 |
| From 2007january27... |
 |
| From 2007january27... |
was -fantastic-, the speakers were (by and large) boring (and easily
strayed from the point to discuss their pet Project), and the people
were almost all wonderful. It was great, but I wish there could have
been more of an LP presence. There were undoubtedly more LPers, but
there were 10 of us together from NC, and fortunately we had the big
banner to show some sort of LP presence. We did get a featured shot on
a British news report! It's here (and thanks to Mike for digging it
out) at about 12 seconds in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW_YAf7OM58
The pictures I took are here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/hogarth/2007january27DCAntiwarRally
I will caption them later as I get a chance. The basic order is:
starting out, getting set up for the rally, getting organized for the
march, and marching. I tok a lot of pics of signs that amused me, and
lingered for a while near the socialists (I mean the declared
socialists) trying to figure out how they can get so much enthusiasm
and printed material and -presence- at these things, while we in the
service of freedom struggle so hard to get people involved (not that
I'm bitter). All the short vid clips I took are at the end; I will
caption them later also, and may google or youtube some of them. They
have a little 'film' icon in the lower-left corner, and should play
automatically in your browser when you select them.
The reason the field around us looks so empty is not because
Libertarians are untouchable :) but because we were right behind a
GIANT loudspeaker tower. VERY loud!
Mike's pictures are here:
http://www.putfile.com/dcposter/images/76663
Mike got some great crowd shots, as he climbed a tree for better
viewing. My shots are all very much from ground level!
Many thanks to my friend and co-worker Mel, who lives in the area and
met us at the subway stop to help shepherd us into the rally.
--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.lpradicals.org
I will admit this was mostly a chance to play with "Boycott", one of the 4000+ fonts I downloaded this evening. I am in font heaven! ¶ 12:32 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
Labels: domestic
¶ 9:07 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
admit to being nearly stunned last night when I went to stop my phone
from persistently beeping and realized the message it was trying to
get me to read was that Ron Paul was considering a presidential bid -
as a Republican.
I was at a Wake County Libertarian Party meeting when I glanced at my
phone for that message, which I think can only be considered irony.
Ron Paul is probably the person I can most directly give the credit
(or blame, if you like) to for my presence at that meeting. His
presidential race in '88 took him to some pretty strange and wild
places, including somewhere in western Kansas where an unfocused young
farm wife (that would be me!) first heard real live people speaking
political sense and from that moment on considered herself a
Libertarian (not a very good one for a long time, but that's another
story).
Naturally I shared the news with the folks at the meeting, and it was
right then - with the war drums of Bush's escalation beating and the
still-stunned sense of seeing in my own life the war madness I'd only
heard and read about - that the perfect description of Paul's
candidacy came to mind: Paul is the Republican Dennis Kucinich. That
was a happy thought, as it seems as if the Republican Party has
suffered from not having a 'conscience candidate'. His bid, along with
that of other limited-government Republicans who are finally rising in
response to the Bush threat, can only be good for the Republican
Party.
But what does Paul's bid mean for the Libertarian Party, and more
importantly, for the freedom movement? For the movement as a whole the
answer is very clear: having someone stand up and say the things Ron
Paul will say to the Republican Party and the people of America will
only grow people's understanding of freedom and its potential - as it
did for me back in '88. That's an unqualified good.
And for the Libertarian Party? Again, I see only good news in a Ron
Paul candidacy - even if he is running as a Republican, and perhaps
because he is running as a Republican. When Paul stirs a love of, and
a longing for, justice and freedom in the hearts of those who listen
to him, many will find that the Republican Party will never be serious
about freedom, preferring to struggle for power instead. Many of these
folks will - because of Paul's candidacy - have heard about the
Libertarian Party for the first time. After the presidential race,
they will seek us out. It is vital to the success of our movement and
its goals that when they come to the Libertarian Party it catches
their inspiration rather than quashes it. We cannot disappoint these
new idealistic folks with nonsense about new taxes and replacement
taxes and regulating drugs and regulating travel and regulating ...
freedom. They will be leaving the Republican Party precisely because
that's the sort of talk they got there. When I joined the Libertarian
Party, I still had many very un-libertarian ideas, and kind,
intelligent, and more-or-less patient folk in the Party helped me to
learn to think consistently about freedom. They did not try to
re-orient the Libertarian Party to center around my muddled
understanding, but helped me to really understand freedom and its
implications.
The Libertarian Party must position itself to take a new wave of
idealism created by Paul's candidacy and offer the people whose hearts
and minds he will surely stir a crystal clear vision of real freedom
and how it can work in America. I want to be here - and I want other
Libertarian Party folks to be here with me - to welcome them home
properly.
--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.lpradicals.org
Labels: LP
¶ 11:10 AM 2 Comments Links to this post
[THOSE WHO AGREE: Please add your name to the list at the bottom and
forward to LNC Chair Bill Redpath at chair@lp.org with CC to
hogarth@gmail.com]
Bill,
It is now over a half a business day since President Bush announced an
escalation in Iraq, and several days since word of the escalation has
been widely available. Many members of the Libertarian Party are
concerned at the apparent lack of response from the Libertarian Party
to this dangerous and manifestly anti-freedom action on the part of
the US government.
We believe that the war in Iraq and the growing American imperialism
is one of the most significant issues - if not *the* most significant
- of our time. We believe the Libertarian response to this war, and
especially escalation, should be clear and unambiguous. We want to see
the Libertarian Party at the forefront of this fateful issue - not
lagging behind with weak and ineffective statements, but rather
pressing forward with bold and freedom-oriented proposals. The
Libertarian Party should be an antiwar leader, not a follower. The
Party should rally its members to protest the war and American
interventionism vigorously.
Therefore we beg you to consider issuing a position paper which takes
the following strong antiwar positions:
- The US government should remove all American troops from Iraq immediately.
- The US government should have no role in determining how Iraqi oil
revenues are distributed.
- The US government should cease escalation of rhetoric and action against Iran.
- The US government should immediately cease all embargoes everywhere.
The following members of the Libertarian Party are in agreement on the
statement above and add their urgings for speedy and decisive action
on your part.
Susan Hogarth, Chair, Libertarian Party of Wake County, NC
Paul Elledge, LP member from North Carolina
Sidney Phillip Rhodes, LP member from North Carolina
Seth Anthony, Chair, Libertarian Party at Colorado State University
Paul Frankel, LP member from Alabama
These LP friends were nice enough to let me 'pose' them at last week's county party meeting. It was a bit evil of me to bully them into it, I suppose. I just could hardly resist when I saw how nicely they framed up in the first picture.
Labels: LP
¶ 11:24 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
apparently, I get to see the process up close and in person for myself
:-(
If you haven't read Randolph Bourne's essay, you've missed out big time:
http://www.bigeye.com/warstate.htm
A taste:
"War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion
throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for
passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience
the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense.
The machinery of government sets and enforces the drastic penalties;
the minorities are either intimidated into silence, or brought slowly
around by a subtle process of persuasion which may seem to them really
to be converting them. Of course, the ideal of perfect loyalty,
perfect uniformity is never really attained. The classes upon whom the
amateur work of coercion falls are unwearied in their zeal, but often
their agitation instead of converting, merely serves to stiffen their
resistance. Minorities are rendered sullen, and some intellectual
opinion bitter and satirical. But in general, the nation in wartime
attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at
the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be
produced through any other agency than war."
He was probably much more the equivalent of a progressive Dem than a
libertarian (in one essay he says of a factory-owner friend: "He
trusts rights, I trust power. He recognizes only individuals, I
recognize classes."), though interestingly I just read that he
questioned the democratic process and the 'war for democracy' concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Bourne
(I also learned he was one of the victims of the Spanish Flu).
All this is interesting to me, as I just finished reading "Johnny Got
His Gun" by Dalton Trumbo, which is a stunning novel. What I found
really strange, though, was Trumbo's preface to the 70s edition (novel
was originally published in 1940) where he *defended* WWII though he
had (in the novel) nothing but contempt for WWI and the whole idea of
'making the world safe for democracy'. When the antiwar right tried to
get Trumbo to speak out against WWII, he apparently rebuffed them.
Someone needs to tell me I don't need to order more books from Amazon just because they send me an email with finely tailored recomendations, and a link to my 'wish list'.
On the other hand; skip it. I like books, and they are a whole lot lower in calories than a box-o-donuts.
So, I ordered two Vernor Vinge novels (yeah!) and a book I've been eyeing for some time:
The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier
And here's the craziest part: I had to argue myself into taking the free (3-5 day) shipping rather than going for 2-day shipping. I just started a five-novel collection from Doris Lessing (more on that later, possibly), and I am seriously reading at least one econ book already. It's not like I'm desperate for reading material! In fact I'm swimming in it! ¶ 7:07 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
Libertarians:
The people must lead, and the leaders must follow.
The press release is for the use of any Libertarian Party affiliate or organization wanting a rapid and forceful response to Bush's call for escalation in Iraq. Please feel free to place your group's name and contact information on it and release it to your local media. If you would like to make changes, feel free to do so. No credit need (or should) be given - release this under your own group's name. The LP should be providing affiliates with platform-compliant, forceful statements on current news events. The LP should be taking a strong antiwar stand. The activists of the LP Radical Caucus offer this release to help LP affiliates make a strong Libertarian statement on current events.
Labels: LP
¶ 6:43 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
I went to Boston Saturday morning with a lovely soft hand-knitted eggplant-colored scarf made by a good friend (are there other kinds of friends? 'bad friends'? 'mediocre friends'?). And, naturally, it was blazing warm in Boston - the paper's headline was a simple 63 in red, and the locals looked somewhat stunned by the heat. While there (after the excellent and bizarre play The Onion Cellar) Bill and I walked around the university area and of course I got sucked into a shop where I couldn't resist two scarves (one alpaca, the other some silky-like thing with sparklies on it) and a hat - and Bill actually tolerated that much shopping, and even heartily approved of the hat! Then we met my best friend - who I hadn't seen in about six years. She showed me a scarf she was knitting for someone else and said I was 'next on the list' - and the scarf had a DNA double-helix knitted into the design. How cool is that? Then, when we got home Sunday, the friend I had asked to dogsit had left me a gift of ... what else but a lovely orange scarf! Isn't it supposed to be the other way around - you bring a gift FOR the dogsitter, not get a gift FROM her? But don't tell Joy!
Considering the above, I believe that I am wealthy in way more than scarves. Too bad friends aren't a tradeable commodity!! ;-) ¶ 12:05 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
- the city
- the Dresden Dolls perform in the Onion Cellar
- my best friend
So far having a wonderful time, but sore feet! ¶ 5:46 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
You see three branches of government;
I see firewood. ¶ 11:59 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
I want to point out something I think is important and that is being missed in many intra-LP discussions. I have never heard anyone say that the LP should soley focus on education or activism as opposed to running candidates. Every radical Libertarian I have spoken with wants a mixture of those activities. I have heard several people within the LP say what Sean Haugh put into words so well when he wrote that "[R]unning Libertarian candidates to win is the first item on our agenda, if not the only one."
So it seems to me that the internal debate we are having isn't no candidates vs candidates - although it is often framed that way - but is rather a mixture of methods vs sole focus on electing candidates. The radicals I know within the LP seem to favor a mixture of methods, while there seems to be an increasing push from some more moderate members of the LP toward an 'elections only' focus. To support this focus, they tend to cite a single (election) focus 'mission statement' which I have never seen in an LP member-voted document such as the platform or bylaws.
I have seen a lot of talk running around about a mysterious LP mission statement and similar 'action plans' and 'strategic plans', but those statements seem to me to be the transitory products of committees rather than the express long-term goals of the members of the LP.
When I look for what is written by and for the membership to be the Party's goal I find this unambiguous statement in the Preamble to the Platform:
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. ... These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.
And in the Bylaws I find a section labeled Purposes, which says in its entirety:
The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles by: functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements; moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office; chartering affiliate parties throughout the United States and promoting their growth and activities; nominating candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, and supporting Party and affiliate party candidates for political office; and, entering into public information activities.
So those who favor elections-only should in fact be quite pleased, because the emphasis here is heavily on elections. And radicals are pretty much OK with that. However it is not soley on elections. It seems to me that if people believe the LP's focus/mission/whatever should be solely focused on elections, or, again in Sean Haugh's words, that "running Libertarian candidates to win is the first item on our agenda, if not the only one," the burden of proof is on them to go to the party membership and have the bylaws and/or platform changed to reflect that understanding.
Of course I hope that does not happen, nor do I expect that the membership would make such a choice. Furthermore, I think moderates who want an election-only focus know this, which is why I think they have tried to work through committees, etc., thus creating a tension between 'insiders' and the Party's base, who naturally feel that the Party's mission and purposes are spelled out quite clearly in the documents THEY approved by voting.
And, as an appendix, let me take note of this statement in the Bylaws section labeled Purposes: ... functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements ... . This statement is the basis of my contention that reprinting articles from Republicans (complete with links to their site) on the front page of the LP website (as was done as recently as last week) is contrary to our bylaws as well as to common sense.
Labels: LP
¶ 4:57 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
Also good is the reprinted/linked article about elected Libertarians (as opposed to the whinging maunderings of some Republican) featured on the page. And of course there is the Party press release about the Iraq disaster. I do have a couple of issues with that press release, though, and I wish the Party would take the time to have its press releases proofread (I have politely volunteered, but I guess my help is unwelcome). It is not good practice for people to edit their own work no matter how good at writing and/or editing they are. Perhaps two pairs of eyes do see every LP press release, but if so, they should probably get a third set :-/
Here are the main issues I have with that press release. It's not that I think the PR is a disaster; it's just that stuff like this can almost always be improved with good editing:
- I just noticed this one, but it's a biggie. I can see how it might slip by in a review, but I think we need to work on this as it is a big blind spot many Americans have. The title of the press release is Bush’s Shock and Awe: Iraq Death Toll Surpasses 9/11 Body Count. The Iraq death toll passed 3K long ago, even if we just count this present (Bush) period of aggression.
- This paragraph can be greatly improved: "The invasion and continued occupation of Iraq was based largely upon speculation and conjecture created and promoted by a powerful Republican regime and approved by a spineless Democratic minority," said Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory. "The case for war with Iraq was sold to the American people, with award-worthy theatrics, through the exploitation of hate and fear." I would convey essentially the same message this way (Of course I'd keep in the 'said Shane Cory, LP ED' part): "The invasion and continued occupation of Iraq was sold to the American public by creating and exploiting an atmosphere of fear and hatred. A powerful Republican regime created the lies and half-truths, and a spineless Democratic minority either fell for them or went along with them to increase their own political power."
- The next paragraphs are fine, but probably should be condensed to one; or even a line saying that the 'evidence' mustered by Bush et al. was a pack of lies.
- This paragraph is a bit troubling, because although as a Libertarian I understand that the evidence was insufficient for attack even if true, I'm not sure that comes across to someone who is not a Libertarian. The PR reads "Regardless of the evidence that was eventually proven to be false, the Libertarian Party stood firmly positioned against the invasion as it was, without question, an unnecessary and offensive engagement." I would instead write something like "The Libertarian Party was opposed to the invasion of Iraq even before these lies were obvious to all. Even had all the charges been true, they would not have provided justification for attacking another country and setting up a puppet government."
- It's probably better to not hyphenate 'preemptive'. The trend is toward decreasing hyphenation. Instead of saying "... states a section of the Libertarian Party Platform," I would just say "... states the Libertarian Party Platform." Actually, I'd probably move that phrase to the beginning of the paragrpah and say something like "The LP platform is noninterventionist, stating ...."
- In the next-to-last paragraph, I might have pointed out that the Democrats were probably going to go along with this 'surge' nonsense to try to get a draft going, and used that to demonstrate the 'ratchet' effect of the D/R system.
- Last paragrpah is fine except for an embarrassing error where the word 'lead' was used when 'led' was probably meant. The closing could be a bit punchier, too.
Labels: LP
¶ 1:00 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
