Obama on the Seals and Seal Team 6

I saw this the other day and found it interesting.  Just some more examples of "candidate" Obama differing dramatically from President Obama.  It will be interesting if he starts to switch back into candidate mode now.

It's interesting because to the extent that his administration has been successful, it has been largely by not following through on his own campaign promises.  Guantanamo was not closed.  We got valuable information out of Guantanamo.  Obamacare is a reality.  Because he did not work across the aisle to achieve consensus, and because he did not bring "change" to the political system.  Change would have been a common sense, plain English bill that legislators on both sides had carefully considered, and had come to a consensus on.  Instead, you have leading Democratic lawmakers saying that they will find out what's in the bill once it is passed.  You have the President posing for "bi-partisan" photo ops with Republican lawmakers, telling them his plans, and refusing to consider their suggested changes.

We are still in the recession, and the two wars in the Middle East.  We have also gotten involved in Libya.  Guantanamo is still operational.  Politics in America is still a game of partisan chicken now that one house is controlled by the GOP.  Has Obama fulfilled any of his campaign promises?

Why the Libertarian Party Should Nominate Ron Paul

Alright.  So, as a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party, here's my plan and advice for 2012.

Keep in mind I live in a closed primary state.  I cannot caucus as a Republican unless I officially change my party affiliation before the caucus, which I might actually do.

The Libertarian party should nominate Ron Paul.  Why nominate a traitor, you ask?

Well, there's a few reasons.  First, the matter of principles.  Although Ron Paul may have left the Libertarian Party, he still holds firm in many Libertarian beliefs.  Best example?  Ron Paul has been an outspoken opponent of the U.S.'s Middle Eastern wars since 2001.

There is nothing in either law or the LP bylaws which states that  candidate must actually be a party member in order to be nominated on the Libertarian ticket.

Second of all, practicality.

Best case scenario for Libertarians (and small "l" libertarians as well) is Ron Paul actually wins the Republican nomination.  A candidate can appear on the ballot with multiple nominations.  If this happens, one of two things happens, depending on each individual state's election laws.  Either the candidate appears twice on the ballot, with each party's name, or the candidate appears once with both parties.

Scenario a) the candidate still gets the votes from both names.  We could actually have a Liberty minded president in 2013.  More importantly, the LP could leverage these states to show how popular Libertarian ideas actually are.  Although Ron Paul, Libertarian, would appear below Ron Paul, Republican, on the ballot, both votes count the same (for who wins the office).  On the other hand, the total per party is calculated separately.  In this case, the Libertarians could appeal to Republican voters to choose the Libertarian Ron Paul if they hold Libertarian values.  Without the risk of them "wasting votes" or "stealing votes" from Obama's opponent, they could still vote for the same candidate but express their true, Liberty-minded, political opinion at the same time.  Since Ron Paul's own campaign, and the Republican Party, would likely be paying most of his campaign expenses, Republicans could focus on these states and voter education to encourage voters to vote for Ron Paul, Libertarian.

In Scenario b), the candidate only appears once.  Sharing a nominee with a major party would mean a lot of "Libertarian" votes.  Which could potentially help with ballot access issues, as well as raise general awareness.  Just seeing the name of our party next to one of the two real contenders in a presidential election will arouse a lot of curiosity.

Now, the other possibility is that Ron Paul loses the Republican nomination and wins the Libertarian nomination.  Should Paul have a strong showing in the Republican primaries, but not win, he might choose to actively campaign as an independent, or, more to the point, Third Party, candidate.  With the huge amount of fundraising he is sure to do leading up to the primaries, this could provide the LP with significant sources of campaign funding.  Moreover, as shown by the whole Ron Paul rEVOLUTION thing, he has many, many, very devoted followers.  Although most will surely vote for the "lesser of two evils," some are actually Democrats or Independents, and some are hardcore liberty-minded Republicans, all of who might very well choose to support Ron Paul over the Republican nominee.  It is doubtful this would be enough votes to win the election.  But it might very well be enough to get the Libertarian Party some attention, and, more importantly, to have the "largest third party in America," be viewed as a viable political force and option.

Is our government addicted to spending?

I saw this article by former Libertarian VP nominee Wayne Allyn Root and it raised an interesting prospect.  Is our nation's spending problem the national version of an addiction?

Let's look at it.  Like the alcoholic who takes the first sip, we started collecting taxes to build roads, schools, etc.  Then, when our nation hit hard times (like the Great Depression), we needed more.  The government "needed" to help the unemployed.  We started giving out welfare.  Which required more taxes.  We started government-funded infrastructure projects to both employee people and improve our economic infrastructure.  We needed more taxes.  Maybe it started off as an addiction.

But to me, our government's spending problem is more like methadone treatment for a heroine addict.  We are in an economic crisis.  Instead of cutting off our spending, we redirect it.  The government is about to hit its debt ceiling.  The private market has stopped creating new American jobs.  We borrowed too much money, and now our economy is on the verge of collapse, largely because we borrowed too much.  Well, what do our elected officials do?  Do they stop spending?  No, they continue spending.  They redirect their spending to more "healthy" and "productive" outlets, like... extending unemployment benefits.  Continuing to hire more "czars" and "advisers" to build our President's national monument to the Chicago Democratic machine.  Giving cash to first time home buyers.  Giving cash to people to buy "greener" cars.  Giving cash to companies that create "greener" jobs.  Where has it gotten us?

Just like a junky who is in the hospital for heroin use, and leaves just as stoned (although perhaps less at risk for diseases, ODs, and antisocial behavior) on methadone, our economy is still screwed.  We are in the hospital for debt, overspending, and economic restrictions which make us uncompetitive in the labor and industrial market places.  We are leaving with more debt, but this time it is debt in the service of "sustainability" "redistribution of wealth," and "social justice."

The solution is not to spend on different things.  The solution is to stop using.  For our government, that means stop spending.

American Animal Farm?

I read this post the other day, and it really got me thinking.  I like to think that I am less biased and right-wing than a lot of other bloggers out there, even the ones I sometimes agree with.  This particular post reinforces those thoughts.  Although I think this is a little bit too far on the anti-Communist scale for the 21st century, the overall message is one I agree with.

Let's be honest.  The President and Democrats acted as if the debt crisis was a must-be-avoided situation.  As if, on August 2nd, if the debt ceiling was not raised, our entire country would collapse.  Obviously, social security and medicare recipients, as well as veterans, might not get their checks if the debt ceiling wasn't raised.

Instead of refuting these scare tactics, the Republicans we elected to office agreed.  Their point was not that any of these "inevitable" tragedies were not really inevitable.  Their argument was that they were, in fact, inevitable, and that the Republican-majority House would block any efforts to avoid them that did not include significant spending cuts.

Now let's look at the reality.  There is, in fact, an alternative to the "inevitable" tragedies quoted by the Obama administration.  4 out of every 10 dollars we spend are borrowed.  Which means that the government could continue to operate with 60% of its funding.  Do we really think that social security, medicare, and active duty and veteran pay and benefits add up to more than 60% of government spending?

What if, instead, extended unemployment benefits were cut off, retired Congressional pension payments were suspended, or Congressmen got paid 10% less or temporarily worked without pay?  What if federal bureaucrats were laid off or asked to work temporarily without pay?  Unfathomable?  FAA inspectors and air traffic controllers are already doing it!  If the people responsible for the safety of every person to fly in American airspace can work without pay, surely the people we elected to make tough choices, who have caused the enormous deficit which causes this problem, could do the same?  After all, can anyone argue that FAA inspectors and controllers caused the debt crisis?  How about Congressmen?  Can anyone argue that retirees, who faithfully paid into social security out of every paycheck for the last 40+ years of their adult life caused our bankruptcy?  How about the legislators who have resisted social security reform, even though we have known for decades that the system would eventually run out of money?

Democrats threatened inevitable tragedies to the most vulnerable and/or deserving people in our country.  Republicans agreed and used this as leverage.  In the end, we have just extended our credit limit without cutting back our spending.  In reality, neither side grew a pair large enough to make the tough choices necessary to fix the long term problems of our debt and deficit economy.

Were the veterans, the retired, and the disabled really saved?  Or were the elected representatives, making their livings and receiving health and retirement packages most of us could only dream of at our expense, saved?  Maybe it's time for a bigger change and more hope than Obama, or the Republicans, ever asked or hoped for.

Obama's Stance on Libya

This is a few days old, and I'm going to be very brief here, but does this remind anyone else of the start of the Vietnam War?

What starts as a non-combat role soon turns into a few dozen military advisers, and then thousands.  This is wrong.  The idea behind the lag between authorizing military force and declaring actual war is to allow the military to respond swiftly to a direct, time sensitive threat on our national security, not to allow the POTUS to impose his/our political goals on the rest of the world without Congressional approval.  Shame on you, Obama.

On bin Laden's killing

This subject, as well as this post  are somewhat old now, but important enough that I still feel I should comment on them.

Let me preface this by saying that I don't miss bin Laden's life at all.  I am perfectly content that he is no longer with us.

I do, however, agree with some of the points Ron Paul made, as well as have some of my own as to why this was carried out incorrectly.

First of all, there are international norms.  First and foremost is sovereignty.  We had no business sending military and intelligence personnel inside of another country and essentially assassinating someone without at least asking for the host country to arrest him first.  Unless there was a credible reason to believe that the security of the information would have been threatened by involving Pakistan, that country's government should have been involved.

Second, from a norms and moral standpoint, capturing an enemy is always preferable to killing an enemy.  Osama should have been arrested, not shot.

On the same note, Osama lead a movement based on a religion (radical Islam, not all Islam) which still believes in martyrs.  The men bin Laden funded and trained to carry out the 9/11 attacks gave up their lives fighting for their cause.  They are considered heros by radical Muslims.  By killing bin Laden in a military attack, we have made him a martyr.  By capturing him and putting him on trial in a U.S., Western style court, we would have brought about his end through the very system he has spent his whole life fighting.  This would have been a much more clear message to terrorists around the world.

Quite frankly, between the anger over his death and our blatant disregard for the sovereignty of the Pakistani government, and the fact that he died a martyr, I am a little surprised that nobody has stepped up and publicly claimed the leadership of al Qaeda yet.  I also doubt that we will see the anniversary of bin Laden's death without another major terrorist attack.  We have enraged radical Muslims, and given bin Laden the hero's death so many of his followers actively seek.  Do we really think this was the best way to handle the situation?

General Criticism of Moral Politics

So far, I've discussed in my last two posts my issues with Moral Politics and its handling of Libertarianism.  There is a far more general, larger problem with the book, however.  Although the author exposes his political bias both at the beginning and at the end of his work, even without his explicit acknowledgement, it would be fairly obvious.

He is right to repeatedly use the disclaimer that he is speaking of "central" cases, and that there is such a thing as an "ideal case."  His bias, however, clearly affects what he views as both the central and ideal cases of the Strict Father and Nurturant Parent models of family values, which lead to certain moral worldviews, and thus, certain political worldviews.

In particular, his view of the nurturant parent model seems much more central, and ideal, than what he points to as the real, central case of the strict father parenting model.

The style of parenting which he calls strict father parenting, and which he points to as a large part of his reasoning for being liberal, would seem extreme to many strict parents.  In fact, he debunks with the idea of strict father parenting (and thus, conservative politics) largely by quoting the religious right in their parenting manuals which support physical punishment, often extreme physical punishment, and then citing research which shows the negative long term affects of physical punishment.

Many conservative, traditional, or otherwise strict families believe in and use strict parenting, without physical contact, and certainly without abusive physical contact.  Many strict families also do not value the maintenance of moral order over all other values.  The most obvious example that came to mind reading this section is a severe, and troubling one.  Would most traditional families really punish a female child for accusing an older male relative of molesting and/or raping her?  While this is a common fear of many victims, that they will be accused of lying, or blamed for the attack, very few parents, if they believed their daughters, would punish her for speaking out.  According to the image painted in Moral Politics all strict father parents would.

Moreover, I can tell you, that while there were certainly nurturant aspects of my upbringing, being raised by my mother who worked a lot of hours, in a big city, it was mostly strict parent child rearing.  I was spanked once, when I was three.  But I was punished for breaking the rules.  I was allowed to debate with my mother, and to ask questions, or ask for exceptions to rules.  But, for example, when I was in high school, my curfew was generally 10 p.m.  If I wanted to go to a concert that didn't end until 12, meaning I would get home at around 1 a.m., I could ask my mother.  I could explain it was a band I really wanted to see.  I could tell her I would be right home after the concert.  Sometimes she would agree, sometimes she wouldn't.  When she didn't, 10 p.m. it was.  I was home at 10, and I knew that there would be consequences to my actions if I was not.  Never physical violence, but punishment.

Although I was only spanked once, I was often disciplined, even in public.  I was taught manners very early.  Keep in mind that I did not grow up in Las Vegas, but in the more temperate Midwest.  If I misbehaved at a restaurants, my parents would warn me once.  If I couldn't behave appropriately for a restaurant, I wouldn't eat in a restaurant.  If I continued fidgeting, running around, crying, playing with my food, throwing a tantrum, or whatever other inappropriate behavior I had engaged in, they would take me to the car, roll down the windows a bit, and lock me in until our food came.  They would then ask for the food to go, and we would eat it at home.  This was obviously a punishment for disobeying them, as well as disobeying society's norms, or "the moral order."  It was not physical agression.

I was not allowed to eat dessert if I didn't finish my main meal.  If I was bad, I went to bed early and without watching TV.  If I broke something at school, I paid for it out of my allowance and was not allowed to go out and use my allowance for anything fun until it was paid for.  None of these sound like nurturant parent parenting to me.  Yet, only once was a finger lifted in disciplining me.  And it was not by the more active parent in my childhood.

I would argue that most conservatives, or even liberals and moderates who believe in strict father child raising, had similar experiences.  We were respected, and allowed a voice in the family discussion.  But when our parents made up their minds, we knew they meant it.  They were the boss.  And we knew there would be immediate, non-negotiable punishment for disobeying them.  A strict parent can be strict without being physically violent.  This simple reality invalidates most of the author's arguments in favor of liberalism.

Finally, to look at the biased and unfair treatment of these two systems by the author, we need only look at the titles he has given the two models.  They are loaded with moral judgment for the liberal, or even modern, reader.  The idea of a "Strict Father" parenting model screams sexism.  "Nurturant Parent" on the other hand points toward an egalitarian, PC, modern-style family arrangement.  The reality is that "parents" can be strict, and "fathers" can be nurturant.

Lakoff presents an interesting way of looking at politics, but perhaps because politics and political science are not his specialty, his bias is obvious throughout the book, inhibiting him from providing a truly balanced view using his paradigm.