After sensibly explaining why prohibition doesn't work and creates
more problems than it solves, Palasek finishes off with a true JLF
milquetoast flourish:
"This example is not an argument for less enforcement of statutes that
are already on North Carolina's books. What it does suggest, however,
is that additional statutes may be counterproductive, as the Sudafed
regulation is beginning to suggest, and that in some cases dropping a
prohibition may be the expedient as well as the sensible route to
take."
--
Susan Hogarth | .38 Special
Libertarian for NC State House 38
http://hogarth4house.com/
Please consider issuing some sort of statement regarding US gov't
involvement in Afghanistan. It's becoming painfully obvious to
Americans (even ones who approved the occupation initially) that the
fiasco there is sliding toward the same sort of boondoggle the Soviets
got stuck in, and that American interventionism isn't helping
Americans. With Obama's recent statements about *increasing* troop
levels in Afghanistan, the LP has a wonderful opportunity to
differentiate ourselves from both the DP and RP and to assume a
leadership role in the pro-peace noninterventionism movement.
I have been disappointed in the LP's refusal to confront the
Afghanistan occupation head-on; now we have a perfect opportunity to
make such a confrontation a demonstration of how we differ from both
Republicans and Democrats. I hope that you will consider taking this
opportunity while Obama is still overseas and it could possibly get
more notice than in other contexts.
Thanks for your time and work!
--
Susan Hogarth
In an earlier self-portrait, I was still energized by the work and hadn't yet realized what the day was costing me:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/
Off the bat, I'm not crazy about the tagline 'the answer is less
government' (though it is written in a sexy font). Somehow that
implies to my government-despising mind that the answer is
*government*, just less of it. Less of a bad-thing is *good*, yes, but
not the answer.
If I have HIV, I am happy to have a lower virus titer, but that ain't
the *answer*. The *answer* is a cure.
I'd prefer something along the lines of 'the answer is freedom' or
'the answer lies in you' or something to indicate that the answers
comes from *people*, not *government*.
But maybe - just maybe - I'm biased.
Some fairly shabby writing is in evidence, which tastes a little bit
like Shane Cory's style to me. For example: "Since 1997, Bob has been
a board member of the National Rifle Association, and quickly became
the vanguard of gun rights during his four terms in Congress."
'became the vanguard'???
¶ 8:24 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
Excerpt:
RALEIGH (July 9) – Dr. Mike Munger, Libertarian candidate for governor, won't disclose the personal financial information requested by The News & Observer and the Charlotte Observer unless he's allowed to participate in the gubernatorial debates.
"I categorically refuse to participate in this farce, unless I'm allowed to participate in the debates," the Duke professor said. He said he doesn't object to the request itself because both newspapers have covered all three campaigns fairly.
... "My opponents have refused to ask I be invited to even one debate," he noted. "I find it ironic that I'm being asked to disclose anything, when it's my Sphinx-like opponents who refuse to open their mouths and say, 'We should include every candidate who qualified under state law.' "
Munger has pledged to prepare the financial disclosure packet, believing in good faith that either the sponsors of at least one debate, or the candidates themselves, will awaken to a sense of their obligations in a democratic society.
¶ 11:43 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
http://allafrica.com/stories/200807080833.html
"The seven-country-strong African contingent, led by African Union
chairman President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, yesterday snubbed the
coercive tactics of the United States and instead emphasised the need
for dialogue. Leaders from Algeria, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal
and South Africa joined Tanzania in telling the G8 that sanctions
would not help Zimbabwe in any way."
Please ask the LP's candidate to come out *strongly* against US
government economic sanctions *anywhere*, and particularly against the
peoples of Iran and Zimbabwe, who are suffering enough from their own
bad leadership and not in need of 'help' like that from *our* bad
leadership.
--
Susan Hogarth
this time - in the traditional Empire fashion - by starting with
increasingly strict economic sanctions which will weaken the people of
the target/victim country. The House action to accomplish this
economic warfare is Resolution 362 - you can find the bill here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-362
and information about it and its likely impact can be found here:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/06/23/iran-war-resolution-may-be-passed-next-week/
It is important that the LP's presidential candidate speak out AGAINST
sanctions and other punitive actions against the Iranian people. Barr
has spoken in general terms about 'not rushing to war' against Iran,
but as the de facto spokesperson for the Libertarian Party, he really
needs to make the point that sanctions ARE war - and war against
civilians.
So I'm asking fellow Libertarians to ask our candidate Barr to make a
clear and unambiguous statement denouncing both HR362 and any proposed
or existing sanction measures against the people of Iran.
Please write to the Barr campaign by filling in the form on Barr's
site to "send your message to Bob" (unfortunately there seems to be no
campaign email address I can share; apparently you have to use their
form): http://www.bobbarr2008.com/join/
Thank you!!
--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,373450,00.html
grabbed a lot of Lib attention because of Barr's self-praise on DOMA; rather astonishing to those who thought they'd heard him promise to work to repeal the Act. However, there are a few other points of note, and frankly, some deeper concerns for me regarding Barr's foreign policy - and area he has always been fairly cagey on with Libertarians - calling for 'no rush to war with Iran', for instance, while not repudiating his former support for the warfare of embargoes.
Two domestic concerns first:
- Twice he is asked about the Barr Amendment (med marijuana) and never does he address it. In fairness, it was slipped into a multi-part question both times.
- Barr seems to indicate that he doesn't think the PATRIOT Act itself was a bad idea, as long as it was not 'used and abused' (legislation is OK as long as it's never used; I guess I can maybe get behind that premise, but it does seem hopelessly utopian). Barr says:
He should consider the Libertarian implications there: that ANY piece of legislation is quite liable to 'use and abuse', and that must be factored in when considering it. Once this insight sinks in - if it ever does - he should consider sharing it with the electorate when he has a chance to speak to them.
- It's the Iraq quotes that are bothering me most in the long run, I think:
"With regard to the vote for hostilities in Iraq, that was a vote that was based on what we now know to be inappropriate and erroneously analyzed intelligence."
Somehow Ron Paul wasn't fooled. Oh, wait, Ron Paul wouldn't have voted FOR it even if he had believed the ass George Bush. There is the lesson Barr seems to have missed. The war was wrong even granting the false premises.
He continues:
"That vote certainly was not intended -- was not presented to the Congress or myself in the Congress at the time as a vote for a multiyear, perhaps multidecade, occupation of Iraq."
Umm, so the invasion itself was OK; it's just occupation that's not? That certainly seems to be the implication here, bolstered by the very next comment:
"Here again, the administration has taken an inch and gone a mile, sometimes in very clear contravention of what Congress intended."
So he did agree with the 'inch' of invasion - just not the 'mile' of occupation? That seems to be the only clear interpretation of what he says here. This is pretty disturbing stuff for the LP's presidential candidate. He doesn't - as far as I can tell - at all here repudiate his vote on the Iraq War - he simply laments that it, like the PATRIOT Act, was 'used and abused'; that the Administration took his 'inch' and made it a 'mile' - with no indication that the Libertarian Party position is that the inch was already an inch too far.
¶ 9:05 AM 3 Comments Links to this post
