously, at the end of the Cold War, they may be more inclined to feel that way. The job of the President is to try to do what is right, particularly in matters affecting our long-term security interests. And unfortunately, not all the decisions that are right can be popular."

Whereas, according to Article VI of the Constitution of the United States, "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land," and "The Senators and Representatives ... and all executive ... Officers ... of the United States ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Whereas absolutism begins where support for the Constitution of a free people ends.

May we, the People, resolutely call on our Representatives and Senators to impede the occupation of Haiti, which is unconstitutional in substance, not being for the common defense, and in means, not being initiated by Congress. Congress has the constitutional power to impede this operation. First, either House may declare that the acts of war launched were unauthorized; second, the House of Representatives may withdraw its funding for this venture; and third, the House of Representatives may impeach that officeholder who breaks the supreme law of the land which is our Constitution, duly so if after a long train of abuses and usurpations. If we fail to act now, how shall we act if that officeholder launches a reckless venture in Iran without our consent, or the consent of our Representatives?

May we leash this dog who, in the name of saving democracy abroad, has snarled at the democracy due within our own constitutional republic.

Postscript: This article did appear in the Minnesota Libertarian, October 1994. Only the name of one country has changed. Instead of Iran, the article originally read Bosnia.

When will the partisans on both sides remove their blinders to see how both parties set and accept the precedents of the other now?

I am disappointed that the Democrats have not impeached another President, Dick Cheney, the President of the Senate, since their rise to power in Congress in 2006.

The Congress does not have the power to vest its own power elsewhere. Neither is the President of the Senate vested with executive powers.

The next best thing to an impeachment might be the election of Bob Barr, a check and a balance on both party monsters. To all evidence he seems to take the rule of law seriously, while the real anarchists of both parties play.

Is Representative Dennis Kucinich's information accurate? How would we, the American people, know?

What does President Clinton's phrase really mean, doing the right thing?

The adapted article "The dog of war unleashed" was originally published in The Minnesota Libertarian, October 1994, p. 4, with the word Bosnia written instead of Iran. The author, Casey Bowman; the cartoonist, Logan Quinn; and the original publication are due attribution.

Related links

Andrew Cockburn (May 2008) Secret Bush "Finding" Widens War on Iran
Solonian Journal (Jun 19, 2008) President of the Senate

Update (Jul 3, 2008): Seymour Hirsh - Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran
The New Yorker, July 7, 2008

Update (Aug 11, 2008): Ron Suskind and Philip Giraldi provide evidence to fuel the impeachment of Cheney.

Bob Barr tells his story on Bloomberg

2008-06-10T02:42:00.010-05:00

Bob Barr tells his story. What happened to the Republican Party after the Republican Revolution of 1994? Barr argues in this interview on Bloomberg that it died 4 years later in a meeting with Newt Gingrich right before the 1998 election. However, in his book The Meaning of Is (2004) I learned that things changed much earlier than that. It happened with Newt's cave (p. 223) on the Clinton 1995 budget, where Barr reports that Gingrich meant to discipline Republicans who did not do a 180 with him, with Gingrich that is.

Barr continues, explaining that he stayed in the Republican Party after 1998 because he saw hope yet for reform from within the party. This hope disappeared for him when (1) he heard Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez say that habeas corpus was no longer important and (2) President Bush repeatedly say that he would spy on American citizens within this country without court orders because he was commander-in-chief, even though there's a law that says he can't.

I must say that personally these were exactly the two things I saw in the Bush administration that deeply alarmed me. I remember turning to a friend of mine, while watching Kafka's play Amerika at the Jeune Lune Theatre and saying that Bush needed to be impeached if he didn't back off. That was early 2006. Since then I have changed my mind. Now I support impeaching Cheney instead, after learning more, particularly from Frontline. I continue to be deeply alarmed, and the Democrats are no succor.

Responding to the dull argument in the third video, I say it's not campaign finance that's at the root of the two-party state, it's the form of election. We Americans can address the problem without curtailing political speech, by moving to a form of election that's truly general.

An inkling of future mugwumpery

2008-06-08T23:36:00.011-05:00

The other day I happened to find some notes I wrote in July 1994 where I use the word mugwump.

mugwump (good word to use to describe independent thinkers in parties, moving back and forth)

It was in the context of my writing on For A Truly General Form of Election for The Minnesota Libertarian.

Here's the context...

**** 12 jul 94 ****

Changing the Primary to a Runoff Election

Under this system, the primary election would select two candidates, regardless of party, to compete in the general election. One ballot would list candidates from all parties at the primary election; the top two vote-getters would go on to the general election. The major political parties would endorse only one candidate; that candidate would carry the party's label on the ballot. Others vying for the position would have to organize and attain a substantial number of signatures to get on the primary ballot. They would be listed on the ballot with some oparty designation other than DFL or IR.

This idea is proposed as a way to increase political participation. It could provide a direct connection between the work of the caucus and the results at the primary. Plus, candidates who do not win the major political party endorsement would have to organize political support just to get on the ballot. It could encourage greater primary election participation because of the wider range of candidates on the ballot.

It is also seen as a way to better define the role of a party member and make the work of party activists more meaningful. It would reward the work of the party activists who, after a deliberative process, would be able to place their candidate on the ballot with their party endorsement.

Opponents say the existing primary system works well as a check and balance with the parties' candidate endorsements. They fear that some of the advantages of our two-party system would be lost under the new arrangement. For instance, in this system the potential for two Democratic gubernatorial candidates running against one another in the general election is very real. (Only one could bear the DFL label; the other could not be DFL, even though his/her ideology and positions could be closely aligned with Democratic principles.) Presenting voters with two candidates of similar ideology distorts the reasons for having competitive elections in the first place. In this case, voters won't be given a real choice of plans and policies. They would have to choose a candidate based on differences in nuance instead of differences in values and policy positions.

Minority groups could have cause for concern in that run-off elections could lead to under-representation of minorities in public offices.

Another concern is that the new system would encourage intra-party dissension and the formation of new political parties as splinter groups form around candidates who lose the endorsement. The preponderance of many smaller, active parties could lead to a dysfunctional multi-party system where public officials are elected with only small pluralities. Contributing to this trend of a factional, multi-party system is the effect of allowing voters to vote for a candidate of one party for one party for one position and a candidate of another party for other positions.
Citizens League (1991) - The Party Caucus: An Inquiry, pp 26-27

[CRB: An idea that occured to me reading this is as follows:

The primary election would be as described above except for ...
The primary would allow the candidates to throw their votes behind another candidate receiving a larger number of votes.

The first two candidates to reach a tally of 1/3 of the votes each, or the two with the highest tally after a defined (short) period (including a presentation), become the two to compete in the general election, although write-ins should be allowed even in the general election.

There shall be a public presentation of the pre-recorded arguments of each candidate, proportioned in time to the percentage of votes in the primary, before this post-primary tallying.

There shall be a public presentation of the pre-recorded arguments of both general election candidates equally proportioned in time, or alternatively, if mutually consented to, a public debate between the two candidates before the general election.]

[CRB (14 jul 94): flowing vs. still party, standing, stagnant, fresh, stale, stirring

Title of article: 'GO ON, CREATE A STIR.' or 'LET'S CREATE A STIR'
- There shall be a public voting of all candidates in ascending order of tally, except for those receiving less than a given percentage of the vote, say one percent, with an equal time limit on all, say a quarter-minute, with no commentary.

General Primary Election vs. Closed Primary Elections

mugwump (good word to use to describe independent thinkers in parties, moving back and forth)]

[CRB: * 17 jul 94 * term to use: party 'incrustation' (see W 1974) and 'party gridlock' and 'party entrenchment'

'freeflowing' democratic electorate as a basis for the classical republican offices of one, few, and many

'freeflowing political conversation and party organization']

...

**** 21 jul 94 ****

a general primary for all the people and all the parties
biplurality election

let the people together choose two major candidates through fresh parties with equal status

rather than having to divisively choose them through stagnant parties with special status

Letter to a nose-holding Republican

2008-06-08T22:38:00.011-05:00

Since you're "holding your nose" on McCain, I thought I'd send you this info for you to consider as Barr is new to you. I'm a Barr proponent just in case you hadn't noticed. :-)

Even though Barr is not a conservative, neither is McCain.

[Note to reader - Barr is only a conservative if you define it as a label for someone who's serious about respecting the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, in which case it's equivalent to a classical liberal, or a libertarian. James Buchanan, in his book, Why I, Too, am Not a Conservative: The Normative Vision of Classical Liberalism describes masterfully the important difference, reiterating and amplifying Hayek's point.]

To conservatives in general, I'd argue that Barr is more conservative than McCain on many important issues, such as government spending. If you disagree, I'd be interested in hearing about your perspective. What defines your conservatism?

Here he was on Glen Beck on Friday -

- (Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mbi3JVaTdw
- (Part 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHoF6lYtnRo
- (Part 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1yuJboCpo8
- (Part 4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI-TrTXS8io
- (Part 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBMirWOR3JY
- (Part 6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VETUXKhzwjU

Barr has also written a book The Meaning of Is (2004), which I've read. Barr describes his experience and disappointment with the Republican Party. For example, he recounts how Newt Gingrich caved on the Clinton budget in 1995, doing a mysterious, sudden 180 degree turn, telling Republicans that "he was going to keep a list of every member who did not vote to cave on the Clinton spending package and that the list would later be used to punish us." Barr continues,

One of the things that always set Newt apart from his Democrat predecessors was that he had—prior to that point—always urged us to vote our consciences and our districts. I knew something major had broken inside our party leadership during the shutdown, and I doubted things would ever be the same again. I was not wrong. For the first time in my congressional service, I found myself questioning my presence in Washington. If I was merely going to be asked to be a rubber stamp for this kind of nonsense, I was not sure I wanted any part of the system.... By the end of the Clinton administration, the Republican Party—with a handful of exceptions—was just as unprincipled as Bill Clinton. We had absorbed his political tactics so completely that we did not even seem to remember a time when we had acted any differently. (pp. 223, 228)

Barr writes,

As America burned, the Republican Party was fiddling away. (p. 114)

Again, I'd be interested in hearing what positions you view as conservative and important in this election, and how you view McCain and Barr on these issues if you have the time to share that with me. I myself fear we're going gangbusters down the road to serfdom with either major candidate, so I'm trying to better understand what attracts or repels people from different perspectives. If Barr is to win, he'll need support from both Republicans and Democrats. David Walker, the comptroller general, has made me feel that addressing these issues is urgent. Walker argues that we have about four or five years now to get serious. Here he is on Glenn Beck in January, 2008 -

Here he is on 60 Minutes -

Here's a video interview of David Walker on BBC in 2006 - http://tinyurl.com/e6wam

A letter to a disillusioned Republican

2008-06-03T13:06:00.023-05:00

A Republican wrote me long ago,

I wanted to tell you that I bought Liberty the other day. I enjoyed many of the articles. The magazine sure does bash government, playing no favorites with any party. Some of the pieces, especially some of the letters, had too much of a pro-anarchy slant to them for my taste. It is true that our government has become too intrusive, to the point of denying the people liberties. That has to change. But I still think our system is not flawed and there is a need for government. A society without government would be nothing less than chaotic, with no means to protect the people's liberties when some tried to seek the natural desire for power. Anyway, I did enjoy reading the magazine and tend to feel as disillusioned with the Republican candidates as many of the authors. They are all old, long-time politicians who are in their positions because they have excelled at "playing the game".

I responded with this letter,

The mainstream among libertarians (classical liberals, market liberals... ) in a tradition that stretches back through liberalism of the 1800's, whiggism of the 1700's, and the leveller movement of the 1600's is one characterized not by antipathy to government, but rather to oppression. Allow me to quote from an anonymous tract of the English "levellers" who were influenced by the Anabaptist movement which began in the 1500's
The King, I confesse, has reason to cry out upon the A[n]abaptists, because he knowes them to be enemies not of Government, but oppression in Government, and all those who intend to oppresse in any manner, ought, if they will be true to themselves to doe so too; for the Anabaptists are oppressions enemies, whoever be the oppressours.
The Compassionate Samaritane (1646)
The anabaptist movement contained a full spectrum with regard to the oppression they saw, from the violent Munsterites to the civil Levellers to the pacifist Mennonites. The first of these did their best to discredit all of Anabaptism by their violent anarchy. The latter, as earlier Christians did, successfully protested oppression with their nonresistant martyrdom. The Levellers found middle ground in their patient and civil resistance acting to reform government through petitioning and constitutionalism, setting an example for those a century later and an ocean apart. Compare these words from the Leveller and Anabaptist Richard Overton to those of Jefferson 130 years later
For by natural birth all men are equal, ... born to like propriety, liberty and freedom, and as we are delivered of God by the hand of nature into this world, every one with a natural innate freedom and propriety, ... even so we are to live, every one equally ... to enjoy his birthright and privilege, even all whereof God by nature hath made him free .... Every man by nature being a king, priest, prophet, in his own natural circuit and compass, whereof no second may partake but by deputation, commission, and free consent from him whose right and freedom it is.
Richard Overton (1646) - An Arrow Against All Tyrants
...The web offers a medium whereby articles may be clarified by links to lexicons where terms may be defined as the writer understands them and to other articles that allow for the more depth depending on the interest and strength of the reader.

For example, ... the term 'libertarian' I would link to an article written some four decades ago by Dean Russell of the Foundation of Economic Education
Here is a suggestion: Let those who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word "libertarian."

Webster's New International Dictionary defines a libertarian as "one who holds to the doctrine of free will; also, one who upholds the principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action."

In popular terminology, a libertarian is the opposite of an authoritarian. Strictly speaking, a libertarian is one who rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violence—legal or illegal—to impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. Generally speaking, a libertarian is one who wants to be governed far less than he is today.
A libertarian believes that the government should protect all persons equally against external and internal aggression, but should otherwise generally leave people alone to work out their own problems and aspirations.

While a libertarian expects the government to render equal protection to all persons against outright fraud and misrepresentation, he doesn't expect the government to protect anyone from the consequences of his own free choices. A libertarian holds that persons who make wise choices are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their wisdom, and that persons who make unwise choices have no right to demand that the government reimburse them for their folly.

A libertarian expects his government to establish, support, and enforce the decisions of impartial courts of justice—courts which do not recognize or refer to a person's race, religion, or economic status. If justice is to be rendered, the decisions of these courts must be as binding upon government officials and their actions as upon other persons and their actions.

A libertarian respects the right of every person to use and enjoy his honestly acquired property—to trade it, to sell it, or even to give it away—for he knows that human liberty cannot long endure when that fundamental right is rejected or even seriously impaired.

A libertarian believes that the daily needs of the people can best be satisfied through the voluntary processes of a free and competitive market. And he holds the strong belief that free persons, using their own honestly acquired money, are in the best possible position to understand and aid their fellow men who are in need of help.

A libertarian favors a strictly limited form of government with many checks and balances—and divisions of authority—to foil abuses of the fearful power of government. And generally speaking, he is one who sees less, rather than more, need to govern the actions of others.

A libertarian has much faith in himself and other free persons to find maximum happiness and prosperity in a society wherein no person has the authority to force any other peaceful person to conform to his viewpoints or desires in any manner. His way of life is based on respect for himself and for all others.

A libertarian doesn't advocate violent rebellion against prevailing governments—except as a last resort before the concentration camps. But when a libertarian sees harm rather than good in certain acts of government, he is obligated to try his best to explain to others who advocate these measures why such compulsory means cannot bring the ends which even they desire.

The libertarian's goal is friendship and peace with his neighbors at home and abroad.
Dean Russell (1958) - Who is a libertarian?
David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party in the early '70s, would, according to a recent article of his, not call anyone a libertarian who supported a flat income tax as opposed to a sales tax or his preferred tax, a property tax. This is absurd and shows the effects of prolonged partisanship....

Look to the Cato Institute for the mainstream. Its founders originally were active in the Libertarian Party but realized it was going nowhere (according to a recent Wall St. Journal article). They use the term "market liberalism" to describe their political orientation. I highly recommend their recently published "Cato Handbook for Congress". Former Minnesota Congressman Tim Penny just became a fellow there.

Cato has been touting the national sales tax, too, which is anathema to my mind. What is important is finding sources of information that share a reverence for the spirit of liberty....
The real friends of the Union are those,

Who are friends to the authority of the people, the sole foundation on which the Union rests.

Who are friends to liberty, the great end, for which the Union was formed.

Who are friends to the limited and republican system of government, the means provided by that authority, for the attaining of that end.
James Madison (1792) - The Union

I wrote the letter above after leaving the Libertarian Party in the mid-90's, entering the political wilderness where "none of the above" received most of my votes, as the Libertarian Party seemed to offer zero-tax nonsense.

Recently I've been reconsidering joining if only the party could disentangle itself successfully from the anarchists, from those who would use libertarian dreams to fuel anarchic primevalism. Liberty, paired with constitutional power, is not a stopping point on the "freedom train" of the anarchists, as they would like to portray it. Libertarians and anarchists are camps opposed. Now if they want the name "libertarian" now, just as others wanted the good name "liberal" and destroyed it, fine. That's life. The ideas remain.

The ideas of liberty and our Constitution need our support now, whatever we call them. We have little time. This is a defining moment, November 2008. Call us "pirates" for all I care. The Levellers adopted a label of opprobrium. Just let us call ourselves something we can rally around. I'm calling myself a "mugwump" here out of respect for the 19th-century mugwumps' prescience and rare concern for future generations. Some label we're bound to settle on. "Libertarian" for now this year will probably still do.

My instinct is to renew the symbol of the liberty pole, which was common in the first half of our history together. Let's use it now again, but try to keep it universal, above government, above mere parties, on the level of our Declaration of Independence.

Now that Bob Barr has won the nomination of the Libertarian Party, please consider voting for him. He's driving the anarchists batty.

Speaking of anarchists, don't you see there's more anarchy in the Republican Party lately with their nonchalant disregard for the long-held principles of this country, namely habeas corpus and due process. P. J. O'Rourke was recently in Minneapolis arguing that libertarians have no sense for tradition. What? Libertarians, in my experience, have a profound devotion to the traditions that matter, namely those revolving around procedural rights, such as trial by jury, warrants, torture, civilian oversight of the military, and such. Where is the concern these days amongst the Republican Party for these traditional niceties, some of which date back to Magna Carta?

In the March/April 1995 issue, The Minnesota Libertarian republished Dean Russell's definition of a libertarian, which I had submitted, as its front-page article. The editors of The Minnesota Libertarian added this note

Although this essay was written 40 years ago it still reflects the attitude of Libertarians today.

Version 1.1 - Jun 5, 2008

A letter to a Democrat

2008-06-03T12:19:00.005-05:00

No greater wrong, no grosser insult on humanity can well be conceived [than slavery]; nor can it be softened by the customary plea of the slave-holder's kindness. The first and most essential exercise of love towards a human being is, to respect his rights. It is idle to talk of kindness to a human being whose rights we habitually trample under foot. 'Be just before you are generous.' A human being is not to be loved as a horse or a dog, but as a being having rights; and his first grand right is that of free action; the right to use and expand his powers; to improve and obey his higher faculties; to seek his own and others' good; to better his lot; to make himself a home; to enjoy inviolate the relations of husband and parent; to live the life of a man.... Because a number of men invade the rights of a fellow-creature, and pronounce him des[t]itute of rights, his claims are not a whit touched by this. He is as much a man as before. Not a single gift of God on which his rights rest is taken away.
William Ellery Channing - The Duty of the Free States, 1842

... "Be just before you are generous." ...

I used to be a staunch Democrat. I understood liberalism to include the use of tax money to do good, provided that individual rights be not sacrificed at the altar of 'good' and that taxation and the government action taxation affords be constitutionally limited.

The line between liberalism and something quite different lies precisely where rights begin to be violated, and I mean the equal rights described in the Declaration of Independence.

There are countless infringements of these rights in MinnesotaCare, placing obstacles in the way of the pursuit of happiness in exchange for a politician's promise of happiness itself.

Of particular concern to me is the principle of medical privacy.

Permit me to quote from the official summary of Senate File 845 which passed at the end of this session:
Industry participants (group purchasers, employees, providers, state agencies and political subdivisions) are able to provide patient identifying data required by state law with or without patient consent, and may not be held liable for doing so.

Let us not go down the path of hubris and disaster, however clothed with parental benefaction.

Note: I wrote this and submitted it to e-Democracy's MinnesotaPolitics mailing list in the mid-1990s. Recently this issue has come to the fore in Senate File 3138 regarding government data warehousing of DNA fingerprints taken from the flailing feet of all babies born in Minnesota without parental consent. Both houses and both parties voted overwhelmingly to do this (3 voted against it total, I understand). Governor Pawlenty vetoed it, stopping the warehousing, but not the data collection, as I understand it.

Are there similar bi-partisan efforts brewing at the federal level?

Please consider Bob Barr and his veto pen.

The importance of medical privacy

2008-06-01T13:34:00.011-05:00

I'm republishing a report on a health care town meeting in Rochester, Minnesota, May 7, 1994, which included this statement on medical privacy. Over the years I have frequently recounted Dr. Henderson's point,

The final speaker, Dr. Ed Henderson, retired from Mayo Clinic, and presently the executive director of the Zumbro Valley Medical Society and Emeritus Professor of Orthopedic Surgery in the Mayo Medical School, began with appreciation for being included at this event. He expressed his belief that physicians have been deliberately left out of the debate. The important facet of health care disregarded as a result has been the physician-patient relationship, the direct contact between doctor and patient that serves as a basis for care. The patient must see his doctor as his advocate, making sure that decisions are made that will ensure that patient will get the best treatment. Trust is critical. The confidentiality of their conversation is necessary for a proper diagnosis and treatment. I asked Dr. Henderson if he was aware of any organization taking a strong stand on the principle of medical privacy. He was aware of not one such group.

Shall we trust Clinton? Why not trust ourselves?
Casey Bowman, Minnesota Libertarian, June 1994, p. 7

Here's the rest of the report, which preceded the two paragraphs above,

Health Care Reform Meeting
by Casey Bowman

On May 7, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) sponsored their second Meeting on Health Care Reform. Before the meeting began, MN State Representative Gil Gutknecht, who chaired the host committee and introduced the speakers at this event, came up to us members of the LPM and talked with us in a manner of mutual respect. ALEC organizers gave us permission to put our "Project Health Choice" literature describing the National Libertarian Party health care proposal at the welcome desk. ALEC was true to its own words "empowering citizens in the health care debate."

The speakers in attendance were Congressman John Linder from Georgia, Wendell Cox of ALEC, Carl Parks from Citizens for a Sound Economy, Congressman Rod Grams, and Dr. Ed Henderson, Emeritus Professor of Surgery at the Mayo Medical School.

Congressman Linder attributed to Disraeli a sequence such as, "Bondage... Faith... Understanding... Courage... Liberty... Abundance... Complacency... Dependency... Bondage..." We need to learn from history and rebuild "understanding" before "dependency" sets in. Linder also warned that the Clinton plan intends to control entry into specialist practice.

The next speaker, Wendell Cox, warned against the coming rationing by waiting in line, by age, and/or by whom you know. He mentioned the "equality of poverty" experienced in the USSR, to which I might add it was an "equality of the graveyard" for millions.

Carl Parks, of Citizens for a Sound Economy, a group founded ten years ago at George Mason University with 250,000 current members, started by explaining that the term "universal coverage" is fine rhetoric, but what it means for everyone is a system like that provided to the veterans in VA hospitals. Parks felt the government is currently pushing the Gulf War Syndrome under the rug because they do not want to spend the money correcting the problem.

The speakers pointed out that the debate in Congress is not fair and the vote will not be either. Medical Savings Accounts have strong bi-partisan support and would be in the fore if Clinton had not been elected. The problem is the committee power hierarchy. For example, Senator Dingell is chair of some important committee. In exchange for the votes of four southern oil state members, he promises his support on oil import fees. Let us hope that Congressman Linder, who serves on the Committee on Committees, will work on the reform of committees. If the Republicans fail to reform the inequality in Congress among those elected to the same office, the Libertarians must address this issue vociferously. It is crucial.

Many in attendance believed that the Clinton plan was only a temporary stop on the way to a single-payer plan. That is, the socialization of medical care will necessarily follow the socialization of health care insurance. Representative Gil Gutkneckt reported that our own state Senator Linda Berglin is advocating MinnCare as a temporary plan that will lead our state down the road to a single-payer system.

The final speaker, Dr. Ed Henderson...

This article was originally published in The Minnesota Libertarian, June 1994, pp 5, 7. The author and the original publication are due attribution.

The first two questions

2008-06-01T10:14:00.014-05:00

Out of purely historical interest—were it only so—, here are the first two questions at the "town hall meeting" hosted by KSTP in the Twin Cities on April 8, 1994.

Mr. Rob Horner [from St. Paul]: Hi. Welcome to Minnesota. It's indeed an honor. I'd like to talk philosophically. The philosophical basis for universal health coverage. I'll go first. Then I'd like to hear your philosophical arguments in support. I've got an interest in the ethics of redistribution. I firmly believe that the redistributionist policy undermines the basic sense of personal responsibility by transferring authority for decisions, crucial life decisions, from individuals to the state. When a do-everything government assumes control over a person's most personal responsibilities, we lose faith in our capacity to make our own decisions. And we've seen the deleterious effects of dependency upon an institution such as...

KSTP: Go ahead and ask your question.

Mr. Horner: OK, my question is: Is your plan really a health plan or is it a power grab? I'd like the philosophical arguments in support of your plan. I do not want to hear compassion. I want something more concrete.

President Bill Clinton: Compassion is part of my philosophy. But anyway.. Philosophically, I don't believe the government can solve all the problems for people and I don't think you should rob people of their personal responsibilities or their personal choice. That's why I don't have a government-run plan. It's private insurance, and people who don't have insurance have the responsibility to provide it themselves. But I believe philosophically it is wrong for people not to assume responsibilities for themselves and let other people do it. And what's happening today—let me just give you two examples. Self-employed person X decides, "Well, I"m not going to have any insurance." Then they get in a wreck. They show up in the emergency room. They can't pay. They could have had insurance, but they didn't do it. That's fine for them. Except they get the care. Nobody lets them die, and nobody thinks they should, and then the rest of us pay for it, and that is irresponsible. Another example: Restaurant X and restaurant Y next together. One covers employees. The other doesn't. One is fulfilling a responsibility not only to himself and the employees, but to the rest of society by not asking us to bear the risk of anybody getting sick. The other isn't. The other has a competitive advantage in business. I don't think that's right, and the system we have is not an individual responsibility system. It's an irresponsibility system. I don't plan to take over the health care system. I don't want the government to run it. I think the government should help to organize the markets so that small business people and self-employed people can afford to have insurance, and so that they're not disadvantaged as compared with big business and government, and I think it is irresponsible for people not to provide for their own health care and irresponsible for the government not to make it possible for people to do it no matter what their station in life.

KSTP: Mr. President, Angela has your next question on the other side of the room.

KSTP: Mr. President, this is Shirley Kaiser. She's a school principal from St. Paul, and she's concerned about losing certain benefits. Shirley...

Ms. Shirley Kaiser: Good evening, President Clinton. I have been real concerned about the health policy. I followed it along since your beginning presidency. I wondered about your and Hillary's true concerns, if this is... I've been concerned that it might be a political issue with you, and I wondered how it will affect all Americans.

Will we really receive better service? I wondered, like people who have insurance, will we have to pay more. Will we get less then? Will we have less choice of doctors, less choice of hospitals? Will the doctors have less choice of the services that they could provide? Will we have more government debt? Will we have more taxes? I'm wondering if your program is about controlling rather than better service. And I realize that we in Minnesota are ahead of many states, but I do have real concerns.

President Clinton: Well, let me try to answer two or three of those questions. You asked ten at once, so, hah.. I, uh,.. The only real tax we have in this plan.. We have to raise funds to pay for the unemployed uninsured, which we're all paying for anyway, folks. When they get sick, they wait till it's too late, it's too expensive. They show up in the emergency room, and we pay. Under our plan, we would raise a fund to pay for them and to pay for the discounts on small business from two sources: one, a tax on cigarettes, and the other, a modest assessment on the biggest American companies that will get the biggest windfall from this. That is, most big companies are paying way too much in insurance now to subsidize the rest of us. They'll get a windfall. We ask for a portion of that back to create a fund for discounts for small business and for the unemployed uninsured. There will be more choice under our plan. This idea that every American today has a choice of doctors is a myth. More than half the American people who are insured in the workplace today don't have a choice. They get one plan, and that's it. Ninety percent of the American people who're insured in small businesses with twenty-five or fewer employees have no choice. Under our plan, there well be more choices. That's why so.. one of the reasons why so many medical groups have endorsed this plan. Not just the nurses, but the family practitioners, the pediatricians, any number of other medical groups have endorsed our plan because they know it guarantees more choice. Now, if you have a plan today that is better than the one in our bill, you can keep it. In other words, if you have a plan today where your employer pays one hundred percent of your health insurance, not eighty percent, and you continue to do that, that's perfectly alright. We don't change that at all.

Ms. Kaiser: [Barely audible (It won't cost me more if)] ... it's an individual when you go for universal coverage? If I were to have a policy isn't it true that it will cost people that now pay for insurance more?

President Clinton: No, if you don't pay your.. If your employer pays all of your insurance now..

Ms. Kaiser: They don't pay for all of my insurance. I..

President Clinton: Well..

Ms. Kaiser: .. carry family coverage..

President Clinton: .. the question is whether it will cost you more...

Ms. Kaiser: [inaudible, still speaking]

President Clinton: It depends on a lot of factors. In all probability you won't. All the.. Not our studies but all the non-partisan studies that have been done show that more than half the people will get the same or better insurance for the same or lower cost. By and large, the people who will pay more are people who aren't paying anything now, people who have only very bare-bones coverage, and young single workers will pay more so that older people can pay less and we can have a large community rating. Otherwise, most other people will pay the same or less. But if you have a better plan than we require, what this does is to put a floor under you.

[increasingly flustered...]

We've got—keep in mind—I mean, I don't know where.. You know.. I understand.. I saw all those ads putting out all that propaganda. This is just politics. This is just a power play and all that. Tell that to these people who are disabled, who can't get insurance. Tell that to these old people who choose between medicine and food every month. Tell that to the one hundred thousand Americans a month who lose their health insurance. Tell that to the farmer and the small business people who insure at thirty-five percent and forty percent higher rate. I mean.. This is a bunch of hooey.

If people don't agree with me, let them come forward and contest me with their ideas, but I am sick and, I think, a lot of you must be sick of all this hot-air rhetoric in all these paid television ads and all these hit jobs for people who are making a killing from the insurance business that we have today. It is wrong, and we should change it.

KSPT: Mr. President..

President Clinton: I don't.. Let me just say something. I don't go around.. First two questions.. I don't.. I don't.. I mean, I don't mind doing this. I'll do this all night, but it never..

One of the things I've learned in twenty years of public life is you don't get very far questioning other people's motives. Most people I've met.. Contrary to what you read, most of the people I've met in public life are honest, well-meaning. They're not crooks. They're trying to do the right thing. We have differences of opinion. But this health care debate in my judgement has really been retarded, in more ways than one, by all this motive-throwing-around we've had. You know, if I hadn't wanted to take on a tough issue, I could have found something else to do with my time. I believe we have to do this, and if we don't do it, you're going to have more people without insurance, more people who can't afford what they got and a terrible situation in this country, and that's why I did it. That doesn't mean I'm right, but let's argue about what should or shouldn't be done, and not talk about other people's motives. I've even tried to convince the insurance industry I don't want to attack their motives. I just want us to argue about what we should do.
Transcribed by Casey Bowman (1994)

Is universal coverage really a power grab? Is it about controlling?

I wrote a letter to the Minnesota Libertarian, which was published in their June 1994 issue

Now President Clinton is attempting to socialize the health insurance system. Beyond the issue of dependency discussed in the last newsletter, there is another essential point to see: insurance companies invest. Beware of those who would like to control via government where these investments go, whether to their favorite businesses or movements. As one advisor of the Clintons, Mr. Michael Lerner, put it in his book The New Socialist Revolution (a self-described "attempt to explain why the only changes that will make sense in America are those that will move this country to socialism..."): "The rub, as in so many areas, is the absence of money."

I suspect that these "new socialists" are going after our nest eggs. There lies the real power grab.

See - "The Meaning of the Politics of Meaning", Wall St. Journal, p. A15 (Jun 3, 1993). Lerner writes,

Hillary Clinton has been under fierce attack for having advocated a "politics of meaning" and advocating a societal tilt away from selfishness and toward caring and community. According to Paul Gigot on these pages last Friday [May 28], I am Mrs. Clinton's guru in these matters.

It's certainly true that the Clintons and I are on the same wavelength on this issue. But what, exactly, is so frightening about the politics of meaning?

For more and perhaps an answer to Lerner's question, and the "first two questions", read - Michael P. Lerner (1971) The New Socialist Revolution: An Introduction to its Theory and Strategy. Lerner writes,

This book is an attempt to explain why the only changes that will make sense in America are those that will move this country to socialism... (p. xi)

The collapse of the American economy ... would create international havoc and thus the conditions for significant struggle in all of the advanced industrial societies, where revolutionary forces would find it easy to seize the moment.... (p. 275)

There is every good reason to think that a revolution will not occur in this country before fifteen or twenty years, and it may be as far as thirty years away. (p. 276)

Probably one of the first actions of a socialist government would be to make free such essential services as health care.... (p. 310)

The rulers must come to understand that if there is to be a sea of blood, it will be made of their blood as well. The one thing that can make the American [socialist] revolution less violent is the clear and public determination of a majority of people to defend that revolution with violence. (p. 279)

The pleasant gentleman on the Long Island Railroad reading his Wall Street Journal or the quiet technician working in Palo Alto or on Route 128 in Massachusetts, the Wall Street banker or the assistant secretary of state or agriculture or defense, the professor of political science who runs the institute on Latin America or the liberal senator—all participate daily in making decisions that sustain the daily violence upon which this system rests. ... [S]urely the violent men who surround us, with their gentle manners and sweet smiles and well-manicured lawns and all the rest of the petty concealments that hide a life of "honorable" crime, should be tried for their crimes by the peoples of the world. (p. 271)

But what do we want? In a word, "socialism." ... But let us be clear what we mean by "socialism." Socialism is the ownership and control of the means of production, and, through that, the control of all areas of life, by the majority of people who work.... Socialism is radical democracy, democracy extended to every area of our collective lives. (p. 287)

Letter to Jason Lewis (1995)

2008-06-01T00:47:00.006-05:00

I wrote a letter to Jason Lewis on January 17, 1995. At the time, he was a talk show host on KSTP. Later he hosted a town hall meeting on health care for his radio show, which featured Twila Brase, the executive director of Citizens for Choice in Health Care, as it was known then.

This letter captures how I viewed the libertarian movement at the time, which differs from the views of the present-day anarchists Bob Barr defeated in Denver.

Thank you for your courageous work on behalf of liberty in Minnesota. Remember that "only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars." (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

...

There are three components of CCHC's effort, as I see it: 1) standing up for a free market in health care with equity in government law and taxes and against government usurpation, 2) acting as a clearing house for information to provide constructive criticism non-coercively to those in the market, and 3) suggest[ing] market-oriented changes in the tax-funded expenditure government makes in the name of the poor. The first two are obviously in consonance with libertarian principle (what are we libertarians but citizens for choice in everything innocent and good?), and the last being potentially but not necessarily in consonance with a transition away from dependence. I believe, as did our Libertarian gubernatorial hopeful Eric Olson, that gradualism is the humane way to wean those caught in dependence on government, so long as the direction towards independence is stubbornly maintained. I believe in shock therapy when it comes to opening up the free market with full equity in law and taxes. I do fear that the Republicans will carelessly be shockist in the former and gradualist in the latter, fomenting blind despair. As to my participation in CCHC, I plan to vote on the latter and abstain from votes on the former. (In my view, this is how libertarian senators should vote to stay true to principle and remain unblinded by power. As for how to wean from dependence, representatives could vote as their constituents instruct them with appropriate supermajority requirements to ensure that, while tax-funded benefits continue to be given, "gratitude" is not directed to any one Bismarckian party but to "the people" our representatives represent. I could go on ... but ... back to the point.)

CCHC needs membership fast to be effective this year. May I suggest the possibility of Twila Brase appearing on your show to get the good word out? Twila Brase has shown more leadership in organizing a grassroots effort opposing government control of health care in Minnesota than anyone else to my knowledge. The idea of asking you to talk with Twila on the air was actually made by someone else on the board who admires your work, to which another member expressed reservations about being associated with libertarians (I plan to lend him the Cato Institute publication Beyond Liberal and Conservative). Reminds me of the confusion sown against the Anabaptists a few centuries ago:
The King, I confesse, has reason to cry out upon the A[n]abaptists, because he knowes them to be enemies not of Government, but oppression in Government, and all those who intend to oppresse in any manner, ought, if they will be true to themselves to doe so too; for the Anabaptists are oppressions enemies, whoever be the oppressours.
Anonymous Leveller (1646) - The Compassionate Samaritane
Let us sow clarity.

All my best....

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Here's the postscript to that letter. Sound familiar??

PS: Last week (when I finally ventured forth into the world of online services) I chanced upon a message in the CompuServe Libertarian Debate Section on the subject of GOP "Reform" from Steve Dasbach, chair of the LP, dated January 8. In response to an earlier statement in that forum that "the LP will never become a truly viable 3rd Party until it can attract and hold those who may only share 70% of the 'pure' Libertarian views," it read:
I fully share your opinion. In my view, the LP must become a Party where we all agree on the direction that the country needs to head (toward greater individual liberty) while holding a variety of views about how far and how fast we should move in that direction. In effect, we need to work together to implement the changes we all agree on, and worry about our differences when they actually become relevant.
Steve Dasbach
Chairman, Libertarian National Committee
I remember one night when you were to have him, or someone else from the LP National, on. I rushed out of the barber's chair to be in my car in the parking lot for it[,] only to be disappointed at the no-show. I hope you have an opportunity to try again, if you have not already.

A dozen years later, I repeated my point, to be libertarian is not to be an anarchist. Indeed anarchy is not even in the direction of greater individual liberty - Hey hipsters, liberty is the new left (2007)

It was bound to happen. Libertarian is the new left.

Decentralization defines this new spectrum. Decentralization and liberalization are our best defense against those who would take us down the road to serfdom. Isn't that the great lesson of the 20th century? Yes, yes, in so many ways, but ...

Wait! Just one question.

Looking at this diagram, wouldn't anarchy be on the left?

No, I'd say... it's somewhere on the right.

Constitutional law, grounded in the American Declaration of Independence, with its presumption of liberty, with its limited powers, with its mixed republic, with its elections and juries, with its federalism, with its measured taxation, would stand to the left. True progress comes from the respect each of us has for a certain sphere of innocence and independent action that attaches to every person in his or her individual life and social interactions. The rights in this sphere are equal, innumerable, and inalienable. They do not conflict. They are natural. They are neutral. Creative people thrive in this freedom and build the world without having to ask permission. The Declaration of Independence is far left. It calls for a revolution in our thinking, in our culture, of which we have barely scratched the surface. The Constitution, in its art, merely tries to measure up.

As for the rest of the spectrum, amid the legal anarchy, you might find semblances of law. Perfunctory law would lie somewhere in the middle, going through the motions. Zombie law would patrol on the right, dead yet walking, and arbitrary.

Liberty and anarchy are distinct and opposed, as are liberty and collectivism.

We can agree to move towards Liberty, but not Anarchy, nor Collectivism.

Speaking of anabaptists, was the Dallas Accord a modern-day Bocholt? Better for libertarians the civility of the Levellers, who wrote the nearest thing to a precursor of our Declaration of Independence, An arrow against all tyrants (Richard Overton, 1646), except perhaps for the Dutch "declaration of independence" (1581), which does need a better translation.

Note on CCHC:

CCHC recently waged a successful campaign to stop SF 3138, a bill passed overwhelmingly by both parties in the Minnesota legislature to warehouse DNA information from blood samples taken from babies born in Minnesota without parental consent. It's like taking each baby's fingerprints. Can you picture that? It's an invasion of medical privacy. Parents have the right to choose with whom they entrust such sensitive information. It's troubling to see government office-holders barging in to procure this valuable information, uninvited, and holding onto it. Governor Pawlenty vetoed the bill 11 days ago. From his letter announcing the veto, it sounds like Minnesota officers still will take each baby's DNA fingerprints without parental consent, only they will refrain from storing it in their warehouse. Do I understand that correctly?

CCHC's change of name since has been unfortunate. I'd argue against it vehemently if I were still a Director. Innocent denotation, but bad connotations.

On the classical republican theory of government

2008-05-31T20:09:00.020-05:00

In classical republican theory, government was to be a mixture of forms: the one, the few, and the many, each balancing the two others. In our Constitution, this mixture may be found, for example, in the offices of the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. We, the people, fill each office in democratic elections, but the natures of these offices differ, being leadership-oriented, principle-oriented, and poll-oriented, respectively. Ideally the House of Representatives ought to reflect closely the wishes of the people between elections. Thomas Jefferson spoke of two requirements for just lawmaking: majority will and respect for the equal natural rights of the minority. I believe that Representatives should, as delegates, reflect the will of their constituents and that Senators should, as trustees, focus on whether or not a bill respects the natural rights of all. As a little-d democrat little-r republican, I believe ... that the American people ought to be able to stand in the way of any legislation whatsoever, especially through what should be the most democratic branch of our republic, the House of Representatives. I also believe that small-l libertarians ... ought to be elected to the Senate so as to prevent oppressive legislation, standing up for those great general interests—the Declaration and the Constitution.
Casey Bowman (1994)

This is an example of the noise we in the Libertarian Party of Minnesota made in 1994 in the debate over health care. In my last post, I mentioned how noisy we had been. I wanted to give an example.

Here's a reprint of the full article -

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Health

[W]e both ... love [the people] with parental affection. But you love them as infants whom you are afraid to trust without nurses; and I as adults whom I freely leave to self-government.
Thomas Jefferson (1816)
by Casey Bowman

On July 6, members of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota attended a town hall meeting on health care legislation, hosted by Wes Minter and broadcast live on WCCO radio (830 AM). Responding to questions from the audience and callers were four panelists: Congressman Rod Grams, Senator Paul Wellstone, Dr. John Goodman (co-author of Patient Power), and Ms. Lois Quam (Clinton task force member).

Minter began the show by citing a quote in that morning's Wall St. Journal, made by Senator Jay Rockefeller on April 18: "We're going to push through health care reform regardless of the views of the American people." Indeed, some big-D Democrats have now become little-a anti-democrats. In a defense of his statement in a letter to the Wall St. Journal, July 21, Rockefeller went on: "My point has been that the half-truths and hysteria turned out by special-interest groups may have confused the public on some of the details of reform...." So Rockefeller was not blaming the people, only special interest groups. "... [R]eprehensible are those who sow such confusion and uncertainty," he wrote.

A full response I dared not broach live on the Wes Minter Show, but I shall now. In classical republican theory, government was to be a mixture of forms: the one, the few, and the many, each balancing the two others. In our Constitution, this mixture may be found, for example, in the offices of the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. We, the people, fill each office in democratic elections, but the natures of these offices differ, being leadership-oriented, principle-oriented, and poll-oriented, respectively. Ideally the House of Representatives ought to reflect closely the wishes of the people between elections. Thomas Jefferson spoke of two requirements for just lawmaking: majority will and respect for the equal natural rights of the minority. I believe that Representatives should, as delegates, reflect the will of their constituents and that Senators should, as trustees, focus on whether or not a bill respects the natural rights of all. As a little-d democrat little-r republican, I believe, in contrast to Rockefeller, that the American people ought to be able to stand in the way of any legislation whatsoever, especially through what should be the most democratic branch of our republic, the House of Representatives. I also believe that small-l libertarians (hopefully some big-L ones, too) ought to be elected to the Senate so as to prevent oppressive legislation, standing up for those great general interests—the Declaration and the Constitution.

Other Libertarian Party members were vocal. Charles Test read aloud a quote from the Minnesota State Department of Health, which had been cited in the Minneapolis Star Tribune that morning: "The emphasis in medical savings accounts on individual autonomy and personal economic gain ... is largely incompatible with the policy goals of universal health coverage and managed care." Reflecting on this, Test asked, "Aren't individual autonomy and personal economic gain basic principles that America was built upon?"

Later Test quoted the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This amendment affirms that the Constitution must respect the natural rights touched on by the Declaration of Independence that we, as individuals, retain.

Wes Minter followed up on Test's note of the Ninth Amendment by asking him how the founders might view the current policy debate. Test said they are all probably rolling in their graves. Minter asked which founders we Libertarians revere, Franklin, Jefferson? Test continued with a full list of founders, on up to Dolly Madison.

LPM member Evan Williams asked Dr. Goodman if it were true that 5% of Canadians are waiting for some medical procedure. Dr. Goodman responded by saying that 177,000 persons there are waiting for important surgery. Adding those waiting for non-life-saving surgeries, the total becomes one million, which all agreed was indeed about 5%.

Sen. Wellstone, at one point, claimed that a single-payer system would give people more choice rather than less choice. In reaction to one such remark, there was tumult in the audience. I remember, as one of the restless natives, crying out something about how part of the health care system closed down in Canada for a period. Wes Minter clearly enjoyed the enthusiasm exhibited by his audience. Wellstone also demanded that insurance companies never be allowed to deny anyone coverage, a remark in sync with Hillary Rodham Clinton's latest surreal lament on a morning show comparing insurance companies to car dealers who charge different prices for different cars and so restrict our choices.

In a parting shot at Rockefeller's remarks on special interests, I shall quote from an article written by the secretary and treasurer of the Arizona chapter of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Mr. Richard Fisher ("Behind the Task-Force Veil", Liberty, July 1994):
In February 1993, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons filed suit under the Federal Advisory Committee Act ... to force the Clinton administration to reveal the task force's composition. In November, the admin[i]stration was ordered to comply. The documents thus made public suggest a very different picture of the task force than the White House has presented....

Among the special interests represented were United Health Care Corporation, Chicago Health Maintenance Organization, Aetna, Travelers, Liberty Mutual Insurance, Wausau Insurance Company, National Capital Preferred Providers Organization, Harvard Community Health Plan, Kaiser Permanente, U.S. Health Care, EDS Health Care, PCS Health Systems, First Health, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and Alliant Health Systems....

One corporation represented on the task force was MCI Communications—the likely primary vendor for the 250 million cards Clinton's plan would require. Potential contractors for other parts of the Clinton plan were also amply represented, including the Rand Corporation, Alpha Center, Telesis, Cooper & Lybrand, Price Waterhouse, and the Principal Financial Group....

It is plain that ... Lois Qualm, vice president of United Health Care Organization, [and others] have conflicts of interest in helping formulate federal health-care policy. Yet these officials and executives of major managed-care concerns played significant task-force roles without obtaining waivers for conflicts of interest, despite the requirements of the law. ...

Rather than admit to the prominent participation of special interests in the formulating its health-care proposals, the White House chose the path of secrecy and closed doors. In doing so, it trampled on the law.

This article was originally published in The Minnesota Libertarian (State Fair edition) August 1994. The author and the original publication are due attribution.

Message to a Bob Barr Meetup to be

2008-05-30T17:05:00.010-05:00

Now that Bob Barr has won the nomination of the Libertarian Party, let's get together and brainstorm on what we can do. Bob Barr is in this to win. This is not just about sending a signal as it was in the past. After leaving the Democratic Party in 1988, I was active in the Libertarian Party of Minnesota in 1994 and 1995. We got noisy and urged the Republicans then to adopt the message of liberty. The libertarian message swept them into office. We gave them a chance. They failed. And the Democratic Party surely hasn't learned from their defeat then. Same old, same old. It's all the same old. And they speak of change.... Now it's our turn. 2008 is a moment of decision for America. Will we move forward again with our dream of freedom? Will we live up to our Declaration of Independence or will we sink back into the quagmire of history? Will we appreciate how lucky we are to have such a Constitution and due process? And will we work it? Please come help.

Version 1.1

Bob Barr - a check and a balance

2008-05-29T23:20:00.005-05:00

Bob Barr states the obvious

Clearly something is way out of whack in our system of checks and balances. [2:19-2:24]

in an 18-minute interview at Townhall.

Bob Barr polling at 6%

2008-05-28T00:54:00.001-05:00

Bob Barr - changing the game

2008-05-26T14:46:00.009-05:00

Barr speaks here of his campaign.

The message that we bring of freeing up our economy, so that businesses and individuals can keep more of their money, reducing government regulation, reducing government interference in people's lives is really going to resonate with the American public.

Note: I do have an important difference with Barr regarding federalism. I'd separate church and state completely at both the federal and state levels, treating the gay-marriage issue legally as one would a contract, whereas Barr seems to want to eliminate only the federal role. There is the Ninth Amendment.

Bob Barr nominated - the American Revolution continues

2008-05-25T16:39:00.003-05:00

The Libertarian Party has nominated Bob Barr as their candidate for President of the United States of America. The American Revolution continues. Long live the Declaration, the Constitution, and due process. This was a defining moment.

Libertarian Party Debate changed my mind - Barr/Gravel 2008

2008-05-24T22:05:00.008-05:00

Barr-Gravel is the way forward, for American voters to rally around in sufficient numbers to protect our liberties and ensure that our office-holders feel accountable. At the beginning of the debate, I was thinking Barr-Root. We have to win in 2008. We are in crisis, as Barr says. How do we move America forward? ...as we must for our natural liberties, our civil liberties, due process. Where will we be otherwise in 2012?

Twitter witnessed my change of heart -

Mike Gravel is doing well so far, though I don't support him, though I did momentarily reconsider when he mentioned Solon.

I'm starting to think Barr-Gravel, instead of Barr-Root.

Root wants to privatize war on terror. Exactly the wrong answer. He's out. This is the exact problem with anarchist thought.

Barr makes key point on health care. 50% of his doctor's bill due to law not health.

laughing at Kubby's answer [on trousers and skirts]. Glad to hear Barr take a stand against his own "Defense of Marriage Act". Gravel- love, love, love.

"We are on the cusp of a libertarian era." - Bob Barr

Update (May 24, 2008): One more twitter to close the loop -

Libertarian Party debate changed my mind - Barr/Gravel 2008

Update (May 26, 2008, 1:00 am Central): Well, it's Barr/Root 2008. Barr wished to team up with Root, and Gravel wouldn't run for VP. I'm going to have to trust Barr on this one.

Listening in on Bob Barr live

2008-05-24T12:22:00.018-05:00

What an amazing age we live in! I'm listening in on Bob Barr discussing issues at his booth at the LP National Convention. He's discussed habeas corpus, health care, the fall of the "status quo" parties, the elimination or near-elimination of certain federal departments (Education, Energy, Commerce, Agriculture), health care, the Fed & home mortgages, his experience growing up at times overseas (3 years in Baghdad, 1 year in Tehran, Peru, Panama,...). Barr's "been on the dark side", he says. He's now come to the light of freedom. He delights in the level of political discussion he's had at the Libertarian Party convention, more than he's experienced in the past 30 years at events hosted by other parties. He expresses gratitude for being there. At Republican Party meetings there's no discussion of substantial issues. All they're interested in is getting their candidates elected, keeping them in office, and raising money. The Democratic Party is falling into the same trap, the "trap of incumbency."

Barr expresses his belief that in the heart of every American beats the heart of a libertarian. He or she just isn't conscious of it. We have six months.

Free video streaming by Ustream

Update (May 24, 2008, 12:33 pm): Most interesting twitter from daveweigel - http://twitter.com/daveweigel/statuses/819070920

Even odds that the LP will reject Barr for an anarchist...

In a year full of defining moments (Ron Paul in January, America in November), tomorrow is the defining moment of the Libertarian Party.

Update (May 24, 2008, 1:55 pm): How Americans will judge the LP will depend not only on whether they choose Bob Barr as their nominee, but also on whom they nominate as VP. I don't see any rational alternative to a Barr-Root ticket. A Barr-Gravel ticket would be nice symbolically if only Gravel were more respectful of people's natural right to pursue health care and insurance peacefully, in peaceful society, deciding individually, and not through government use of force, health care free of government-enabled big-cat domination.

Update (May 24, 2008, 2:15 pm Central): A report from the American Spectator on the debate token deadline 15 minutes ago -

The final official number of Libertarian Party delegates registered as of this morning's cutoff time is 562. That means that presidential candidates hoping to participate in tonight's televised debate will need 57 tokens to qualify. (Each registered delegate is issued one token to give to the candidate of his, her, or its choice.) The cutoff time is 1 pm Mountain Time (3 pm Eastern) about ten minutes from now.

...

UPDATE: The Barr campaign just turned in 93 tokens to qualify their candidate for the presidential candidate. However, that sent up a cheer from supporters of Wayne Allyn Root, who turned in 94 tokens. This represents a strong showing by the pragmatist wing of the LP, since Root is also a telegenic ex-Republican. Meanwhile, candidate Christine Smith failed to meet the 10 percent threshold necessary to qualify for the C-SPAN debate.

UPDATE II: I've just been informed by a senior source with the Barr campaign that their token total was actually higher, but Barr shared some of his tokens with Mike Gravel in order to help the ex-Democrat qualify for the debate. "We wanted him in the debate...so we actually had by far the most tokens of any candidate," the source said.

I'm glad Bob Barr did that, if the report is true. It's important that Mike Gravel engage in the debate. Though, is it permitted by the rules? I suppose that it is since by their very nature tokens can move from hand to hand. Does anyone know the answer to this question?

The process of one candidate transferring his tokens to another reminds me of the process after the general primary in For a Truly General Form of Election.

Jesse Ventura's critique of Minnesota Libertarians

2008-05-21T17:41:00.015-05:00

According to Damon Root of Reason Magazine in his article yesterday The Body is a Terrible Thing to Waste: Understanding Jesse Ventura's long, sad decline,

Plus, [Jesse Ventura]'s no longer so quick to identify as a libertarian, sneering nowadays that Minnesota's Libertarians "tend to want anarchy."

I have heard this theme repeatedly from former governor Ventura with his recent reappearance on the political scene.

I don't necessarily disagree with him. Thirteen years after I left the Libertarian Party of Minnesota, where I had been an active member in 1994 and early 1995, chairing the Legislative Committee, contributing to the libertarian groundswell of that day, I returned two evenings ago to see what I could do if Bob Barr were to win the nomination. Perhaps the Minneapolis Bob Barr Meetup could help gather signatures for Barr to appear on the state ballot. The executive meeting was open to the public and friendly.

This week there's tumult in the Libertarian Party at the National Convention in Denver. As I have written many times, "liberty and anarchy are opposed." Now the self-described "anarcho-capitalists" would describe themselves as "purists". They are mistaken. There is nothing pure about advocating vigilante justice, when one person accuses another of violating his or her rights. How can the market ensure "due process"?

On the other hand, the Libertarian Party risks losing the real message of liberty if candidates go forth with policies which brazenly violate people's rights, such as government control over everyone's pursuit of health care.

Both are unacceptable.

I believe the key point is taxation. There are those who insanely believe in no taxation, no government, now.

I share the point of view of founding father James Wilson, who wrote

by some politicians, society has been considered as only the scaffolding of government; very improperly, in my judgment. In the just order of things, government is the scaffolding of society; and if society could be built and kept entire without government, the scaffolding might be thrown down, without the least inconvenience or cause of regret.

and that of William Ellery Channing

Legislation has its limits. It is a power to be wielded against a few evils only. It acts by physical force, and all the higher improvements of human beings come from truth and love. Government does little more than place society in a condition which favors the action of higher powers than its own.

Wary of physical power, Channing looked forward to when moral power, "mightiest when most gentle," would "supersede the coarse workings of government" as "guardian of all right."

Until then we'll need a constitution. Indeed even afterwards we'll need one in case we slip back.

With the anarchists, I have noticed a proclivity for blustering language as well. This is unacceptable. Such language is unacceptable for a serious political campaign where civil behavior is a must.

On the other hand, we must insist on the presumption of liberty, on a respect for our rights. For example, I believe Mike Gravel has a ways to go. I do like his videos, and I hope he continues to engage and debate.

After reading Bob Barr's book The Meaning of Is (2004), I believe he's the candidate most capable of standing up for our civil liberties and due process. His election would be the next best thing to an impeachment, to send an important message to government office-holders that they are not above the law. Barr's track record as described in his book speaks volumes.

Last night I wrote a response to Jesse Ventura's characterization of Minnesota Libertarians as a comment on the Reason Magazine website,

I was an active member of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota in the heady days of 1994 when the Republican Party listened to our message, which was a goal, given our small numbers. It was around that time when I first heard Jesse Ventura announce he was a libertarian on the radio. His colleagues Jason Lewis and Peter Thiele from KSTP came to our LP convention along with the Republican Party House Minority Leader Steve Swiggum, who had a T-shirt saying "Vote Republican" on the front and "or Libertarian" on the back, which he had worn at the Republican convention earlier that day (and which had gotten wet in Barbara Carlson's famous hot tub in which she interviewed politicians). We made our presence known by the revolutionary acts of simply asking pointed questions at town hall meetings on health care, for example, courageously confronting politicians by breaking taboos, speaking repeatedly about the Constitution and the Declaration. We also fostered friendly relationships with those politicians who listened to our message, as did Rep. Swiggum after we had presented him with a petition for term limits at his office. Curious he asked us to stay and talked with us for 45 minutes or so. I remember mentioning how the idea of term limits went back to James Harrington and his influential book "Oceana" in the 1600s. Later he and two other house members met with us and invited us to run as Republicans, an invitation we politely declined.

Later in 1994 Jason Lewis visited with us at Gluek's Restaurant while we waited for the election results on Nov 8, when libertarian messages were predominant in political discussions and swept the Republicans into power. Interestingly Reform Party candidate Dean Barkley and his team joined us, too, there at Gluek's where he then saw the returns come in that qualified his party for major party status, which set the stage for Ventura's run 4 years later. The point I'm trying to make is that it was quite collegial across party boundaries.

Another point is that I have always been a strong advocate for the Constitution. Indeed I have written many times, "Liberty and anarchy are opposed." Where is there a market for due process? To my mind anarchy would lead to feudalism, which is more in line with a desire for old-world conservatism. Anyway I see myself as quite a principled advocate for liberty, for example in my advocacy for Hayek's denationalisation of money.

The other day at Jesse Ventura's book-signing at the Mall of America I handed him a copy of an article I had written in 1994 suggesting a form of election that would get us past the increasingly rigid two-party rule we suffer, by eliminating the problem of spoilers, allowing candidates to act as electors throwing their votes towards leading candidates after a general primary, leaving only two candidates in a mandatory run-off. I thought he'd be interested in this based on what he's said recently about the two parties and their hold on us. We chatted a bit, after he immediately repeated his view that libertarians are anarchists when he realized that my article had been published in The Minnesota Libertarian (State Fair issue, 1994).

I believe the Dallas Accord was silly, and I constantly am dealing with the confusion it wrought, along with the pledge, which should clearly allow for constitutionally limited taxation. I support Bob Barr and hope anarchists have nothing more to do with libertarian political activity. In the academic world, it's good to explore all ideas, but practically speaking when you're at a Ron Paul meetup and someone says that they can't wait for a private war, it can be a bit off-putting.

Here is where Jesse Ventura critiques the "two-party dictatorship." Here is my modest proposal on how to get past the two-party monopoly and save the republic.

For a Truly General Form of Election

Version 1.1.1 (May 23)

Debates at John Adams Society

2008-05-21T15:07:00.021-05:00

The chairman of the John Adams Society, who is also the state coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign here in Minnesota, where I met her, invited me to join in a debate this evening on immigration. I've debated twice at the John Adams Society before.

While Jesse Ventura served as governor of Minnesota, he pushed for a unicameral state legislature. I opposed this strongly, so strongly I had to say something, and the John Adams Society provided an opportunity on Sep. 15, 1999, for me to say what I had to say. In my argument, I reminded the audience of the theory of "the one, the few, and the many", which goes back to James Harrington in the 1600s and to Aristotle's Politics, and which was much discussed by the founders and in the debates at the time of the American Revolution and Constitutional Convention. John Adams himself brought such issues to the fore, reminding people of the world history that lay behind our constitutional arts, in his important work, Defence of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States of America. I understand from one of the other attendees, whom I saw again last month, that this debate was written up at the time in the local newspaper.

I returned for another debate at JAS last month, this time on the Fed. I argued in favor of Hayek's Denationalisation of Money. I did not reveal much of the argument, only one ancillary point with regard to how much less brittle a decentralized system would be, in a way the conservatives there might understand and appreciate given their intellectual context, mentioning names such as Friedman, Hayek, and James Buchanan, with whom they seemed to be familiar. To help open minds, I pointed out that Milton Friedman wrote a paper with Anna Schwartz in 1986 "Has Government any Role in Money?", which included a paragraph calling for an intellectual exploration of these ideas.

This month's debate is on immigration, an issue I tend to be relaxed about. The only strong feeling I have is that I do not want to see a fence built. I like what Jesse Ventura has to say on the subject. I also worry about the effect the new crowd of border police will have on North Shore locales such as Grand Marais, a town I considered moving to at one point. I imagine I'll be in the minority at the John Adams Society.

Ron Paul's attack against the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to babies born here repulsed me, as did the tone of one of his political advertisements against immigrants from Mexico. May no baby born here be left in the cold, outside of all countries, bereft of citizenship. Why couldn't our federal government negotiate with the Mexican government to make sure that the children of Mexican citizens who are here illegally and returned to Mexico obtain Mexican citizenship. If a baby is refused by the Mexican government, we should not refuse him or her here.

On the process of immigration, in principle I'd like a world where borders matter little, where common law has triumphed, guaranteeing natural and procedural rights for all. When Mexico and the US are both free, with power limited constitutionally by presumably mixed, federal, decentralized forms of government, Americans will find jobs in Mexico, and Mexicans here. The flow of labor will go in both directions. It will take some time though before the Mexican government is liberalized, in the classical sense. We Americans have a ways to go ourselves, of course.

Why not let states decide policy on who qualifies as a legal resident of the state? Why not have the Federal government limit itself to naturalization? Such a delegation of roles will afford more flexibility and less corruption in the inevitable flow of people from Mexico to the labor markets here.

Also it is imperative that our governments ensure that conditions of free labor exist for immigrants. After the civil war, the federal government stepped in to ensure that debt peonage in New Mexico would no longer be tolerated by the state. Recently I read the book Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy by John Bowe. Bowe tells three horror stories, where conditions of unfree labor have threatened the liberties of residents in modern-day America.

Version 1.0.1

Why Bob Barr? Why now?

2008-05-18T23:20:00.004-05:00

When asked Thursday why he's running, Bob Barr responded in a way that's a perfect reflection of how I feel and why I'm taking the time and spending the energy I am right now. Here's Barr's interview - Bob Barr: Raising the debate by Bill Steigerwald. What I agree with is his answer to Steigerwald's first question. Are we going to selfishly, partisanly ride this republic into the ground, or are we going to do something public-minded to restore the Constitution?

Floored by the debate

2008-05-18T09:53:00.021-05:00

I was floored by the debate Friday morning on Fox Business between Wayne Allyn Root and Mike Gravel, happily so. Never did I think I'd see the day when people would debate on TV with liberty as the measure. I look forward to the second debate on Tuesday, May 20, hosted by Reason Magazine, which will include Bob Barr.

I was surprised to hear that Root shares part of my position on taxes. He'd replace all federal taxes with one tax, collected by the states on a per-capita basis. He calls it "Clean Slate". However I'm not a fan of poll taxes, even if indirect.

I believe it's more equitable to tax on the basis of time, allowing one moreover to properly credit time served on juries. I'd move the collection of federal income tax to the state governments, as they're more civil, being closer to the people. I'd flatten it, à la Steve Forbes, whom I supported in 1996 and who sent me a Christmas card or two after I asked permission in 1994 to reproduce a Forbes article in The Minnesota Libertarian, and Robert Hall, one of the fathers of the world-wide flat-tax movement, with whom I once had the privilege of speaking in his office at the Hoover Institution two decades ago, while I was looking for a dissertation adviser friendly to Hayek and his Denationalisation of Money (we spoke of transaction costs).

----------------
Now playing: Animal Collective - The Purple Bottle
via FoxyTunes

Update (May 18, 2008, 11:40 am Central): It just occurred to me that my idea about connecting a flat income tax with jury service credit on a time-basis, leaving such service optional, would induce people who are honest in their tax filing to serve, and dissuade those who are not. This would be a good thing for juries. Pardon my mumbling on a side issue. The basic idea I came up with years ago, and it's simple. Credit jury service via a flat income tax credit commensurate to the time served.

----------------
Now playing: The Flaming Lips - The Yeah Yeah Yeah Song
via FoxyTunes

Update (May 18, 2008, 1:15 pm Central): The article from Forbes Magazine was In bed with the devil by Brigid McMenamin, with the byline "No need to wait to find out how a Clinton-type health plan would work. Minnesota already has it. How is it working?" (Forbes, Sep. 12, 1994) We gained permission, but only on payment of $400, which the Libertarian Party of Minnesota couldn't afford at the time, if memory serves.

----------------
Now playing: The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement
via Cato Institute

Bob Barr's book's a bipartisan bombshell

2008-05-17T22:32:00.003-05:00

I finished Bob Barr's book today, The Meaning of Is (2004). Though his theme is Clinton, in fact, it's a bombshell lobbed against both parties, or factions as they've become.

My evidence?

As America burned, the Republican Party was fiddling away.

p. 114

Like nervous corporate CEOs, the leadership structure of the Republican Party and it[s] corporate patrons preferred predictable consistency above all else. They felt they could deal with any reality as long as that reality was stable.

p. 227

In the new Congress, partisanship was everything. You played on a team and you were loyal to that team no matter what. Independent thought was strongly discouraged, and loyalty was enforced through a system that rewarded lemmings and punished mavericks. If you towed the line, you got campaign cash, action on your bills, and perhaps a shot at a committee chairmanship. If not, then the party leadership was not going to lift a finger to help you get anything done, either in your home district or Washington. The same system was enforced in both parties, and it ultimately made it difficult for anyone to cross partisan lines...

p. 148

We have a huge responsibility as a nation. We can close our eyes. But when we open them, the problem will still be there, looming before us with a brooding darkness. We can answer this question the wrong way. And allow the president to hold his office with the knowledge that he has committed multiple felonies. Or we can answer this question the right way. The only right answer to the question is to respond to presidential felonies with impeachment. Regardless of whether the president is ultimately removed by the Senate, we must take this step in the House, as directed by our Constitution, in order to establish a precedent that will prevent future presidents from engaging in similar conduct.

p. 171, quoting himself, emphasis added

We had not damaged national security, attacked the integrity of the criminal justice system, abused the most powerful public office in the world, or violated the constitutional rights of large numbers of American citizens. Bill Clinton had done all of these things, and this was the reason he was being impeached, not because of the affair he had with Monica Lewinski or the long list of affairs that preceded it.

p. 180, emphasis added

If any other person had done what Bill Clinton had done, he not only would have been prosecuted, but convicted, sentenced, and put in jail. Obviously, no prosecutor in America was going to bring an indictment against a sitting president. But that is precisely the reason the Founders put the impeachment provision in the Constitution. The whole point of the trial was to determine his guilt or innocence. By arguing that Clinton had already been tried and cleared—when he had not—[Senator Dale] Bumpers conveniently gave the senators cover to vote against removal, even though presented with a clear factual case for doing so. Like any masterful attorney, he was giving the jury a plausible reason to do what it wanted to do, even though its desires ran contrary to the facts and the law. Put colloquially, the senators were chicken, and Bumpers was giving them a place to hide.

p. 199, emphasis added

Along these lines, I observed one of the most amazing cases of odd behavior by a senator during my closing presentation. Its source was Alaska senator Ted Stevens. Stevens chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee and consequently owns one of the most heavily kissed backsides in Washington, D.C. He is constantly besieged by a cornucopia of special interests, all seeking their own slice of taxpayer money from the budget pie. He is a guy who is used to having everyone around him act exactly as he wants them to. Early in the trial, he had emerged as one of the most strident opponents in the Republican conference to putting together a real trial. He wanted the spectacle of the impeachment trial to end as quickly as possible so the Senate could get on its real business—which as he saw it was doling out taxpayer monies.

Still, I expected Stevens at least to keep his opinion to himself during the actual trial. Needless to say, I was surprised to look up during my initial presentation and see him slowly moving his hand back and forth across his throat while staring me down. Either they guy was having serious thoughts of suicide, or he was giving me a sign to sit down and shut up. Here, I thought, was Senate arrogance at its best.

p. 209, emphasis added

Does party membership amount to little more than the kind of choice a college freshman makes in choosing a fraternity or a young criminal makes in choosing a neighborhood street gang in which to participate? If parties are mere labels, rather than representations of deeply shared principles, then the answer is "yes."

p. 228

The Libertarian Party actually seemed to grasp the significance of Clinton's assaults on individual freedom. In a public call for impeachment in July 1998, the Libertarians argued that Clinton "has the worst record on civil liberties since Richard Nixon, and the worst record on economic issues since Fidel Castro. What he's done to the Constitution should be classified as a hate crime." Specifically, they cited the administration's systematic assaults on cherished constitutional principles, most notably those contained in the Bill of Rights. I found myself fully in agreement with their logic, and we became close allies in the impeachment effort, although I still disagreed with the party's position on several issues such as abortion and drug legalization. Interestingly, this disagreement would surface four years later when, in running for election in a new district, the national Libertarian Party, in a move reflective of the old adage about "cutting off your nose to spite your face," worked hard to defeat me over the drug issue, even though on privacy and civil liberties I was—in the words of many of the party's own members—one of their best friends in office.

p. 102, emphasis added

Can women say no?

The point here is not that Clinton had extramarital affairs while in office. He was not the first president to cheat, and he will not be the last. Bill Clinton's adultery was—in my view—something that was between him, his wife, and God. I am amazed that any spouse would tolerate his brazen behavior, but it is none of my business. However, what was my business as a member of Congress is that the evidence clearly showed that the president of the United States was a sexual predator (and, of course, a perjurer and obstructor of justice.) There was a clear pattern. First, Clinton targeted women he believed were vulnerable to his advances and who could not say no due to their station in life or their personal circumstances. When some of these women did say "no," they were subjected to a carefully orchestrated and brutal campaign that involved lawyers, political operatives, donors, and White House staff, with the clear goal of threatening or pounding them into silence.

p. 100, emphasis added

Can Congress say no?

Requests from the executive branch to pass its legislative proposals without hearings are becoming more, rather than less, common, even as the complexity and importance of that legislation makes it imperative that the Congress conduct searching and substantive—if time-consuming—hearings (as was not done with the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001).

p. 229, emphasis added

Ignoring the Separation of Powers and attempting to make end runs around Congress was a favorite Clinton strategy, and the use of Executive Orders was his favorite tactic for doing so. In their legitimate form, Executive Orders are simply management tools used by the president to keep federal agencies running in the most efficient manner possible. They reflect the clear intent of laws passed by Congress and merely put a finer point on existing law. Bill Clinton turned this logic upside down, using Executive Orders to legislate—in clear violation of the Constitution—because he though[t] it too much trouble to be bothered by negotiating with Congress. ...

Some of the most insidious sets of Executive Orders were those issued by Clinton on the topic of federalism. A bedrock principle of the Constitution, which is woven throughout the debates over its passage and permanently protected in the Tenth Amendment, is that powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government belong to the state governments and the American people. Although the notion of federalism was being consistently eroded by years of contrary legislation and court decisions, no president had ever changed all that. They essentially set up a system where any conflict between state and federal regulations was automatically decided in favor of the federal law. This meant all an agency that wanted to run roughshod over a state had to do was pick a fight, which it knew it would win because the game was rigged ahead of time by Clinton's Executive Orders. Simply put, this amounted to crippling the Tenth Amendment, and it was done solely by executive action without any involvement from the courts or Congress.

pp. 91-92, emphasis added

However, the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) quickly followed [the failed attempt to require Clipper Chips in telephones]; the Clinton administration convinced Congress to pass this act in 1994. Under CALEA, every phone company in America is legally required to install snooping technology in all its new equipment so that government agents can listen in with ease.

p. 90, emphasis added

I am anything but a supporter of terrorists and criminals. I spent a large portion of my adult life working for the CIA and prosecuting criminals at the Department of Justice, so I am not unsympathetic to law enforcement. However, I have a theory about law enforcement: investigations can be hampered more than benefited by new authority and fancy technology. In my experience—privacy concerns aside—relying too much on sophisticated laboratories and massive wiretapping operations rather than on shoe-leather police work often resulted in cases that took too long to bring to trial and were far too weak and complex once they got there. For example, wiretapping can quickly overwhelm an investigation, particularly if multiple targets are involved or language barriers are present. Merely trying to cope with the resulting information is like trying to drink from an open fire hydrant. Despite the shortcomings, many agents like these methods because they are easier in many ways than old-fashioned investigative work.

p. 85, emphasis added

Who's defending civil liberties and due process now?

In past years, being a Democrat meant having a certain appreciation for civil liberties that went far beyond mere expediency. To be sure, Democrats did not always protect individual freedom, but they were far more reliable allies for the American Civil Liberties Union than were Republicans. This assumption of American politics cracked and ultimately shattered during the eight years of the Clinton administration. The first sign that this philosophy was dying occurred when many respected liberals went out of their way to cover up actions by federal law enforcement in the Waco attack. It went completely out the window when the Clinton administration introduced its draft anti-terrorism legislation following the tragic Oklahoma City bombing.

pp. 81-82, emphasis added

Much later, the FBI was forced to admit that it did use incendiary munitions after officials—including Janet Reno—testified under oath that they did not do so. ...

There are still numerous questions surrounding the Waco tragedy. At least two things are certain, however. First, top federal law enforcement officials from Janet Reno down behaved as if they wanted everyone in that compound dead, and their actions achieved that result. Secondly, the same top Clinton administration officials participated in an extensive effort to cover up the truth about what really happened at Waco. ...

I kept pursuing my hard line of questioning, but as we all know, it was largely in vain. We succeeded in getting important facts one the record, but the official version of the story is still largely one of a fiery mass suicide that the federal government was powerless to prevent. This, like so much of what passes for commonly accepted official stories in Washington, is a lie.

pp. 78, 80, emphasis added

As most Americans remember, Bill Clinton put Hillary Clinton in charge of a task force to develop a new health insurance plan for America. ...

Making this bad situation worse, Hillary insisted on meeting secretly to work on the plan. This resulted in a head-on collision with federal laws requiring government meetings to be open to the public if they involved non-governmental individuals. ...

Interestingly [the precedent] might also be used to prevent White House officials from being compelled to testify about conversations with other private individuals. Such a privilege—if asserted based on this precedent—would certainly encourage all kinds of corrupt conduct currently banned by law. In fact, it was this very argument that Vice President Cheney's legal team made in a bid to keep information about his energy policy task force secret when sued by Judicial Watch.

pp. 51-52, emphasis added

Now I know what my vote for Bob Barr would mean.

A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for due process and the rule of law.

A vote for Bob Barr is a vote to let government officials know that no one is above the law, the Constitution, and a respect for human rights.

A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for holding our President accountable. Our country needs a good impeachment. A vote for Bob Barr is the next best thing.

One last quote :-)

While I was frequently derided throughout my congressional career for never smiling, next to Maxine Waters I was the Cheshire Cat.

p. 131

Version 1.1 - bit about factions added May 18
----------------
Now playing: Beck - The New Pollution (I noticed some bits and pieces of this song are from the Brazilian band Os Mutantes)
via FoxyTunes

Bob Barr is going to smile a lot more

2008-05-13T11:21:00.004-05:00

I laughed out loud at a cafe with my earbuds on [4:09].

Update (May 16, 2008): Just to be clear, I found Barr's response quite endearing.

First report Bob Barr is running

2008-05-12T10:12:00.001-05:00

tweet

Update (May 12, 2008, 10:50 am Central): Jay Goodman Tamboli reports

Barr criticizes McCain's singing about Iran and Clinton's comments. Says war should not be taken so lightly.

Many people may not know this, but Barr graduated from high school in Iran. This is a big plus.

Update (May 12, 2008, 6:25 pm Central): Part of Bob Barr's announcement on video thanks to CNN.

Update (May 13, 2008, 12:30 am Central): The video's now on YouTube

There's audio of the Q&A following his announcement here.

I hear the media presence was significant.

Update (May 13, 2008, 2:15 am Central): Bob Barr made an additional announcement on Breitbart.tv

Link: sevenload.com

Update (May 13, 2008, 12:00 pm Central): More on the strong media presence from ThirdPartyWatch.

Bob Barr - how one president set the precedent for another

2008-05-11T22:59:00.000-05:00

4 years ago Bob Barr wrote an intelligent book on how President Clinton set the precedent for President Bush in the accelerating erosion of our civil liberties and due process. Here he describes how an FBI "wish list", which included many of the things Democrats complain so vehemently about with Bush, came to light and how the Clinton administration "drafted a massive anti-terror package and sent it to Congress," some provisions of which Barr successfully defeated in 1996 "by banding together with libertarian-leaning conservatives and civil libertarians in the Democrat ranks. (p. 87)"

Tomorrow at the National Press Club, Bob Barr might announce that he's running for President.

----------------
Now playing: Snowden - Victim Card
via FoxyTunes

Update (May 12, 2008, 9:50 am Central): Minutes to go before Barr speaks. I just read a critique of Newt Gingrich by The Other McCain.

Ralph Z. Hallow of The Washington Times has a story about Republicans who fear the potential impact of a Barr LP candidacy:
Republicans, both publicly and behind the scenes, are saying that a Barr run could hurt him financially and sink Mr. McCain's Republican candidacy in the general election, likely against Sen. Barack Obama.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told The Times today that "Bob Barr will make it marginally easier for Barack Obama to become president. That outcome threatens every libertarian value Barr professes to champion."
Electing the co-author of McCain-Feingold would threaten no libertarian values?

I'd add what Barr wrote in his book on p. 223,

When Republicans finally waved the white flag of surrender and caved in to Clinton's budget demands, the approach taken by our leaders was particularly disturbing. Through late fall and early winter 1995 as the "crisis" played itself out, in meeting after meeting Newt had been urging us to hold tough. Newt repeatedly reminded us that principle had gotten us where we were and must always be our ultimate guide. In the end, however, Newt changed course suddenly and completely, telling us we were going to give Clinton what he wanted, and we had by-God better support it. He even told us—for the first time to my knowledge—that he was going to keep a list of every member who did not vote to cave on the Clinton spending package and that the list would later be used to punish us.

Update (May 12, 2008, 10:20 am Central): Why is Newt's cave an important issue for everyone, all Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike? Ask David Walker, the recent Comptroller General of the United States of America. See - Thomas Jefferson and the Barbarian Invasions

There is a way forward - part 1

2008-05-07T23:19:00.000-05:00

Liberty and anarchy are opposed. I have written about this elsewhere. Suffice it to ask, as I did tonight, where is there a market for due process? The election of 2008 is at its heart about civil liberties and due process, principles I, for one, believe Lady Liberty loves, Americans love, and dare I say voters would love if they could get past identifying religiously with one Party or Another and brave their fears.

There is a way forward I'm gleaning from the turmoil I'm seeing. In a series of posts, I hope to give words to what I see.

Related posts:

What are Bob Barr's positions?

2008-05-05T01:29:00.000-05:00

And why is Bob Barr even thinking about running for President with only 6 months to go? Bob Barr answers on Reason.tv

The driving issue this year is due process, our only hope for putting a brake on the accelerating breakdown of our American civil and natural liberties, an emergency brake perhaps.

Due process not only applies to the microcosms of a business being wiretapped, a person being rendered, a home being disrespected, but it also applies to the larger events. It is Congress's job to hold a trial of sorts before the dog of war is unleashed, before the President is sicced on any land. They failed in restraining President Clinton, and they continue to fail with President Bush. Instead they try to vest the power elsewhere childishly, namely with the executive himself, contrary to the Constitution, per Federalist 69.

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature

Both parties have failed to stop government anarchy. Barr speaks of the rule of law, applied to government.

Ron Paul delegates sweep Minneapolis's congressional district

2008-04-06T14:54:00.001-05:00

All Republican national delegates elected yesterday by Minneapolis's congressional district are Ron Paul supporters. I've heard this from two sources. Here's the story. Here's the district. This district, my district, includes Minnehaha Creek and the entire city of Minneapolis.

I no longer support Ron Paul, for strong reasons I have written about here and elsewhere where I fear the words of liberty are but camouflage, but I do support the message of liberty. I hope this is a signal for liberty, not for those who merely tout it.

Update (Apr 6, 2008, 6:00 pm Central): Reportedly Ron Paul supporters swept the Republican 4th district election, too. In the 6th, they elected all but one of the national and alternative delegates, amidst controversy.

Update (Apr 7, 2008, 10:48 pm Central): There's an interesting article by Bob von Sternberg and Kevin Duchschere in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Update (Apr 7, 2008, 11:27 pm Central): Reaction of Prof. King Banaian at St. Cloud State University - What the Hell Happened at the CD6 Convention?

Update (Apr 8, 2008, 3:04 pm Central): From Google Alert, these just in...

Update (Apr 9, 2008, 2:51 pm Central): More info on the 6th Congressional District convention, from the Wright County Republican

Bob Barr 2008 opens presidential exploratory committee

2008-04-05T15:12:00.000-05:00

BobBarr2008.com

Update (Apr 5, 2008, 9:00 pm Central):

Update (Apr 7, 2008, 9:00 am Central):Video of Bob Barr's announcement at the Heartland Libertarian Conference, Apr 5, 2008
Bob Barr, in his announcement, mentions [15:41-15:50] the newly released 2003 memo from the executive branch, which references another executive-branch memo which "concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations". For more on this, read Administration Asserts No Fourth Amendment for Domestic Military Operations. Barr argues [15:51-16:54],

It raises the interesting question, 'What is an administration doing talking about "domestic military operations" in the first place? What about posse comitatus?' Oh, that's probably another one like the Geneva Convention, just sort of quaint and outdated. Well, the notion that our military has no business whatsoever engaging in domestic operations needs to once again be reminded to the American people, and, in so doing, we need to let the American people know that there is in fact one party out there, maybe the only one, but there is one party out there, one political vehicle out there that they can latch onto, that they can ride with, that actually does believe in and preach and will defend to the death our Bill of Rights and freedoms, not just in the 4th Amendment, not just in the 2nd Amendment, not just in the 1st Amendment, but in the whole range, including those which are long forgotten to the American people.

Update (Apr 8, 2008): Here's a report from Atlanta, Georgia.
Hat tip: Third Party Watch

Update (Apr 11, 2008): Barr polling at 7%.

For a Truly General Form of Election

2008-03-28T13:53:00.010-05:00

The alternative domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty... A fire not to be quenched, [the spirit of party] demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
Washington's Farewell Address (1796)

Synopsis (Jun 20, 2008): The basic idea here is to hold a primary which is party-neutral. After the primary, losing candidates can throw their support behind leading candidates. This avoids the problem of spoilers. The two leading candidates then have a run-off.

Preface (2008): An earlier version of this article was originally published in the August 1994 Minnesota State Fair issue of the Minnesota Libertarian. The idea arose during my experience witnessing the ballot access process in Minnesota and the partisanship suffusing it.

In the decade since I have noticed a most pernicious effect of the privileged station enjoyed by the two major parties. If barriers to electoral competition are sufficiently high, then only the irrational tend to stay in "third-party" parties.

It behooves us to find a way for other political associations, large and small, to grow in a natural way on the basis of their merits, open to ready electoral challenge. Indeed I see a future where the separation of power in government is reflected in the array of parties. Eventually I see a future of micro-parties such as the Pirate Party of Sweden, selecting an agenda limited by their expertise. Individual candidates may then assemble their platform from party components without kowtowing to mindless party discipline.

In the short term I only desire a way for an alternative liberal party to smoothly, civilly replace one of the two major parties if its candidates are of character and merit our trust.

The recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court on Washington's party-neutral top-two primary is promising. The form of election there is close to what I have in mind, but it falls short by dissuading voters from expressing their preference for less well-financed candidates.

[Note (May 10, 2010): To be clear—let me underline this—, I do not support top-two primary as proposed currently in California by Proposition 14, only the power of the state to experiment with general forms of election, subject to the regulation of Congress per Article 1, Section 4. Such regulation must be in the spirit of protecting a republican form of government. Some day a generation of Americans will see that forms of election which gamefully favor parties in power are not of such a spirit thanks to experiments at the state and local levels.]

Blanket primaries are essential, by the way. Voters must not be pigeon-holed religiously into one party or even another by the form of election we choose. Parties may have their own preliminary elections if they wish, but our constitutions must not engender crusty partisanship.

For a Truly General Form of Election
E pluribus duo, tum deinde unum

In Minnesota, there is much lamenting about the low participation in primaries and the even lower participation in caucuses.^[1] A report on Minnesota's caucus system published in 1991 by the Citizens League expressed the following concern which should attract the attention of people from all parties: "Over time, low levels of participation leave the party organization without new blood. For the health and vitality of the parties, incoming members who bring fresh ideas and new resources to the party organization are needed." (The Party Caucus: An Inquiry, Citizens League Report, p. 9)

Later in this same report, the Minnesota Party Caucus Committee offers a suggestion that would open up state elections to all voters so that they can vote anonymously and without party affiliation both in the primary and final elections: "Under this [proposed] system, the primary election would select two candidates, regardless of party, to compete in the general election. One ballot would list candidates from all parties at the primary election; the top two vote-getters would go on to the general election." (p. 26)

Currently, each voter loses the privacy of his or her political inclinations when voting in the primary as everyone must declare a party affiliation. Every vote funded by the state should be completely secret, especially to party officials. If a Minnesota voter insists on his or her privacy, that voter cannot vote in the primary and so can have no effect on the choice of the final major candidates. Now parties can always hold their own caucuses or primaries, but state-funded elections ought to be general and by completely secret ballot.

Moreover, in the present primary system the choice of candidates for different branches of government are tied together by party affiliation. The candidates for various branches (Governor, Senate, and House of Representatives), according to the separate nature of each office, ought to be evaluated by voters in different ways, using three separate gauges that may not fit the DFL-IR^[2] political spectrum. By segregating the voters in primaries by major party, the separation of powers between branches is blurred. The strong cooperation across the branches fostered by the major party organizations adds further to party polarization and the weakening of the system of checks and balances in our Constitution.

Finally, the two major parties are granted special status by the state in the primaries. On the wall of the chamber for the Minnesota House of Representatives "a frequent recurrence to fundamental principle" is yet advocated by Patrick Henry. To the first Minnesota Constitution of 1857, let's now recur: "In all cases when a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted." Now how can the primary system be run according to a general law in an effective way, with proportionate influence of the serious voters and without undue influence of the true fringe?

My proposal is that we adopt a primary as described above by the Minnesota Party Caucus Committee with one change: candidates with lower vote tallies may act as electors and contribute their votes to candidates with higher vote tallies.^[3] The two candidates with the highest tally go on to a final election.

The effect would be that some 2/3 of the electorate would influence the selection of the two final candidates (1/3 or so going to each in a tight race), confirming as individual voters that support in the final election. The remainder of the voters, whose candidates end up in fringe limbo, without influence in the primary this time around, would still help decide which of the two is to receive a majority in the final election.

Minnesota voters could then risk having fresh and quick-thinking candidates, devoid of party stagnation and incrustation, without the fear of their votes being lost, without the risk of fringe candidates affecting the major candidates, and without slavishness to the slow wit of party oligarchs.

This article was originally published in The Minnesota Libertarian August 1994 excepting: the Patrick Henry quote, the revision of the sentence following, grammatical corrections, and the footnotes, most of which were added December 1995 for publication in an earlier incarnation of the Solonian Journal. The author and both earlier publications are due attribution.

Note

↑This was written in 1994. In 2008, by contrast, the DFL caucuses were flooded with participants to such an unusual extent that disorder reigned, from what I understand, due to a lack of preparation.
↑For those outside Minnesota, DFL stands for Democratic Farmer Labor, the name of the state party affiliated with the Democratic Party, and IR for Independent Republican, the name until 1995 of the state party affiliated with the Republican Party.
↑A minimum number of votes, say 50, to qualify as an elector would be prudent (added 2008).

Update (Apr 5, 2008, 3:25 pm Central): I found a good example of the electoral problem we Americans face now. Listen to the recent interview of Bob Barr by Sean Hannity. Hannity criticizes Barr for potentially "splitting the vote". He points with fear to the Democrats. The Democrats point with fear to the Republicans. How are we to move forward in the ongoing promise of the American Revolution and the promise of the Declaration of Independence with all this dysfunction on both sides and no rational way to build a political path out of the muck. I suggest that the form of election I have described is a means towards that end. Specifically, it counters the argument against "splitting the vote".

Update (Apr 10, 2008): Here's another Bob-Barr interview where the interviewer, Neil Cavuto, tries to dissuade Barr from running, using the current form of election as a bludgeon, making my case on how this proposal is germane now. We Americans are caught up in a dysfunctional pattern.

Moreover, this proposal for a general form of election is designed to prevent the tail from wagging the dog, as happens in Europe.

Update (May 10, 2010): I oppose Proposition 14 in my home state of California. I now live in New York and am sad I cannot vote against it.

During a visit to California last year I had an idea while reading Alexis de Toqueville's "De la démocratie en Amérique" at Cafe de la Presse in San Francisco. Taking in some lessons from the experience of IRV in Minneapolis, both good and bad, it combines the two forms to produce a better form. I learned from talking with the key people in Minneapolis responsible for implementing IRV in 2009, including a dear friend, who is Assistant City Attorney there.

A mugwump awakes - Part 1

2008-03-27T14:22:00.000-05:00

Imagine you're a mugwump, placed in a deep slumber for a century, awakening to the horrors of our government run amok. What would strike you? What would you do now, with the added benefit of experience and a few more tools in the economic-theory toolbox?

In the tale of Rip van Winkle, Rip wakes only to find himself adrift in a new land, having fallen asleep for twenty years. He missed the American Revolution.

[Rip van Winkle] now hurried forth, and hastened to his old resort, the village inn, but it too was gone. A large rickety wooden building stood in its place, with great gaping windows, some of them broken and mended with old hats and petticoats, and over the door was painted, "The Union Hotel, by Jonathan Doolittle." Instead of the great tree that used to shelter the quiet little Dutch inn of yore, there now was reared a tall, naked pole, with something on the top that looked like a red night-cap, and from it was fluttering a flag, on which was a singular assemblage of stars and stripes. All this was strange and incomprehensible. He recognized on the sign, however, the ruby face of King George, under which he had smoked so many a peaceful pipe; but even this was singular metamorphosed. The red coat was changed for one of blue and buff, a sword was held in the hand instead of a sceptre, the head was decorated with a cocked hat, and underneath was painted in large characters, General Washington.

There was, as usual, a crowd of folk about the door, but none that Rip recollected. The very character of the people seemed changed. There was a busy, bustling, disputatious tone about it, instead of the accustomed phlegm and drowsy tranquility. He looked in vain for the sage Nicholas Vedder, with his broad face, double chin, and fair long pipe, uttering clouds of tobacco-smoke instead of idle speeches; or Van Bummel, the schoolmaster, doling forth the contents of an ancient newspaper. In place of these, a lean, bilious-looking fellow, with his pockets full of handbills, was haranguing vehemently about rights of citizens—elections—members of Congress—liberty—Bunker's Hill—heroes of Seventy-six—and other words, which were a perfect Babylonish jargon to the bewildered Van Winkle.

Our mugwump then is like Rip, except everything is reversed. The liberty poles are gone, where they once abounded. All but our mugwump have forgotten who Columbia is, with her liberty pole, topped with a red cap. When he fell asleep, Americans still sang their anthem to her. Hers was the poetic name for America. As late as the Columbian Exposition in 1893 her statue stood center-stage, her liberty cap perched higher than the symbols of Congress's mace. Where has her liberty pole gone?

Here are two examples of America personified by Columbia with her liberty pole, from the 1780s.

And another from the Seated Liberty dollar, which circulated from 1840 to 1873.

Will we ever top our flagpoles with the liberty cap again and raise our liberty poles from their slumber?

Here's our mugwump in younger days.

Sources:

Dream City by Halsey Ives (1893) via Illinois Institute of Technology

Library of Congress - here and there

Bob Barr is looking at running

2008-03-26T21:19:00.000-05:00

According to an interview yesterday with Scott Horton,

Scott Horton: Are you going to run for President of the United States?

Bob Barr: ... It is something to be honest with you that I'm looking very seriously at. [0:56-1:26]

Liberty can bring Americans back together again. Bob Barr agrees.

Bob Barr: There is a tremendous amount at stake in this upcoming election. It may very well be that if we don't get a handle on these fundamental liberties that are at stake in this election we will not be able to again. It is the growth of government; the limitations on individual liberty and freedom are accelerating so rapidly these days that this may be our really last opportunity to do so. Ron Paul tapped into a great deal of that dissatisfaction and that awareness. Unfortunately working through the Republican Party structure, it became impossible for him to really move forward with his movement but we have to have, as you say, a rallying point out there to harness that energy, that freedom, in this election cycle.

Scott Horton: I can also tell by your actions that you really understand this realignment, that we have to take the best parts of the left and the best parts of the right and make an alliance, like you said, a last ditch effort for the rule of law here. Either we have an emperor or we have a bill of rights. It's one or the other. And in your work with the Marijuana Policy Project, the ACLU, and other groups like that, I see you reaching out to the left. That's the kind of leadership we need, Bob.

Bob Barr: Well, what we need to do, Scott,—and again you've put it more eloquently than I could—what we need to do is recognize that among these different groups and organizations, the ACU, the NRA, the ACLU, the Marijuana Policy Project, all these other groups out there, we may have very serious disagreements on particular policy matters or particular programs or issues, but we can no longer allow that or afford to allow those differences to get in the way of reaching out to all of these different groups and doing whatever we can to protect our fundamental liberties which all of those groups that you enumerated believe in. If we continue to allow the status-quo, two-party system to divide and conquer and keep these groups apart, then they will continue to succeed in diminishing individual liberty. [2:22-4:36]

Barr goes on to lay out the basics of an intelligent foreign policy, an American foreign policy.

Hat tip: Freedom Democrats

Update (Apr 7, 2008): I was pleased to see this in the issues section of BobBarr2008 under "National Defense", as if he had read the last sentence above, regarding a return to an American foreign policy, emphasis on "American". As if! :-)

However, invading or initiating force against another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American. We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare. [emphasis added]

What's a mugwump?

2008-03-21T20:58:00.000-05:00

A mugwump is an independent, classical-liberal voter, who strives to stand together for the general interest, for rights, for the presumption of liberty.

An excellent book on the history of mugwumps is Mugwumps by David M. Tucker.

Letters on Ron Paul's defining moment - No. 3

2008-03-21T20:40:00.000-05:00

From a letter to a Ron Paul supporter and friend (Feb 6, 2008):

Even though I have serious doubts about Paul himself and oppose strongly the long-standing agenda of those he surrounds himself with, I'm glad to see the resonance of the basic message he has communicated to attract support, a message of liberty and constitutional government. I support this basic message, which is why I supported Paul's campaign in 1988 and for a time his present campaign.

When I decided to begin my verbal support in mid-2007 (followed later with my active support in December), I did however write an email saying that I might change my mind. I wrote on July 30,
Another reservation I have is Paul's association with members of what one fellow from Cato calls the "Fever Swamp".

My own definition of libertarian liberalism is close to the definition put forth by Dean Russell in 1955, Who is a Libertarian?, where Russell coins the word to replace the word liberalism, the meaning of which was being obscured. Unfortunately there have been two camps who have laid claim to the word over the past few decades in the U.S. One is the liberal camp, as understood in the U.S. before the "new liberals" or "social liberals" morphed into socialists and started attacking people's rights (There's a great history that discusses some of this in Alain Laurent's Le libéralisme américain : Histoire d'un détournement.) Then there are the anarchists, whom I view as feudalists. Here be beasts. I could write much more on this, but I'll leave it at that for now. I view the Cato Institute as being part of the liberal camp, and the "Fever Swamp" as being part of the anarchist camp. Ron Paul speaks and acts like he is in the liberal camp for the most part, which is why I have decided to support him. I may change my mind.
Not only was Ron Paul at a defining moment when he responded to what was written in his newsletters. We are at a defining moment. There are two camps. One is for liberty; the other is for anarchy. They are opposed. One talks of constitutionally limited taxation, the other of no taxation at all. One talks in favor of the 14th Amendment, protecting individuals from state laws that violate the rights of our Declaration; the other talks of states being left to any manner of legislation, even when such legislation ignores our rights. The one talks of free labor; the other talks of utter slavery again (Walter Block, for example, whom Paul mentions prominently in his response to the disclosure of his newsletters). The one talks of rule of law and juries; the other vigilantism, the rule of men. I reread Lew Rockwell's article in Liberty magazine (Jan 1990) recently. It absolutely horrified me nearly 20 years ago, and it still horrifies me. The overtones of racism combined with vigilantism are there for all to see. These men have no business being anywhere near the levers of power.

Again, I've met a lot of great people in the campaign. The message is greater than the messenger. I hope we can all figure out a way to keep the networking going for future candidates. Do you have any ideas? ...

I'm just sad that Ron Paul did not make the transition he needed to when he had the chance. And I think he did have a chance.

How the world sees Ron Paul supporters

2008-03-21T19:08:00.000-05:00

Here's a video made by the same people who produced the "Ron Paul Girl" videos. In it, you'll see a characterization of Ron Paul supporters that's hilarious, particularly for an apostate like me. "Blasphemy!"

Liv's Last Video? - video powered by Metacafe

See also: Free Pirate - New York, New Hampshire, and Williamsburg - deadline October 12 for douche-free election

Letters on Ron Paul's defining moment - No. 2

2008-02-16T20:21:00.000-06:00

I wrote this on July 30, 2007, in an email explaining to a friend my decision to support Ron Paul,

Your questioning me about my position [on Ron Paul] has led me to write down my thoughts to clarify them, to qualify them, as they can be so easily misunderstood. I've been meaning to write this down anyway. You just happened to be the first person to ask. I can use this writing elsewhere....

There are a few more positions I strongly disagree with Ron Paul on, just so there's no misunderstanding.

...

Another reservation I have is Paul's association with members of what one fellow from Cato calls the "Fever Swamp".

My own definition of libertarian liberalism is close to the definition put forth by Dean Russell in 1955, Who is a Libertarian?, where Russell coins the word to replace the word liberalism, the meaning of which was being obscured. Unfortunately there have been two camps who have laid claim to the word over the past few decades in the U.S. One is the liberal camp, as understood in the U.S. before the "new liberals" or "social liberals" morphed into socialists and started attacking people's rights (There's a great history that discusses some of this in Alain Laurent's Le libéralisme américain : Histoire d'un détournement.) Then there are the anarchists, whom I view as feudalists. Here be beasts. I could write much more on this, but I'll leave it at that for now. I view the Cato Institute as being part of the liberal camp, and the "Fever Swamp" as being part of the anarchist camp. Ron Paul speaks and acts like he is in the liberal camp for the most part, which is why I have decided to support him. I may change my mind.

Letters on Ron Paul's defining moment - No. 1

2008-02-16T19:17:00.001-06:00

This afternoon I wrote a letter to the main Ron Paul Meetup for the Minnesota campaign.

How do people feel about Bob Barr?

Just curious. There are 8-1/2 months left. Would a Bob Barr campaign offer hope and a way out of the mess we're in? He isn't running yet, but there's some buzz that he might, as a Libertarian Party candidate.

Paul cannot since he's defending his Congressional seat as a Republican.

Moveover he's lost the support of many, including me.

Some of you know why, but for those who don't, I dropped my support in January because of his continued close ties with Rockwell, author of the January 1990 "Case for Paleo-Libertarianism" in Liberty magazine. Rockwell wrote, "... the perpetrator was seldom turned over to the police.... The criminal was punished on the spot... it was rough justice and eminently libertarian." 15 paragraphs earlier, Rockwell wrote, "Wishing to associate with members of one's own race... is a normal human impulse." Rockwell's article revolted me when I first read it in 1990, and it still does.

I had written someone in July that I might change my mind about supporting Paul because of this nonsense, and I have.

It didn't help when Paul responded to the TNR article, which exposed his newsletters, by referring to Walter Block, who's written in defense of slavery, "What, precisely, did the slave owner in Alabama in 1835 get from his slave? Moral agency? Will? Heartfelt and cheerful obedience? None of the above. The master only received the privilege that when and if he used violence against the slave, he would not be penalized by law for assault, battery, and kidnaping, as he would have been had he carried out these acts against a free person. That is all that voluntary [sic] slavery would give the owner."

I'm sorry but slavocracy and liberty are inimical. What could be more absurd than "voluntary slavery". Wake up, people! Get rid of the ideological blinders. Lew Rockwell has called for debtor's prisons if he were ever in power. Think about that for just a second. Can debt peonage be too far behind? Don't jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. The principle of free labor, refined in the mid-1800's, is an essential component of liberty.

Returning to my original question.... shaking off the dirt... Please pardon my intemperate tangent.

Would you support Bob Barr if he were to run for President?
(additional note)

As might be expected, one person has basically told me, "Get lost!".

I overstayed my welcome further, writing,

Ron Paul himself appears to be passing the baton. Paul chose to have Bob Barr introduce him at his CPAC appearance last week.

The Ron Paul campaign, as I understood it when I was active, when I donated $100 on November 5 and again on December 16, when I delivered literature to every door of my precinct, and when I met the countless wonderful people who have been involved, was not just about Ron Paul. The campaign was about networking for him AND for future candidates. Is it still?

It's about the message of liberty, NOT the messenger, as Ron Paul himself has said.

It's about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. It's about the American Revolution.

Such networking is worthless if anyone, including Ron Paul, is above criticism.

As I have communicated to Marianne [Stebbins, the Minnesota Campaign Coordinator for Ron Paul 2008], I hope we can continue to network in some way for future candidates. If anyone has any suggestions on how this networking might be done in a way that's not tied to any one person, including Ron Paul, including Bob Barr, I for one would be interested. It would be a shame to lose the networking that we have started here in this campaign.

Update (Mar 21, 2008 & Mar 22, 2008): More...

Posted Feb 17, 2008, at 1:28 am - I used to argue the same way about my disagreement with Ron Paul on the 14th Amendment. We're only electing a president, not a dictator (knock on wood). I now have changed my mind, particularly after finding Walter Block's 2003 paper at mises.org. Slavery is not a minor issue. It is the central issue for libertarians, for classical liberals. I understand that Robert Nozick changed his mind about the principle of selling oneself into slavery, with good reason. This is an issue I have worried about for almost 20 years, after attending "Mises University" while I was a grad student at Stanford. I reject the Libertarian Case for Slavery

Are we to dream of states being "free" from the restraints of the 14th Amendment, "free" from the restraints of the Bill of Rights, particularly the Ninth Amendment, free from our Declaration of Independence? Are we to disparage the inalienability of our natural rights, as Block does? We've been there, done that. There's a book that reminds us of this history, Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History by Michael Kent Curtis. A central issue leading up to the Civil War was the prohibition of speech by the southern states. One couldn't even hope to change the laws there through political means, since you'd be stopped in your tracks for merely advocating freedom for the slaves.

If you're interested in civil liberties, what do you think of Lew Rockwell's advocacy of "on the spot" "rough justice"? This doesn't sound like due process to me. It sounds like taking the law into one's own hands. Juries are not a minor issue. Combine this with certain overtones, and I sense a disturbing resemblance to some unsavory factions, however clothed with the sweet sounds of liberty. I think of The Ox-Bow Incident.

I hope that Ron Paul agrees with my concerns. I just would like to hear that, but I'm not.

If you could push a button and dissolve the federal government, when it comes to the 14th and 9th Amendments, would you? This would be a mistake. And this is not a minor issue.

Can you name this person who recently spoke at Liberty University? When it came to his "approach to many of the social issues", he said, "The Sanctity of Life Amendment addresses this problem by taking away the jurisdiction from the federal courts. This can be done by a majority vote of the Congress and a signature by the President. ... There's nothing wrong with trying to change our courts which we will and have to someday, but that's a long-term problem. Amending the Constitution is a worthy project, but the fact that we could remove jurisdiction, whether it has to do with public prayer or whether it has to do with saying our pledge of allegiance .... If we could pass state laws, state laws that would stand the scrutiny and yet never be reversed by our federal courts, we could accomplish so much so much sooner and that vehicle is available to us."

Madison wished for a federal veto on state laws. We fought a civil war to establish such a veto when state law violates an individual's rights. I for one don't wish this to be frittered away by playing games with the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as conservatives are wont to do.

Back to Barr...

Apparently Barr has come around. He now opposes the Drug War. Consider viewing his appearances at the FFF Conference 2007 and at the Commonwealth Club of California. If you have evidence that he does not support the Constitution, please share your evidence. I'd be interested.

Posted Feb 18, 2008, at 1:26 am - First of all, ask people I worked with on the campaign whether or not they think I am speaking in good faith. I wish passionately for the success of the Ron Paul Revolution. The issue nearest and dearest to my heart is Hayek's argument for the denationalisation of money. I'm glad to have heard Ron Paul discuss competing currencies two days ago. It's important that we Americans explore this issue as Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz recommended back in 1986. When I was a grad student, it was taboo. Now John Stewart brings it up with Alan Greenspan on The Daily Show. Times are a-changing, happily.

The big picture is that the TNR article was devastating for the Ron Paul campaign, and it was not wholly a smear as some in the campaign would prefer to believe. It's important to face this fact. There was a substantial problem there, which many liberty-minded people who've been around for decades trying to move liberty-oriented politics forward were well aware of. Did Lew Rockwell write these newsletter articles? They do match the tone and substance of his disgraceful 1990 manifesto, which I quoted above. The week before the TNR article was published, at a local neighborhood Ron Paul Meetup, I discussed with the precinct captain for the precinct south of mine how I remembered finding Rockwell's writing in the early 90's so disturbing. He quit immediately after the story broke. I gave Paul some time to disassociate himself from Rockwell. A few days later I quit after reading Paul's disappointing response.

I would prefer to speak for myself as to what I am trying to do.

1) I would like to help make the Ron Paul Revolution succeed. Today I happened to leaf through a book by Joseph Ellis on the American Revolution. It's called "American Creation". One interesting point he makes is that our American Revolution was different from other revolutions. Instead of there being one man, we had a brilliant group of people, the founders. One-man revolutions tend to fail catastrophically. Ours plodded along. If we are to renew the American Revolution, which I think this is all about, I think it important that we not place our bets on only one man. That is why the networking is so important. Let's find and encourage capable people to run for office.... Let's brain storm on where to go from here.

2) Let's not be ostriches and hide our heads in the sand. Let's face reality as it is. We may have different opinions about that reality, but let's discuss them together critically.

3) My opinion is that it's game-over for Ron Paul's run for the Republican Party nomination. I do not say this to harm the Ron Paul Revolution. I wish to further it. The harm came from elsewhere, namely the Ron Paul Newsletter and Rockwell's writing. I agreed with Paul's strategy, too, having seen myself how horrendous the obstacles are for third parties.

4) People may disagree, but I'm interested in hearing what people's opinions are who care, and the people who care are here.

5) For those who agree on (3), is there any possible alternative for the presidential campaign? Some have argued that Paul should run as a third-party candidate. Paul cannot if he hopes to retain his congressional seat, from what I understand. The only other alternatives are to vote NOTA, to vote for Obama or McCain, or to vote for a third-party candidate. The only alternative I've seen who's compatible with the Ron Paul Revolution is Bob Barr. Maybe some disagree. Maybe some see other alternatives. The important thing to discuss them, to not sweep the whole unhappy situation under the rug irrationally.

6) Perhaps we can discuss other offices. Fourteen years ago when I was chair of the Legislative Affairs Committee for the Libertarian Party of Minnesota I argued for a strategy focusing on electing Senators (Minnesota Libertarian, State Fair issue, 1994, p. 12). There are reasons for this.

7) Let's learn from our experience. For any campaign to succeed, it is important to assure voters that Lew Rockwell and other vigilantists are to be nowhere near the levers of power. Liberty and vigilantism are opposed. Moreover, vigilantism attracts an unsavory crowd.

8) The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (yes, including the 14th Amendment) are where it's at when it comes to office-holders. We value "due
process", juries, "habeas corpus", and a "government of law and not of men". It's the flood of legislation that's the problem, not common law. It's the willful, routine sidestepping of the Constitution by office-holders. Can we agree on that?

9) In short, let's discuss where we go from here so that the Ron Paul Revolution succeeds. We may disagree. That's alright.

Posted Feb 19, 2008, at 10:45 pm - ... The Philmore article is actually written ironically. The real author is writing under a pseudonym. His point is to show the absurdity of a libertarianism which attacks the inalienability of rights. Two decades ago I read Nozick's book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, and loved it, everything EXCEPT his position on self-sale. This is a deep flaw in Nozick's thinking, which apparently he did correct later.

Walter Block, whom Ron Paul mentions prominently in his reply to the TNR article, has written a serious article in which he attacks the inalienability of rights. I included a quote above. Do you not find that disturbing, his justification for whipping a slave into doing what the master wants? What would it take to discredit someone's love of liberty if not that, the advocacy of the ugliest, rawest form of slavery? Here is the full paper.

Before the Civil War there was no political process possible by which the southern states could vote for a 14th Amendment. When you make it illegal to speak or write on an issue, which they did, how can you debate it and move it through a legislature or convention? It isn't possible. That is why there was a war. Secession for liberty is one thing, secession for slavery is another.

The 14th Amendment is there to ensure that states can never outlaw free speech again. Without the 14th Amendment, the 9th Amendment would then only pertain to federal law. As Randy Barnett argues though in Restoring the Lost Constitution, most laws governing everyday life should return to the state level. I agree. What we're seeing is the centralization of legislation at the federal law in matters in which the federal government has no business.

If for whatever reason though, a state becomes tyrannical, there is a clause in the Constitution saying that the federal government can intervene. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" People pointed to this before the Civil War when confronted with all the usurpations in the south. Again think of how the southern states tried to have publishers punished who argued for emancipation, and these were publishers in the north (Michael Kent Curtis - Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege" - p. 137). When a state attacks its citizens' rights, such as free speech, then the form of that state's government cannot be properly called "republican". This is what the 14th Amendment clarifies. The federal government can step in to ensure that a state respects its citizens' rights. Now we should also have some mechanism for the states to gather together and say enough is enough to the federal government when the federal government attacks its citizens' rights, too. I gave this some thought in the 90's after reading the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Perhaps this needs to be formalized in some manner akin to the 14th Amendment. I don't know...

In short, how do we ensure that the Declaration of Independence lives on at all levels?

But the major point is that we need to stick together. Just throwing up your arms and going back to a bunch of feudal states where anything goes is just going back to the muck that we and our ancestors were trying to escape from. It makes us weak and prone to warring amongst ourselves. I like the story about the legendary founder of the Iroquois Confederacy, who illustrated the point with a bunch of arrows. This is the same bunch of arrows that is loosely held by the eagle in the Great Seal of the United States.

We can stick together, while backing off from the crazy, unconstitutional centralization of power we've witnessed over the past century. I think the image of a loosely held bunch of arrows helps clarify this. They are loosely held, but they are held. I dislike the tight bundles of rods in the Lincoln Memorial, underneath Lincoln's arms. That symbolizes the centralization that took place, which took off in the Wilson administration, from what I've recently read in Jonah Goldberg's new book. Wilson, by the way, was the first post-civil-war Southerner to be elected, as I understand it, bringing with him a taste for Jim Crow laws. See Nicholas Patier's book Jim Crow and the Wilson Administration Notice in that book how the struggle for rights included prominently a fight against peonage and lynching (pp. 25, 125, 129, and 203). Wilson was a disaster. (I'm embarrassed he was president of my college, no less my country.)

Is it not natural then to suspect an organization which prominently advocates vigilantism and "voluntary slavery"? Does this ring a bell? Is there not some cognitive dissonance?

I have a suspicion that there are some who wish to make it possible for states to have authoritarian laws that contravene the Bill of Rights, while talking the good talk of liberty federally.

Defining moment for Ron Paul

2008-01-09T12:25:00.000-06:00

I have followed the liberty movement for 20 years since my days at Stanford. Never before have I seen such a defining moment.

As I have written elsewhere, I urge Ron Paul to disassociate himself from Lew Rockwell. I plan to write much more on this.

The message will not wait around for its messenger.

Minnesota Caucus

2008-01-06T18:47:00.000-06:00

Here's how Minnesota elects delegates to the National Convention 2008

It all starts at your neighborhood caucus

Tuesday, February 8
7:00 pm

Be there, aloha!

Caucus location for our neighborhood:: Minnehaha Academy North Campus
3100 West River Pkwy
Minneapolis MN 55406

map

You're invited to attend our weekly Minnehaha Meetup to network with other neighbors and prepare for the caucus, every Tuesday until the caucus.

I met a stranger...

I met a stranger at the Caribou Coffee on Minnehaha Parkway and Cedar today.

The stranger had seen the book I was reading, The Bill of Wrongs: The Executive Branch's Assault on America's Fundamental Rights by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose. He came over and asked me how I liked the book. I told him it was great. It even features an ex-girlfriend of mine in chapter 6, who fought the good fight as an "enterprising" reporter for the New York Times, uncovering the identity of a librarian caught in the crosshairs of a National Security Letter that forbade him from even telling his own family about his situation.

Well, after much discussion I lamented how both parties had participated in the loss of civil liberties, before the Patriot Act. For example, another Princeton classmate of mine, who's a law professor, told me about how President Clinton had prepared the way for the loss of Habeas Corpus with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 he signed into law. The stranger seemed resigned to despair. Nothing to do but accept the inevitable.... What can anyone do? On that note, the stranger left. (Hopefully, what I told him about my support for Ron Paul will sink in.)

There is a way out.

Don't be a stranger.

Attend your caucus.

Attend the meetup.

Ron Paul literature all over my precinct

2007-12-22T14:21:00.000-06:00

Yesterday I finished a week-long campaign to deliver Ron Paul literature to every doorstep in my caucus precinct, Minneapolis W-12 P-08, before Christmas, leaving 1800 or so "slim-jim" palmcards, most of them like the one here.

I ran a marathon in 2004 and another in 2005. This is the closest thing to a marathon I've done since. If you'd like to do some Ron Paul marathoning yourself, contact Marianne Stebbins at the Minnesota campaign headquarters. Marianne may prefer that you spread your leafletting run over several precincts, instead of focussing on just one, like I did.

If you do, be sure to pack plenty of water and stay hydrated!

Happy tea party!

2007-12-16T14:52:00.000-06:00

I just saw Ron Paul 2008's fourth quarter donation total go over $15 million, nearly $3.5 million of which came in today (so far!) in commemoration of the Boston Tea Party 234 years ago.

Update (Dec 16, 2007): Last night at a celebration in downtown Minneapolis kicking off the Tea Party '07 money bomb, I predicted $6 million. Many others there shared the same estimate or close to it. Well, in the last hour of the tea party, Ron Paul 2008 did it. They have $6 million in donations, and they're still coming in. Wait! I just heard (10:28 Central) on Ron Paul Radio that the Ron Paul 2008 site has crashed in the deluge of hits. So they're now urging people to call in their donations.

Update (Dec 17, 2007, 11:46 pm Central): According to Ron Paul 2008...
we just passed $18 million - Q4 (so far)

Earlier the Ron Paul Radio guys were quite funny about the websites going down before midnight (Ron Paul 2008, Ron Paul Forums), telling their audience that if they go down, too, well it's been an honor serving them.... :-)

They then played the 1812 Overture, just like in the movie "V for Vendetta", and "We are the Champions" by Queen, from the end of the movie "Revenge of the Nerds".

Update (Dec 17, 2007, 4:25 pm Central): Ron Paul 2008 reports $6.04 million as the final tally, with an average donation of $102 from a total of 58,407 individual contributors.

Update (Jan 3, 2008, 12:59 am Central): This great video captures the enthusiasm of the day.

Look! Up in the sky... It's a bird, it's a plane, it's a frog.

2007-12-11T11:48:00.000-06:00

A frog? No, it's Underdog!

Read about this innovative campaign in Wired.

What does Underdog himself have to say?

Not plane nor bird nor even frog. It's just little old me... [sound of crash off camera] Heh-heh, Underdog.

Ron Paul's Empty Pot and Will Rogers

2007-12-11T10:37:00.000-06:00

Ed Felien, editor and publisher of the Southside Pride, recounted this story with flair at a Ron Paul Meetup last night at Powderhorn Park. Wish I had a video. It's the story of the emperor and the empty pot,

The wise, old emperor was keenly aware that he was getting along in years, and he worried about finding a suitable replacement to lead the people. One day, he solicited the young people of his kingdom to gather, and he shocked them by telling them that he would be stepping down and that he would choose one of them to be his successor. “I am going to give each one of you a seed today, a very special seed. I want you to plant the seed, water it and come back here one year from today with what you have grown from the seed. I will then judge the plants that you bring, and the one I choose will be the next emperor!”

One young man named Ling, a son of a farmer, was there that day, and he was certain that he could cultivate that seed better than anyone else. He got a pot, filled it with rich soil and watered it carefully. Day after day, he checked the pot. Weeks passed by, then months, and still nothing had grown. Other youths from the kingdom began to talk about their plants and flowers and trees, but Ling said nothing. He was sure that he somehow had killed the seed.

After a year had passed, all the youths of the kingdom brought their plants to the emperor for inspection. Ling’s first inclination was not to attend, but he showed up that day, sick to his stomach. He was amazed at the plants that the others had brought. They were of all different varieties and all so beautiful. Some of the others made fun of Ling’s empty pot and others felt pity for him. Ling stood toward the back of the crowd.

The emperor looked over the vast array and seemed pleased. Then, he spotted Ling standing at the back of the room with his empty pot, and he ordered his guards to bring the young man to the front. Ling was led grudgingly, fearful that he may be punished for his utter failure. The emperor asked his name. “My name is Ling,” he replied. Now, all the youths were laughing and making fun. The emperor then announced to the crowd, “Behold your new emperor! His name is Ling!”
The emperor continued,

One year ago today, I gave everyone here a seed. I told you to take the seed, plant it, water it and bring it back to me today. But I gave you all boiled seeds which would not grow. The rest of you substituted your own seeds for the one I gave you, but Ling was the only one with the courage and honesty to bring me a pot with my seed in it. Therefore, he is the one who will be your new emperor!

Read the rest at News Long Island...

It reminds me of Will Rogers routine on radio, three-quarters of a century ago, where he builds up to the announcement of his great plan, The Will Rogers Plan, that will solve all the ails of the country,

It kinda looks like a bad day for plans... I'm not going to get discouraged though. In fact, these other failures -- well, they've really given me confidence, you know -- more hope that my plan will be a success... My plan is a plan to end all plans. It's to do away with all plans. That's what it is. This country has been planned to death... There ain't but one place that a plan is any good and that it'll really work, and that's on paper. But the minute you get it off a sheet of paper and get it out in the air... it blows away. ... Plans just don't work. If they're milk and honey to you, they're poison ivy to somebody else... My plan is when a senator or congressman -- or even a man of great ability (we must quit joking about those boys, because they're good guys) ... comes to Washington with a plan, you send 'em to Russia. Yes, sir, send 'em to Russia with the plan. That's the home of all plans, you know. That's the home. Russia, they eat and sleep and drink plans in Russia. That's why there's starvation there, because you just can't digest a plan. It don't eat right. Everything in Russia is run by plans; everything here is run by accident... [The Rogers Plan] is: 'Don't Plan' ... Live haphazard... There's nothing in the world as common as an idea, and there's nothing in the world as hard to carry out as an idea. If the Republicans would forget their main plan which is to get into the White House and the Democrats would forget their main plan which is to stay in there, and the others, all these various third parties, would just look at their history which shows that none of them ever did get in there, why, we'd all recover overnight, you see.

Will Rogers - Rogers' Plan to End All Plans

Ed Felien has written a front-page article supporting Ron Paul, which should appear soon in our neighborhood edition of the Southside Pride, Ron Paul revolution: Are you ready?.

Non-partisan Caucus Training - Tuesday at 6:30pm

2007-12-10T20:59:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow evening at 6:30 pm a non-partisan training session is being held at the Longfellow Community Center, and it's all about the caucus process. I urge you to attend. It's being put together by Peace in the Precincts.

PEACE FIRST! Caucus Training

Host: Peace in the Precincts
Tues Dec 11, 6:30pm to 9pm
Longfellow Community Center
36th Ave S & 35th St E

3435 36th Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55406
FFI info@peaceintheprecincts.org or 651-917-0383

Our weekly meeting originally scheduled at Chris & Rob's at 7 pm Tuesday is hereby cancelled so that we can attend this training. Hope to see you tomorrow at the Longfellow Community Center!

Update (Dec 11, 2007, 6:25 pm): It looks like Precincts in the Precincts had the wrong address for the Longfellow Community Center. I've corrected it.

Update (Dec 12, 2007, 12;45 am): Great session tonight. Thanks to Pete Simmons of Peace in the Precincts. Lots of good info.

Meeting on proposed Midtown Incinerator - Dec 13

2007-12-09T17:12:00.000-06:00

My friends and fellow Standish residents Dan Cooke and Ann Novitske have set up a new blog on the proposed Midtown Minneapolis Incinerator. Dan writes,

Action Alert - MPCA Public Information Meeting

The MPCA [Minnesota Pollution Control Agency] has scheduled a public meeting on the Midtown Eco Energy incinerator's pollution permit application. The meeting will provide information about the proposed new incinerator at 2850 20th Avenue South in Minneapolis -- near the Minneapolis Greenway and the new Greenway Bridge that straddles Hiawatha Avenue. IF YOU LIVE, EXERCISE, WORK OR SHOP WITHIN THREE MILES OF THIS FACILITY AND YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT AIR POLLUTION IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IT IS CRITICAL THAT YOU ATTEND THIS MEETING. Please come to the meeting to learn more about this project.

MPCA Public Information Meeting on proposed Midtown Incinerator:

Thursday, December 13, 2007
6 - 8:30 p.m.
Holy Trinity Lutheran Church
2730 East 31st Street, Minneapolis

No one who attends will be required to speak (although you can ask questions or make comments if you wish). Project developers and people who are concerned about the pollution that would be caused by the project will be in attendance to offer pros and cons. By simply attending you will be letting the MPCA know that you care about the air you breathe and about the planet we live on.

Wayward as the Minnehaha

2007-12-05T12:19:00.003-06:00

I look out at Minnehaha Creek, as it flows unstoppably towards Minnehaha Falls, and I remember Longfellow's Song of Hiawatha, a tattered copy of which I have from my mother's childhood.

Homeward now went Hiawatha;
Pleasant was the landscape round him,
Pleasant was the air above him,
For the bitterness of anger
Had departed wholly from him,
From his brain the thought of vengeance,
From his heart the burning fever.

Only once his pace he slackened,
Only once he paused or halted,
Paused to purchase heads of arrows
Of the ancient Arrow-maker,
In the land of the Dacotahs,
Where the Falls of Minnehaha
Flash and gleam among the oak-trees,
Laugh and leap into the valley.

There the ancient Arrow-maker
Made his arrow-heads of sandstone,
Arrow-heads of chalcedony,
Arrow-heads of flint and jasper,
Smoothed and sharpened at the edges,
Hard and polished, keen and costly.

With him dwelt his dark-eyed daughter,
Wayward as the Minnehaha,
With her moods of shade and sunshine,
Eyes that smiled and frowned alternate,
Feet as rapid as the river,
Tresses flowing like the water,
And as musical a laughter:
And he named her from the river,
From the water-fall he named her,
Minnehaha, Laughing Water.

Was it then for heads of arrows,
Arrow-heads of chalcedony,
Arrow-heads of flint and jasper,
That my Hiawatha halted
In the land of the Dacotahs?

Was it not to see the maiden,
See the face of Laughing Water
Peeping from behind the curtain,
Hear the rustling of her garments
From behind the waving curtain,
As one sees the Minnehaha
Gleaming, glancing through the branches,
As one hears the Laughing Water
From behind its screen of branches?

Who shall say what thoughts and visions
Fill the fiery brains of young men?
Who shall say what dreams of beauty
Filled the heart of Hiawatha?
All he told to old Nokomis,
When he reached the lodge at sunset,
Was the meeting with his father,
Was his fight with Mudjekeewis;
Not a word he said of arrows,
Not a word of Laughing Water.

How many of you know that the name Minneapolis comes from Minnehaha? We are the city of Minnehaha. I remember reading an article in the vaults of the Minnesota Historical Society which described the naming of the city. There was a Bowman involved (no relation). Originally the name was to be Minnehapolis, combining the word "minnehaha" meaning river-falls with the Greek word "polis" meaning city. The letter 'h' was dropped as the pronunciation proved awkward. In its founding, the waterfalls of the area lent themselves to an economy centered on mills, first used for cutting lumber, and later for the grinding of flour. Unfortunately even the Minnesota Historical Society in some, not all, of its publications makes the error of forgetting the significance of the letter 'a', behind which are the falls.

How many of you know that the very word "caucus" is an American Indian word? Jack Weatherford, professor at Macalaster College just across the Mississippi, has written the book Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World, which chronicles a number of important contributions for which we should all be grateful. We owe important principles in our own Constitution to the Iroquois League, principles that set our Constitution apart from those of the rest of the world, particularly our federalism and our civility in Congress. Let us not forget.

Behind the fictional Hiawatha of Longfellow stood a historic figure (perhaps legendary) named Aiowantha. Aiowantha was said to be inspired by Deganawidah, who said,

When you administer the Law, your skins must be seven thumbs thick. Then the magic darts of your enemies will not penetrate, even if they prod you with their points.

This is to be of strong mind, O chiefs: Carry no anger and hold no grudges. Think not forever of yourselves, O chiefs, nor of your own generation. Think of continuing generations of our families, think of our grandchildren and of those yet unborn, whose faces are coming from beneath the ground.
Paul A. W. Wallace (1986) White Roots of Peace, p. 40.
Now available in a 2nd edition - White Roots of Peace: The Iroquois Book of Life.

For those interested in more of the history,

Although some twentieth-century anthropologists maintain that the Iroquois League was only fully formed after Europeans made landfall in North America, the historical records of Europeans such as Colden contained no hint that the Confederacy was in formation at that time. The consensus of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century writers, who saw the Confederacy in its full flower, was that it had formed sometime before colonization. The oral history of the Iroquois indicated a founding date somewhere between A.D. 1000 and 1450. ...

According to Iroquois oral history, the Confederacy was formed by the Huran prophet Deganawidah (called "the Peacemaker" in oral discourse), who, because he stuttered so badly he could hardly speak, decided to enlist the aid of Aiowantha (sometimes called Hiawatha) in order to spread his vision of a united Haudenosaunee confederacy....

Peace among the formerly antagonistic nations was procured and maintained through the Haudenosaunee's Great Law of Peace {Kaianerekowa}, which was passed from generation to generation by the use of wampum, a form of written communication that outlined a complex system of checks and balances between nations and sexes. Although a complete oral recitation of the Great Law can take several days, encapsulated versions of it have been translated into English for more than a hundred years and provide one reason why the Iroquois are cited so often today in debates regarding the origins of fundamental law in the United States. While many other native confederacies existed along the borders of the british colonies, most records of the specific provisions of their governments have been lost.

... The primary national symbol of the Haudenosaunee was the Great White Pine, which served throughout the Great Law as a metaphor for the Confederacy. Its branches sheltered the people of the Five Nations, and its roots spread to the four directions, inviting other peoples, regardless of race or nationality, to take refuge under the tree....
Donald A. Grinde, Jr., and Bruce E. Johansen (1991) Examplar of Liberty, pp. 22-24.

Just to show how timeless certain issues can be,

The Great Law stipulated that sachems' skins must be seven spans thick, so that they would be able to withstand the criticism of their constitutents. The law pointed out that sachems should take pains not to become angry when people scrutinized their conduct in govermental affairs. Such a point of view pervades the writings of Jefferson and Franklin, although it was not fully codified into United States law until the Supreme Court decision New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), which made it virtually impossible for public officials to sue for libel.

The Great Law also included provisions guaranteeing freedom of religion and the right of redress before the Grand Council. It even forbade unauthorized entry into homes—measures which sound familiar to United States citizens through the Bill of Rights.
Exemplar of Liberty, pp. 24-27

Grinde and Johansen go on to write,

... [T]he Constitution was toasted in 1790 by John Jay, Jefferson, and others as "our tree of peace," which sheltered them "with its branches of union" (see New York Journal, 10 August 1790).
Exemplar of Liberty, p. 307

Attend the caucus. Support Ron Paul in his bid for the presidency and his message, our message, the American message of rights. Network.

Update (Jul 25, 2008): For more on the naming of Minneapolis, see -

Minnehapolis - "City of the Falls"

all Gaul is divided into three parts

2007-12-04T22:08:00.000-06:00

All of Standish-Ericsson is divided into 3 caucus precincts.

To the north lie the pastoral highlands of precinct W-9 P-08. Their residents are bravest because they are furthest from the civilization and refinement of the new Caribou and Grand Ole Creamery on Cedar and Minnehaha Parkway :-) To the south, by the great inland sea of Lake Hiawatha, home to beavers in the early 90s, we find the glades and peoples of precinct W-12 P-11, bounded to the south by Minnehaha Creek. Between these two vast regions, there is the third precinct, W-12 P-08, north of rolling green battlefields, once graced by the mighty Tiger Woods.

Below are detailed maps of each precinct, which you can enlarge by clicking on them.

(Comments are welcome if you'd like to add anything to the descriptions.)

It is here that the battle is to be waged on February 5, 2008, for Ron Paul. Will you be there at the caucuses? The world will pass down the legend of what happened here that day. What will you tell your children?

Minneapolis W-9 P-08

Minneapolis W-12 P-08

Minneapolis W-12 P-11

Source for Standish-Ericsson map: Standish-Ericsson Neighborhood Association

Update (Dec 5, 2007): All Gaul is divided into 3 parts? No, four.