Open Letter to Bob Barr: Some Questions Open Letter to Bob Barr: Some Questions

Mr. Barr,

Thank you for joining the Libertarian Party in our efforts to bring greater freedom to Americans. In light of the very short time between your campaign announcement and the national convention, your antilibertarian congressional record and disinclination to fully repudiate it, and your refusal to answer a single email from me while you were serving as my regional representative on the Libertarian National Committee over the past year, I thought that I would circulate my questions to you publicly, in the hopes that someone, somewhere, will get some straightforward answers from you. To others reading this open letter -- I hope that you will take whatever opportunity is afforded you to ask at least one or two of these questions of Mr. Barr. No candidate should garner our nomination without having satisfied the majority of delegates that he will steadfastly champion both the Libertarian Party and the libertarian message.

I've separated my questions into categories.

Support for the Libertarian Party and the libertarian message:

1. Why has the leadership PAC bearing your name continued to raise and distribute funds to support Republican congressional candidates in districts where a Libertarian either is or could be running even after you joined the LP's governing board? Do you not consider recruiting and supporting Libertarian candidates to be an essential part of the LP leadership's mission? Will your leadership PAC continue to support Republicans if you are selected as the LP's presidential nominee?
2. In a radio interview in Charlotte, NC this week, you indicated that Republicans should support you because your candidacy will bring out voters who are dejected by McCain, and will now vote for Republican candidates down-ballot. What will you do to promote Libertarian Party candidates down-ballot?
3. You have said that there are parts of the LP's platform that you disagree with. Can you be specific? What parts of the LP's platform do you agree with?
4. Why have you consistently sold yourself in interviews as 'conservative' rather than 'libertarian'? Do you think that 'libertarian' and 'conservative' are the same thing?

Questions about some of your antilibertarian votes in congress:

1. PATRIOT Act - you voted 'for' the Act. Would you vote the same way again? Do you think it was a mistake to trust the sunset provisions?
2. Do you still support an anti-flag-desecration amendment to the constitution? How does this tie in with your ideas of federalism? How does it support individual liberty?
   
3. DOMA - you have indicated that DOMA was an exercise in federalism (devolving power to the states), but this does not explain the part of DOMA that defines marriage federally as man-woman only. Do you stand by this definition? In your state, would you support a government definition of marriage as man-woman only?
4. You voted for the Medicare Part D prescription drug boondoggle while in congress. Do you stand by this vote, or repudiate it?

Explanation for some of your current seemingly antilibertarian positions:

1. You talk about reducing U.S. military bases overseas, but not necessarily closing them. How many foreign countries do you think the U.S. needs to have military personnel in?
2. Would you support an immediate end to the Afghanistan occupation? How long, as President, would you tolerate U.S. troops continuing to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan?
3. You have made some welcome movement toward the idea of legalizing medical marijuana in a few cases, and have pointed to the Drug War as an issue where there should be greater state control. Aside from the federalism issue, do you support prohibition of marijuana (for any use) at the state level? Would you stand with Libertarian state-level candidates as a champion of ending prohibition?
4. You have indicated that you support the idea of federal government resources being routed to South America to support governments that are allies of the U.S. government's Drug War. Why would you support this sort of interventionism in the name of prohibition abroad? How does this tie in with your idea of federalism?
5. You have indicated that you support the idea of economic sanctions against Iran as a sort of diplomacy. Sanctions strengthen dictatorships and punish citizens of both nations. Why would you support this sort of interventionism abroad and at home?
6. Why do you support instituting an entirely new FEDERAL tax on Americans (national sales tax)? Is this the type of 'federalism' (or devolution of government power to the states) we can expect from you (i.e. a federalism of convenience)?
7. You wrote " Until all governments are willing to take a unified front to confront this problem, it is the duty of the federal government to secure our borders from criminals, terrorists and those seeking to take advantage of the American taxpayer." Most terrorists, criminals, and freeloaders do not declare themselves as such at the border. How do you propose to separate the vast majority of people who want to come to the U.S. to labor honestly from these undesirables? Do you favor open immigration for all people who wish to come to the U.S. and who are not terrorists, criminals, or freeloaders?

  ¶ 8:59 AM 2 Comments Links to this post

  Different sort of hell Regarding the pic I posted the other day, there is now this note about it on the original website. (Thanks, GP, for the pointer)

NOTE: The Robert L. Capp collection at the Hoover Institution Archives at Stanford University  contains ten photographs purportedly showing the immediate aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing. Mr. Capp was assigned to the occupation forces outside Hiroshima after World War II. According to to Mr. Capp's oral history (available along with the photographs in the Robert L. Capp collection), he found these photos among rolls of undeveloped film in a cave outside of Hiroshima. Since making these photographs publicly available, I have received reliable proof that at least two of these photos are actually of the 1923 Kanto earthquake. While I cannot speak for the entire collection, this evidence raises doubts about all of the photos and raises the strong possibility that the identification provided by the Hoover Archives is incorrect. I take full responsibility for my own failure to take additional steps to verify that the original archival designation was correct. I have removed the photographs until and unless their source can be verified by further research.
  ¶ 1:24 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

  A photograph of hell

From

http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/smalloy/atomic_tragedy/photos.html

The Robert L. Capp collection at the Hoover Institution Archives  contains ten never-before-published photographs illustrating the immediate aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing. These photographs, taken by an unknown Japanese photographer, were found in 1945 among rolls of undeveloped film in a cave outside Hiroshima by U.S. serviceman Robert L. Capp, who was attached to the occupation forces. Unlike most photos of the Hiroshima bombing, these dramatically convey the human as well as material destruction unleashed by the atomic bomb. Mr. Capp donated them to the Hoover Archives in 1998 with the provision that they not be reproduced until 2008. Three of these photographs are reproduced in Atomic Tragedy with the permission of the Capp family. Now that the restriction is no longer in force, the entire set is available below. Please contact Sean L. Malloy (smalloy@ucmerced.edu) if you have any information that might help identify the original photographer.
  ¶ 9:21 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

  Bobar 4 pres

Since there seems to be something of a Photoshop/political lampooning funfest happening at TPW I thought I'd get in on the fun.

While researching Babar for this cartoon, I found layers of meaning way beyond the obvious elephant-in-the-LP connection. A WP contributor writes of the Babar stories that "Underneath they could be seen as a justification for colonialism, with the benefits of French civilisation being visited on the rustic African elephant kingdom. Some writers ... have argued that, although superficially delightful, the stories are politically and morally offensive."

Thanks to Morey Straus for the idea!

  ¶ 1:05 PM 2 Comments Links to this post

  LP Convention Keynote speaker The LP Convention's Keynote speaker was slated to be Bob Barr. But as
Barr is now a candidate (more-or-less), the slot was given to Richard
Viguerie. David Nolan is calling for this to be changed to a
*Libertarian* speaker, and I agree.

The idea of a keynote is that it sets the tone for the convention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynote

"At political or industrial conventions and expositions and at
academic conferences, the keynote address or keynote speech is
delivered to set the underlying tone and summarize the core message or
most important revelation of the event."

If the 'tone' of our convention is Viguerie, it will be Republican
conservativism rather than libertarianism:

His website:

http://conservativehq.com/home

If he wants to give a fundraising seminar, great. But NOT a keynote
speech. Besides the debate and post-nom candidate speech, the Keynote
is the address most likely to be picked up and quoted by the press.
Ouch.

I echo David Nolan's call to LPers to *call* Bill Redpath - and your
LNC rep - and BEG them to have a *Libertarian* - not a *Republican
Conservative* - set the tone at the Libertarian Party Convention.

--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.lpradicals.org

  ¶ 9:15 AM 0 Comments Links to this post

  LP blog/ daily poll The LP HQ staff posted a blog entry about one of their typically inept 'daily poll' questions:

http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000727.shtml

On Thursday, the LP used a suggestion for its "Daily Poll" on the LP Web site. The question stayed up over the weekend, and quickly became one of the most responded to questions in recent memory. I thought the results were quite interesting, given the large response, but also more importantly, how diametric the results were. I do not wish to add commentary to the results, but simply wish to post the results for those who many not have had a chance to see them.

   What type of LP presidential candidate do you want? (408 votes)

   A "purist" - 30 (7%)

   A long established Libertarian activist - 22 (5%)

   Someone who can communicate our basic message to voters outside our party - 356 (87%)

I'll quickly pass over the bizarre sentence '[T]he results were quite interesting, given ... how diametric the results were'

How 'diametric'? What? What does that even mean?

But moving on; the fundamental issue here is that either the staff member responsible for this is incompetent at creating polls or he actually beleives that the categories "purist" (undefined), "long established Libertarian activist", and "Someone who can communicate our basic message to voters outside our party " are mutually exclusive.

If it's the former (simple incompetence), the situation is bad enough but can be improved dramatically and quickly by having an active committee (composed of LNC members and other Party activists) to review publications before they can embarrass the Party with their middle-school quality. If it's the latter (the idea that 'activist' and 'communicator' are mutually exclusive categories), the situation is much more serious and needs a more fundamental approach. The national HQ staff should not in any way be advancing the notion that being an activist (or a "purist") means that a Party member is not a good communicator of the libertarian message.

I suspect there is some combination of incompetence and an acceptance of the - utterly mistaken, in my opinion - notion that activists and 'purists' make poor communicators. Combined with the past two incompetent/or/worse releases, this is yet more evidence that there are serious oversight problems with the national staff.

My answer to the question "What type of LP presidential candidate do you want?"?

Well naturally, I want a "purist" longtime activist who can effectively communicate our basic message to voters outside the Party.

Fortunately, there is one: Mary Ruwart.

--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.colliething.com/lnc
  ¶ 9:23 AM 2 Comments Links to this post

  Latest LP release on food rationing The latest LP press release deals with food 'rationing':

http://www.lp.org/media/article_579.shtml

Apparently a few importers (not government) are rationing sales of
rice to retail outlets. Although I am happy to hold the US government
accountable for most of the institutional ills in my life, if I can't
get my favorite basmati (and I'll bet I can; I will in fact probably
pick up some tonight), I'll be more likely to blame China or India's
government for now.

But the first words of this release are astounding:

"Food rationing has started for the first time in the United States..."

Someone needs a fact-checker. Or a course in American History.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1674.html

If you are planning to be in Denver for the LP convention, please vote
for me - Susan Hogarth - for an at-large seat on the Libertarian
National Committee (LNC):

http://www.colliething.com/lnc

One of my first acts will be to propose reinstitution of the
Advertising and Publications Review Committee. This committee can help
ensure that the staff members are not left without the benefit of
simple editing to avoid such embarrassing factual mistakes as the one
above. It will also be able to provide more substantive review to
avoid such a bizarre suggestion as that in the previous release from
HQ (http://www.lp.org/media/article_578.shtml) that the resources
freed up by making one part of government smaller should be funneled
to another part of government to *increase* its power.

The Libertarian message should be that more government - in any area -
is never the best answer for society. If you agree, and want to see
the LP consistently promote this message, vote for Susan Hogarth for
LNC. I will work to help my fellow National Committee members craft
and take responsibility for delivering the Libertarian Party's
message, rather than leaving it in the hands of unelected staff
members.

--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.colliething.com/lnc

  ¶ 9:41 AM 0 Comments Links to this post

  Bees swarming


I visited some friends near Reidsville, and we ran across a bee swarm in one part of the yard. The buzzing noise isn't bees; it's traffic - the bees were pretty high up in the tree. More swarm (and dog and chicken) pictures.

  ¶ 6:57 AM 1 Comments Links to this post