03
Quebec,
I got no beef with you. I’m sorry the Conservatives act like everyone in the West wants you to leave.
From,
Vancouver
13
1. Bill C-61: Conservative commitment to the unenforceable and distinctly unfair, bill C-61. Why is this an important issue? Here are just a few reasons (source: http://www.brendonwilson.com/blog/2008/06/16/talking-points-to-defeat-bill-c-61/): “It forces you to buy media you’ve already purchased”, “it makes your devices less useful”, “consumers will be unable to influence the market by finding new uses for their existing media and copyrighted materials”, and “it makes the public domain works inaccessible”, to name but a few aspects. Read the article for more.
2. Climate Change and the environment: The recently announced environmental policies in the conservative party platform are yet again, a sad excuse at pretending to care about the environment. Not one environmental organization I could find gave it a thumbs up. “The Conservative party platform missed the opportunity to strengthen the party’s inadequate approach to global warming, and instead added more uncertainty to it. The party also failed to announce support for a key renewable energy program that’s about to expire, and did not offer a strategy to deal with the environmental impacts of runaway oil sands development.” (source: http://www.pembina.org/election2008/blog/Cons-Platform) More: “The Conservatives’ national emissions target for 2020, which is equivalent to just 3% below the 1990 level, falls far short of both the targets adopted by leading countries and of what the science tells us we need. Mr. Harper has called global warming “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today ” That urgency is nowhere to be found in the party’s platform.” And perhaps the most impressive evidence that “doing something” will not actually destroy our economy: “Between 1990 and 2006 Sweden cut its carbon emissions by 9%, largely exceeding the target set by the Kyoto Protocol, while enjoying economic growth of 44% in fixed prices.” (source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/29/climatechange.carbonemissions)
3. Anti-Green Energy: We are missing important alternative energy opportunities because of Harper’s bias towards the oil industry. A really tangible example is this: “the founder of a Canadian-made, 100 per cent electric car says the federal government is blocking him from selling his cars in Canada. Warehoused Zenn cars in St. Jerome, Que. (CBC) The ZENN (zero emissions, no noise) electric car is already being sold in the United States, Mexico, and Europe, where it has won awards” (source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/10/26/electriccar-zenn.html). A more abstract statement from the Toronto Sun: “Canada fails to recognize that there’s money to be made in developing a green economy, some of Canada’s brightest scientists heard yesterday at a 20-year conference reunion. ‘There is profit to be made in developing technology to fight pollution’, said Howard Ferguson, the original chairman of the historic climate Our Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security conference in 1988. About a dozen of some of Canada’s eminent scientific minds — Nobel Prize winners among them — shared ideas and reunited yesterday to mark the 20th anniversary of the conference in Canada and lambast the world’s inaction”. Another opinion; “the Conservatives remain the only party not to signal a renewal of support for green electricity. The ecoENERGY for Renewable Power program will run out of money this coming year, stranding billions of dollars of investment. A lack of leadership on renewable power in Canada means that investors will likely seek opportunities in the United States, which recently announced a decision to continue its support for renewable power. Canada’s green power industry will continue to fall behind the Americans without a renewal of federal support – and this platform failed to make that commitment”. (source: http://www.pembina.org/election2008/blog/Cons-Platform)
4. Reduced Transparency: Elected on the promise of making government more open to the public, Harper has done the exact opposite. “Too often, responses to access requests are late, incomplete, or overly censored,” Information Commissioner Robert Marleau said in an introduction to his first annual report. “Too often, access is denied to hide wrongdoing, or to protect officials or governments from embarrassment, rather than to serve a legitimate confidentiality requirement”. (source: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=cf2b9830-7185-4036-bf8e-f164fca973ca&k=7741) This, combined with Harper’s reduction in press conferences (refusing to meet with the Parliamentary Press Gallery) and strangle-hold on party opinions, is not only breaking an election promise but damages Canadian democracy.
5. Telecommunications, Banking and Media Monopolies: Who likes paying higher cellular data rates than Rwanda? (source: http://blogs.itworldcanada.com/idol/2008/05/26/why-is-canada-more-expensive-than-rwanda-for-mobile-data-access/) Who likes the fact that Japan has Internet that is 8x faster than ours at a fraction of the cost? (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801990.html?nav=rss_technology) The difference? “In 2000, the Japanese government seized its advantage in wire…. regulators [in Japan] compelled big phone companies to open up wires to upstart Internet providers”. I’m sure Harper loves that idea.
Then there’s the 10% – 20% fees to access your money at ATM’s in addition to a host of other unpopular banking service fees. This industry accounts for the highest volume of consumer complaints to the Better Business Bureau. The public opinion polls on this are enough to make the case: “In response to the question, ‘Do you agree or disagree with the suggestion that the federal government should ban fees charged when people use ATMs of financial institutions other than their own?’, 70% of Canadians agreed, while only 26% disagreed”. (source: NRG: Research Group)
And finally, the pathetic media situation in Canada. One really has to look no further than the Vancouver Sun and Province to get a sense for what’s wrong here. “In addition to the National Post, CanWest now owns 14 large city dailies, 120 smaller dailies and weeklies, and the Global TV network, Canada’s second-largest private broadcaster. The company also has private TV networks in Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, among other holdings”….”CanWest chair Israel (“Izzy”) Asper [this is a 2002 article] told the CanWest Global annual shareholders meeting on January 30 that “on national and international key issues we should have one, not 14, editorial positions.” But this reverses the guarantee of local autonomy the newspaper chains promised regulators when they were allowed to amass their empires, gobbling up independent dailies from the 1970s through the 1990s.” (source: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1106) As a result of this media concentration, Canadians get inundated with inaccurate information that suits the economic interests of one company.
6. Shameful Foreign Policy: This is very simple. We as Canadians are complicit in torture thanks to our involvement in Afghanistan. TORTURE! TORTURE! TORTURE! TORTURE! “The government had initially denied the existence of [evidence of torture], stating in writing that ‘no such report on human-rights performance in other countries exists’. The Globe and Mail subsequently used the access of information law to force the government to turn over a copy of the report, which is titled ‘Afghanistan 2006: Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights’. But the report given the Globe had been heavily censored in the name of ‘national security’; numerous passages depicting the deplorable human rights situation in Afghanistan and the violation of basic civil liberties by Afghan authorities were blacked out” (source: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/apr2007/afgh-a27.shtml). The Liberals have a shared shame here, as they got us in to that wonderful hornets nest.
What else can be said?
Continuing to fail on our foreign aid obligations: “The Harper government has been silent as to Canada’s obligations to alleviate poverty around the world and to increase aid to reach the target of 0.7% of GDP” (source: http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/visiongreen/partfive).
Uncritical support of Israeli and American war-crimes in Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq; Including the forced retraction of a government report critical of Guantanamo Bay.
7. Drug Policy: Against a growing body of medical evidence and against the wishes of the majority of the population (55% in favour of complete legalization, source: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300), the conservatives continue to insist on criminalizing drugs like marijuana. From the Canadian Medical Association Journal: “Mr. Justice Minister, let’s decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use.”
(source: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/186/canadianmedical.shtml) Thousands of Canadians are unfairly imprisoned for marjiuana related offences, many thousands more have criminal records as a result, and finally, organized crime is being fueled by this incompetent and ignorant policy.
8. Ideologically motivated arts cuts [Possibly retracted due to popular opposition]: Despite a net increase to Canadian Heritage funding (less this year), selective funding cuts to some arts programs are a genuine concern. Some of the stated reasons for the cuts were that the programs included: a “general radical”, “a left-wing and anti-globalization think-tank” and a “rock band that uses an expletive as part of its name”. Harper seeks to fund artistic programs that are uncritical, unquestioning and uncontroversial to his power base. Independence be damned.
9. Secret Trade and Security Agreements: Have you heard of the SPP? ACTA? No? Maybe that’s because these agreements are being negotiated with no public input, just like NAFTA. These are perhaps the most important problems on this list. The criticisms of these agreements are deep enough that you really need to do background reading to understand what’s happening. Here are some brief criticisms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_Prosperity_Partnership_of_North_America#Criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement#Criticism
Beyond ACTA and the SPP, our existing international trade regimen under NAFTA and individually under the WTO, need to change. These agreements continue the trend of leveraging capital flight to drive down wages, exploiting countries with the laxest environmental and labour standards for manufacturing and ultimately continue the 30 year downward spiral of middle class real-wages. “the substantial economic gains of the past quarter-century have not been fairly shared. Thanks to Canadians working harder and smarter, the national economy grew by a stunning 50 per cent. Yet median earnings, the midpoint of the income continuum, remained virtually unchanged.” (source: http://www.thestar.com/Canada/Census/article/420651)
10. The Old Stuff: This is the stuff everyone worried about before the conservatives were first elected but has been kept under control by the fact that they had a minority government. Should the conservatives get a majority, these issues are back on the table and nobody really knows what they’ll do. Issues surrounding: the public health-care system, the poor judgment behind supporting the Iraq war, the CBC, abortion, and a host of issues regarding privatization of public assets. On all of these issues, the conservatives have extremely unpopular opinions but Harper has muzzled his MP’s to such a degree that the public simply has no idea what might happen. Not even myself. Either way, it wont be good.
11. This a bonus criticism. It is completely ideological so I did not include it in the top 10. The economic crisis we are currently seeing around the world will force us to make some very difficult decisions. Canada is not immune from the problems, however buffered we have been so far. If we do have a depression on our hands, it would be wise to remember how these kinds of problems were dealt with in the past. FDR, who is commonly attributed with lifting America out of the depression, invested massively in public works projects to spur the economy and get people working again. In contrast to this, FDR was strongly opposed by the business community. To the point that a fascist coup attempt devised by prominent business leaders, was only narrowly defeated. I’m not saying Harper is fascist; certainly not. I am saying that he has demonstrated, via Bill C-61 and his treatment of the press, that he does not adequately understand the importance of democracy and this could lead to policies that make a bad situation worse. Make what you will of this criticism, only time will tell.
And the other candidates?
Elizabeth May – She actually seems relatively articulate and vaguely on the same page with the criticisms outlined here. There are some nuts in the Green Party so be careful and candidate specific. Vote for her if it doesn’t matter in your riding.
Jack Layton – The best of the major candidates. Has very well articulated stances on all the issues mentioned here. Generally the best option in this election.
Stephan Dion – Only vote for your liberal candidate if the situation is desperate. Their policies are only marginally better than the conservatives, but it’s enough to matter. They do have a better environmental platform than the conservatives and don’t have quite the same contempt of the democratic process. ie: In my old riding Deborah Meredith didn’t even show up to debates, additionally, in the Vancouver Center debate I went to two weeks ago, Lorne Mayencourt also refused to go. From what I’ve seen this is typically the trend.
Stephen Harper – Fail.
And Finally:
15
Like many people, I have mixed feelings about Hezbollah. On the one hand they seem to be closely tied to the corrupt clerics in Iran and are no stranger to anti-semitic remarks; but on the other, they are all that stand between Israel and their predilection for massacres in Southern Lebanon like those at Sabra and Shatila. I read comments by Chomsky who met Hassan Nasrallah right before Israel’s brutal assault on Lebanon last year, that he was actually a fairly nice and well-meaning man but it wasn’t followed up by much more other than to talk about the war. It was interesting then to read the other day when a fellow Zmag forum poster asked Chomsky this question:
Professor Chomsky,
if you were nasrallah would you give up hezballah’s weapons? do you think they ought to? barsamian asked you in what we say goes what you think of him and you responded that he is a very pragmatic man. could you possibly elaborate? does he seem like an honest, compassionate man?
i have a sort of bias towards nasrallah because he’s the only arab whose speeches are translated into english and put on youtube, great way to learn arabic, so i’ve literally gone through and analyzed each word of 4 of his speeches.
To which Chomsky’s response was as follows:
Reply from NC,
My impression is about the same as others who have met him: for example, Edward Peck, White House official responsible for terrorism in the Reagan administration, who described Nasrallah, after an interview, as having given “a logical, reasonable presentation…just an educated intelligent man talking about serious issues that he perceived.” On Hizbollah’s weapons, his position, as I understand it, is pretty simple. The first question is whether Lebanon has a right to have a deterrent against US-backed Israeli aggression. If the answer is “No,” then Hezbollah has no right to weapons. But it’s a strange answer after five such invasions, each murderous and destructive, one of which killed some 15-20,000 people and destroyed much of the country, all of them without credible pretext. Suppose, then, that the answer is “Yes.” Then what would the deterrent be? One answer would be a credible US guarantee, but that’s not in the cards (to our shame). Could it be the Lebanese army? No one believes that. We’re left with one deterrent: Hezbollah. When I was in Lebanon in 2006, before the latest Israeli invasion, I spent a fair amount of time with some of the strongest opponents of Hezbollah, and continually raised this question. No one had an answer.
I’d like to see a credible international guarantee against further US-backed Israeli aggression. Short of that, it’s hard to see what the argument would be for Hezbollah to give up its weapons, though no doubt it is highly undesirable for a state to harbor an internal non-state military force.
The outstanding Lebanese journalist Rami Khouri, writing in the major English language Lebanese newspaper, captured the basic point rather well: “Hamas and Hizbullah are among the most effective and legitimate political movements in the Arab world: They have forced unilateral Israeli retreats that no Arab army could induce; won elections democratically without resorting to the gerrymandering or ballot box stuffing that most American-supported Arab regimes live by; provided efficient service delivery and local governance to their constituents; and sustained resistance to Israeli occupation that appeals to the desire of ordinary Arabs to restore dignity to their battered lives and to their shattered, hollow political systems.”
That’s exactly why they are hated and feared by the US and Israel.
NC
Kind of puts the organization in an interesting light.
15
Quite a few of these made me lol 
Her eyes were like two brown circles with big black dots in the center. He was as tall as a 6′3″ tree. Her face was a perfect oval, like a circle that had its two sides gently compressed by a Thigh Master. From the attic came an unearthly howl. The whole scene had an eerie, surreal quality, like when you’re on vacation in another city and Jeopardy comes on at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30. John and Mary had never met. They were like two hummingbirds who had also never met. She had a deep, throaty, genuine laugh, like that sound a dog makes just before it throws up. The ballerina rose gracefully en pointe and extended one slender leg behind her, like a dog at a fire hydrant. He was as lame as a duck. Not the metaphorical lame duck, either, but a real duck that was actually lame. Maybe from stepping on a land mine or something. Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever. She grew on him like she was a colony of E. coli and he was room-temperature Canadian beef. The revelation that his marriage of 30 years had disintegrated because of his wife’s infidelity came as a rude shock, like a surcharge at a formerly surcharge-free ATM. The lamp just sat there, like an inanimate object. McBride fell 12 stories, hitting the pavement like a Hefty bag filled with vegetable soup. His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free. He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like a guy who went blind because he looked at asolar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it. Long separated by cruel fate, the star-crossed lovers raced across the grassy field toward each other like two freight trains, one having left Cleveland at 6:36 p.m. traveling at 55 mph, the other from Topeka at 4:19 p.m. at a speed of 35 mph. Shots rang out, as shots are wont to do. The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn’t. Her hair glistened in the rain like a nose hair after a sneeze. The hailstones leaped from the pavement, just like maggots when you fry them in hot grease. They lived in a typical suburban neighborhood with picket fences that resembled Nancy Kerrigan’s teeth. He fell for her like his heart was a mob informant and she was the East River. Even in his last years, Grand pappy had a mind like a steel trap, only one that had been left out so long, it hadrusted shut. He felt like he was being hunted down like a dog, in a place that hunts dogs, I suppose. She was as easy as the TV Guide crossword. She walked into my office like a centipede with 98 missing legs. The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil, this plan just might work. The young fighter had a hungry look, the kind you get from not eating for a while. “Oh, Jason, take me!” she panted, her breasts heaving like a college freshman on $1-a-beer night. It hurt the way your tongue hurts after you accidentally staple it to the wall. It was an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools. He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a garbage truck backing up. The politician was gone but unnoticed, like the period after the Dr. on a Dr Pepper can. Her eyes were like limpid pools, only they had forgotten to put in any pH cleanser. Her date was pleasant enough, but she knew that if her life was a movie this guy would be buried in the credits as something like “Second Tall Man.” The thunder was ominous-sounding, much like the sound of a thin sheet of metal being shaken backstage during the storm scene in a play. The red brick wall was the color of a brick-red Crayola crayon. She caught your eye like one of those pointy hook latches that used to dangle from screen doors and would fly up whenever you banged the door open again. Her pants fit her like a glove, well, maybe more like a mitten, actually. Fishing is like waiting for something that does not happen very often. They were as good friends as the people on “Friends.” Oooo, he smells bad, she thought, as bad as Calvin Klein’s Obsession would smell if it were called Enema and was made from spoiled Spamburgers instead of natural floral fragrances. The knife was as sharp as the tone used by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) in her first several points of parliamentary procedure made to Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) in the House Judiciary Committee hearings on the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. He was as bald as one of the Three Stooges, either Curly or Larry, you know, the one who goes woo woo woo. The sardines were packed as tight as the coach section of a 747. Her eyes were shining like two marbles that someone dropped in mucus and then held up to catch the light. The baseball player stepped out of the box and spit like a fountain statue of a Greek god that scratches itself a lot and spits brown, rusty tobacco water and refuses to sign autographs for all the little Greek kids unless they pay him lots of drachmas. I felt a nameless dread. Well, there probably is a long German name for it, like Geschpooklichkeit or something, but I don’t speak German. Anyway, it’s a dread that nobody knows the name for, like those little square plastic gizmos that close your bread bags. I don’t know the name for those either. She was as unhappy as when someone puts your cake out in the rain, and all the sweet green icing flows down and then you lose the recipe, and on top of that you can’t sing worth a damn. Her artistic sense was exquisitely refined, like someone who can tell butter from I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter. It came down the stairs looking very much like something no one had ever seen before. Bob was as perplexed as a hacker who means to access T:flw.quid55328.com\aaakk/ch@ung but gets T:\flw.quidaaakk/ch@ung by mistake. You know how in “Rocky” he prepares for the fight by punching sides of raw beef? Well, yesterday it was as cold as that meat locker he was in. The dandelion swayed in the gentle breeze like an oscillating electric fan set on medium. Her lips were red and full, like tubes of blood drawn by an inattentive phlebotomist. The sunset displayed rich, spectacular hues like a .jpeg file at 10 percent cyan, 10 percent magenta, 60 percent yellow and 10 percent black.
I found them here: http://www.losteyeball.com/index.php/2007/06/19/56-worstbest-analogies-of-high-school-students/
09
While finding headlines for Novemberfourth.org the other day, I noticed something strange about the submissions on Digg pertaining to McCain and Palin. An enormous amount of them had been marked as being potentially inaccurate. This struck me as odd, since many of the submissions were simply true or false. It wasn’t like there was much room for interpretation. Just have a look at these examples:
Well, did he or didn't he?
A satirical voicemail can be inaccurate?
Was it or wasn't it?
So every claim made by Palin was exactly true?
So maybe Digg needs an accuracy vouching system? Where users can override these kinds of claims at times when “possibly inaccurate” is “possibly inaccurate”. However, this does come right on the heels of complaints by many users that Digg has a liberal bias and that many rumours about Sarah Palin were shown to be false. So what to do?
I think some more bury options might help. Something like “Misleading Title”, “Remember it’s Innocent Until Proven Guilty”, “Omitting too Many Relevant Facts” etc… All of these provide more precise information then the vaguer “Possibly Inaccurate”
24
newspaper-warning
the image is 4.25 by 2.75 inches, perfectly designed for the $20/175 package of stickers at http://www.123stickers.com/
22
While reading this post last night about the bond market, I couldn’t help but notice the graphic linked halfway down. It’s a graph mapping the correlation between recessions and some other economic stuff. What caught my eye though is that according to the chart, every single recession in the last half a century has occurred under a Republican.
22
Ambigrams are a kind of word play using the form of one word to construct another. Originally called “inversions”, credit for the idea is generally given to Scott Kim. The creativity and depth of Kim’s work is unsurpassed. Isaac Asimov once called him “The Escher of the alphabet”. An impressive collection of Scott Kim’s ambigrams can be found here but I’ve provided the three below if you’re feeling lazy.
INFINITY CIRCLE
SYNERGY
Unfortunately for those of us who do not speak Italian, one of the best works on ambigrams is a book written by Douglas Hofstadter called “Ambigrammi” which has only ever been printed in Italian. Many readers might remember the name Hofstadter from the Pulitzer prize winning book “Godel, Escher and Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid” or from the “Metamagical Themas” column in Scientific American which Hofstadter wrote for a number of years. I managed to get a copy of Ambigrammi1 and wanted to generate some interest in the work by showcasing a few of the English ones2.
MIRROR ALPHABET
JOHANN SEBASTIAN BACH
ELIZABETH REGINA
OHIO
NIXON NAPOLEON
LINCOLN KENNEDY
And of course for those familiar with Dr. Hofstadter’s work, “Egbert B. Gebstadter” (gruesome quality I know).
I hope you enjoyed this collection and if you have any suggestions or additions you’d like to make, please feel free to contact me.
Footnotes
1. The book is out of print but available used on Amazon if you’re willing to shell out a couple hundred bucks. I have a copy of the book though if anyone would like to buy it off me for a bit less than Amazon. Maybe there’s someone out there who speaks Italian and could try translating it in to English.
2. I apologize in advance that some of the pictures suck, my camera is awful.
3. I am currently trying to get the Letter Spirit program working again but don’t have much experience with Scheme. If anyone out there is interested in helping me ressurect this, I’d be very grateful for the help.
4. A role is a collection of parts or “quanta” whose collective activations most closely correlate to something that might be called “left bowl” or “ascender”.
22
The following is a transcript of a conversation between Noam Chomsky and a Zmag forum user. It discusses some of the similarities and differences between the two schools of libertarian thought which have been discussed on this blog before. (Chomsky is in bold).
Hello Mr. Chomsky.
I’m assuming you know who Ron Paul is.
And I’m also assuming you have a general idea about his positions.Here my summary of Mr. Paul’s positions:
- He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement and courts).
Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea.
- He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the dismantling of big government)
“Dismantling of big government” sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded — like what we’re now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,….? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.
- He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it).
Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you’ve already mentioned.
There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely. just for starters. Putting them on a par is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support of state power — itself largely under owner control, given concentration of resources.
- He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it).
He is proposing a form of ultranationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.
I really can’t find differences between your positions and his.
There’s a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn’t themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being “broken” are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based — the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we’re at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).
So I have these questions:
1) Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of “Libertarianism”?
There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion — on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.
2) Can you please tell me what role “private property” and “ownership” have in your school of “Libertarianism”?
That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously.
3) Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate…and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?
No.
14
10. Marijuana Decriminalization. A 2007 poll conducted by Zogby International indicates that a slight majority of Americans favour the abolishment of criminal penalties for minor marijuana offenses: “Forty-nine percent of respondents, including 57 percent of men, said they would support “a law in Congress that would eliminate federal penalties for the personal use of marijuana by adults and allow states to adopt their own policies on marijuana.” Only 48 percent of those polled said they oppose such a law; three percent were undecided. The poll has a margin of error of ±3 percentage points.” 1 Growing numbers are also in favour of outright legalization with 41% agreeing that “the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: it should regulate it, control it, tax it and only make it illegal for children.” 2
9. Universal Health Care. Various polls 1 2 find that Americans want significant changes to the current medical system, including guaranteed government coverage even if it means paying more: “Americans across party lines willing to make some sacrifice to insure that every American has access to health insurance. Sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more.”
8. Stricter Campaign Finance Laws. A large majority (66%) of Americans support an increasing of regulations on how politicians obtain and spend money. 1 Regarding the 2000 election: “Nearly three-fourths of the voters participating in the survey said Texas Gov. George W. Bush’s $70 million fund-raising tally is ‘excessive and a sign of what’s wrong with politics today.” Similarly, 40 percent said Bush is the presumptive nominee because of “the amount of money he raised.’” 2
7. Equal Aid to Palestinians and Israelis. Increasingly dissatisfied with the mid-east peace process, Americans want more results for their high levels of aid money to Israel. “in polling conducted 2002-2003, majorities supported the US withholding or reducing its aid to Israel and the Palestinians, as a means of pressure to influence their behavior”. 1 Americans also favour increasing the levels of aid to the Palestinians contingent on acceptance of a negotiated peace proposal: “Asked in a May 2003 PIPA poll “if the Palestinians come to terms with Israel in a peace agreement, do you think the US should equalize the amount of aid it gives to Israel and to the Palestinians,” 67% indicated they would support an equalizing aid to Palestine.” and “In the same 2003 PIPA poll with a different sample, respondents were told how much aid is currently given to Palestine, and were then asked to provide their own assessment of how much aid should be given if Palestine were to make peace with Israel. The median response was to increase aid to $1 billion, more than 14 times the $70 million provided at the time. The average response indicated a willingness to increase aid to $2.37 billion (somewhat lower than the amount indicated for Israel).” The terms of peace are overwhelmingly accepted by the Palestinian population: “A total of 72.1% of Palestinians support the Taba or Oslo B Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.” 2
6. Reducing Military Spending. When Americans were asked in a 2005 poll how they would structure the Federal budget, the answers could hardly have been more clear: “Defense spending received the deepest cut, being cut on average 31 percent — equivalent to $133.8 billion — with 65 percent of respondents cutting.” This does not indicate an unwillingness to support the troops however: “respondents particularly preserved spending for troops, including for salaries (82%), the overall number of military personnel (61%), and development of new equipment for infantry and Marines (64%). Spending relevant to fighting terrorism was also preserved, such as for intelligence (62%), troops for special operations (58%), and advanced communications systems (69%). Also preserved was spending on capabilities for conducting peacekeeping (58%), fighting insurgents or guerrillas (56%), and work on new types of high-technology missiles and bombs (55%).” 1
5. Increased Social Spending. The same poll showing American’s interest in cutting defense spending also pointed to areas where spending would increase of people had control over the economy: “The largest increases were for social spending. Spending on human capital was especially popular including education which was increased $26.8 billion (39%) and job training and employment which was up $19 billion or a remarkable 263%. Medical research was upped on average $15.5 billion (53%). Veterans benefits were raised 40 percent or $12.5 billion and housing went up 31 percent or $9.3 billion. In most cases clear majorities favored increases (education 57%, job training 67%, medical research 57%, veteran’s benefits 63%), though only 43 percent of respondents favored increases for housing.” 1
4. Acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol. By a wide majority Americans agree that the United States should participate in the Kyoto protocol: “In June 2005, PIPA simply asked “based on what you know, do you think the U.S. should or should not participate in the Kyoto agreement to reduce global warming.” A strong majority of 73% favored participation. This was up a bit from September 2004, when only 65% favored it. Only 16% in June 2005 and September 2004 opposed participation.” 1 2
3. A Diplomatic Solution with Iran. Only 20% 1 – 40% 2 of Americans support a military strike against Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities. Diplomatic action backed by sanctions is supported by about 60% of Americans: “This ABC News/Washington Post poll finds sanctions the preferred option across the political spectrum”.
2. Pulling Troops out of Iraq. Both the American citizenry and armed forces support a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq: “Most Americans support the U.S. House provision setting a timetable that calls for most U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by September 2008, said a survey released on Wednesday. According to the CBS News poll, 59 percent of those surveyed favored the provision while 37 percent opposed it.” 1 Perhaps even more telling is the strong opposition to the war from within the army itself: “An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.” 2
1. The Impeachment of George W. Bush. Majorities of Americans think that George Bush should be impeached for one of two possible crimes: unauthorized wire-tapping of the public and/or misleading the people in to a war with Iraq. On the matter of wire-tapping: “The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement: “If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment.” 43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn’t know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.” 1 On the issue of Iraq: “The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement: “If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him.” 44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn’t know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.” 2
Runner Up.
Jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court. “Americans are at least twice as likely to agree as to disagree that the United States should participate in the International Criminal Court (53%-22%)” 1
jordan [at] introspections.org
Licensed under Creative Commons