GOP: Pollution Controls are a Socialist Conspiracy

So, the lower house of the Utah legislature- overwhelmingly composed of the most radical conservative Republicans in America outside the Confederacy- voted a resolution claiming that athmospheric carbon dioxide is harmless.

And that's after the bill was edited to make it less radical:

The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a "well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome". It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a "gravy train" and their efforts would "ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty".

In the heat of the debate, the representative Mike Noel said environmentalists were part of a vast conspiracy to destroy the American way of life and control world population through forced sterilisation and abortion.

The bill claims not only that global warming is not caused by humans, but that there is no such thing as global warming- and therefore that proposed anti-carbon regulations being considered by the Environmental Protection Agency should be put on hold "until a full and independent investigation of climate data and global warming science can be substantiated".

Just in case the EPA isn't paying attention, Texas governor Rick Perry is suing in federal court to block any such regulations.

Texas said it had filed a petition for review challenging the EPA's "endangerment finding" with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Texas has also asked the EPA to reconsider its ruling.

"The EPA's misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ," Texas Gov. Rick Perry said.

The National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association also said on Tuesday they filed a petition challenging the EPA in federal appeals court.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and U.S. iron and steel makers have also signaled they would file lawsuits.

This isn't just ignorance, mind you- at least it's not in most cases. There's a lot of big money that doesn't want to pay the cost of controlling the release of carbon dioxide into the athmosphere. Big Oil, Big Steel (well, such as is left in the US) and Big Coal, to name three industries, want to keep pollution nice and regulation-free.

And in order to do this, they're pumping billions, with a B, of dollars into public relations, think tanks, and junk science to discredit climate change at every level- just like tobacco companies used to do to combat medical studies that showed the direct link between smoking and lung cancer. They're not just playing on the general ignorance of the voting public- they're ADDING to it by promoting false information, conspiracy theories, and false blanket statements on the nature and reliability of climate science.

And Utah, I'm pretty sure, is just broadcasting the new message for the Republican base: environmentalists are the enemy. Environmentalists are evil. Anyone who wants to reduce pollution, or who worries about climate change, is a Commie bastard who wants to kill your unborn children and take away your freedom.

This is an extension of the old Southern belief that anyone better educated than you are is by definition evil and not to be trusted. It's beyond suspicion- it's actual hatred of expertise and training. It's a call to believe in the superiority of the righteously ignorant.

And it's being done not for the benefit of the country, but merely for the benefit of the extremely rich.

Cull Day, After a Long Time

My web browser's running slow, possibly due to all the news articles I've been holding onto the past few days. Let's get rid of some of those, shall we?

First, Hillary Clinton. The last couple days Hillary has been singing John Edwards' praises, but it's worth remembering that the Clinton campaign ran negative robo-calls the day of the South Carolina primaries. Granted, I agree with the content of the calls: I'm glad as hell John "Got Rich on Malpractice Suits Using Junk Science" Edwards is out of the race. But the transcript of these calls shows more and more what kind of people the Clintons are: burn your bridges now, mend them later after the battle's won. I'm hoping that Obama represents a bridge too far...

The rump FEC commission rules that two people pooling their money to attend a political convention or do anything else constitute a PAC... and thus must file with the FEC and abide by spending and donation limits and reporting. Thank God the Democrats are blocking four replacement members of the FEC against Bush's board-packing scheme, otherwise this piece of garbage would actually act as law. As it is, this ruling would quite effectively prevent any new or small groups from getting anywhere in the political arena, while old established PACs and the two big political parties can keep trundling on. Anyone who thinks the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was a good idea and that "public funding" of elections is a better one, beware... this is what your policies result in- the silencing of individual free speech.

You've probably heard this one again and again... Bush Administration Lied Nearly 1,000 Times About Iraq. My response: no shit, Sherlock.

Ezra Klien debunks Republican claims that the Bush years have been good for the economy. In truth, Dubya, who claims an economic record "other Presidents would envy", only beats out his father. All other Presidents back to JFK had greater economic growth in their Presidencies... even Jimmy Carter. (Shocker: Carter had the same rate of economic growth in his Presidency- four years- that Reagan had in his Presidency- eight years.)

The day after the State of the Union, the Bush administration kills the largest clean-coal experimental project. Apparent reason: the FutureGen project had chosen a site in Illinois for construction... rather than any of several proposed sites in Texas. Irony: this was done the day after Bush said, on worldwide television, that America needed to invest in new, experimental clean-coal technology. Apparently not unless those investments benefit Bush's buddies, huh?

Well, that seems to have sped up my browser. Let's look through a few of the O-L-D news bookmarks from last year and see if there's anything I can dispose of, hm?

From May of last year: Jim MacDonald writes about how the FBI and CIA actually creates domestic terror cells. Specifically, he talks about how agents act as provaceteurs and encourage nitwits to become terrorists for the promise of money. As soon as the nitwits begin botching together a plan- usually with the help of those undercover FBI agents- the Feds bust them, then brag about how they're protecting us from those evil horrible Islamo-fascists. And this helps us remain secure... how?

As was mentioned by Hillary Clinton last night- so this is still current eight months after this was written- the Pentagon has drawn up no contingency plans for leaving Iraq. They have contingency plans to invade Canada, in the event that a communist beaver regime takes over in Ottawa, but they're not even considering getting out of a nation which, more and more, is expressing its wish to be shed of us.

Jack Markowitz writes that we already have socialized medicine on the state level: the wasteful bureaucratic morass that is Medicaid. Although a ton of people are technically eligible, the paperwork requirement to prove you qualify is enormous... and yet the states, in particular Texas, have funded and expanded the program until it constitutes between a quarter and a third of all state budgets. All, according to Markowitz, in order to get votes and Federal matching funds. There may be an argument in favor of national health care, but Medicaid certainly isn't it.

One of the bad laws that passed the Texas legislature last year: now, if fifteen or more students request a bible study class, your local school district must provide it. Don't know if Perry signed it, but I don't see him not signing it, to be honest. There's no guarantee that the "religious studies" classes won't be used for Christian prosletyzing... and considering my home state, every reason to expect they WILL be used that way.

And finally... some of the richest people in the new Internet economy got that way by cyber-squatting. Have you ever typed in a URL and got, instead of what you expected, a page full of spam ads? These are the guys responsible. The leader, Kevin Ham, makes no bones about his plans: he wants to be one of a handful of people to control the Internet. It's time to drop a heavy boot on cybersquatting and misleading URLs and reopen domain name registry to the common man.

That's plenty of trouble for now...

The Camel's Back is Broken.

Well, December 18 has come, the meeting is over, and now I can say what I decided weeks ago.

The following letter will go out on the morrow to various Libertarian officers in Texas:

I have, for the past few years, been a reluctant member of the Libertarian Party, seeking to reform the party from within to make it a viable mechanism for change in the American political system. Despite the active antipathy of many within the party, and despite serious concerns about the control exercised by anarchists within the party, I nonetheless felt the Libertarian Party represented my political beliefs better than any other option available to me.

Events of the past two weeks have changed my mind. First I received a letter from Wes Benedict asking for candidates to run as Libertarians… in part, the letter said, as a means to support Ron Paul in his Republican run for President. Then, on December 9, 2007, the national leadership of the Libertarian Party voted unanimously to ask Ron Paul to seek the Libertarian Party nomination for President. It then voted, again unanimously, to commit Libertarian Party resources to help Ron Paul win the New Hampshire Republican primary election.

These actions disturbed me greatly. First, Ron Paul differs significantly from Libertarian Party positions on several key issues, most notably on immigration. Second, Ron Paul has associated in the past with white supremacists and has pointedly refused to reject white supremacist support in his current campaign for President. Third, Ron Paul is a believer in conspiracy theory, including the notion that the United States government faked the September 11, 2001 attacks as a pretext for its attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

Fourth, and more important than any of the previous points, Ron Paul has worked since his return to Congress as a Republican to undermine the Libertarian Party and to convert its members into Republicans. He has used invitations to Libertarian Party events to try to persuade Libertarians that they belong in the Republican Party. He has repeatedly rejected the label “libertarian,” defining himself as a conservative. He has stated repeatedly in the press and in public events that he believes third-party efforts are doomed and without effect in our political system. The best that can be said about Ron Paul is that he cynically uses the Libertarian Party for his own purposes.

Finally, and most important of all, the actions by the Libertarian Party leadership to support a Republican candidate for President over and above loyal Libertarian Party candidates is a sign that the Libertarian Party has no interest in actually acting as an independent political party. Rather than act as a viable alternative to two hopelessly corrupt and untrustworthy political parties, the Libertarian leadership has declared itself willing to marry itself to whichever major party parrots enough buzzwords or empty promises to give the illusion of support for Libertarian positions.

I joined the Libertarian Party in 1999 because I wanted something different from the Democratic and Republican Parties. I wanted to join an organization determined to support its own candidates for election against both Democrats and Republicans. If the Libertarian Party is not willing to do this, then in my opinion it has rejected its very meaning for existence. A political party which supports members of other parties for public office in preference to its own candidates for that same office can no longer be considered an independent political party.

Without the will to act as an independent political party, and without the loyalty to support the candidates within the party in preference to those without, the Libertarian Party can no longer be considered a viable force in American politics. Indeed, it is my belief that if the Libertarian Party nominates Ron Paul in 2008, or somehow manages to get Ron Paul nominated by the Republicans and withholds its nomination for President, the result will be a loss of support, of organization, and of ballot access as Libertarians bolt the party to join the Republican Party in support of Ron Paul. After this election cycle there will no longer be anything of value to reform… if there ever was.

For these reasons I hereby announce my resignation from the Libertarian Party. I hereby stand down from any and all positions of trust within the Libertarian Party. I have closed out all unfinished business I have with the party, including any official duties, debts, or pledges I have with the Party or its affiliates and subsidiaries.

If the Libertarian Party demonstrates that it can be a viable and independent political party, by electing a governor, a Congressman, or a substantial number of state legislators in multiple states, I may consider rejoining that party. Otherwise I shall be politically independent for the 2008 election season, and after that shall seek either to join or help build a new political party to fulfill the role that, in my opinion, the Libertarian Party has not only abandoned but emphatically rejected.

To my knowledge I speak for no one else but myself in this; however, I strongly encourage all who read this statement to reconsider whether or not the Libertarian Party, by supporting a candidate of a party that has worked to destroy freedom, can still be considered a means of preserving and expanding freedom. For my part it cannot—and for that reason I have chosen to withdraw my support.

I'm all but certain now that Ron Paul will get the Libertarian nomination, or else the Libertarians will not have a nominee at all in 2008 for President. Not only is there loud and substantial support from below, but there's absolute unanimous support from above. Even the purists in the party, who would run off anyone else who differed with the anarchist party line as Ron Paul does, have gone whole hog for him.

I just can't support a party- any party- so hypocritical as to proclaim itself the Party of Principle, to fight tooth and nail any attempt to moderate that principle, and then to throw all its support behind a candidate of ANOTHER PARTY who doesn't even believe in that principle. Just as I could not support the Democrats or Republicans in 1999, I cannot support the Libertarians now.

What this means in the short term is, for one thing, an end to Corn Flake Friday posts. I see no reason to embarrass Libertarians into facing reality when I'm no longer trying to reform that party. (Incidentally, "reform" is an anagram of "former," and vice versa.)

In the next couple days I'm going to take a very serious look at the Democratic candidates for President, and a reluctant look at the Republicans to be fair. I'm not going to bother with the Greens (Cynthia Anti-Semite McKinney or Ralph Untrue-at-Any-Speed Nader? No thanks) or the Constitution Party (the would-be Christian Taliban). Nor am I interested in Michael Bloomberg, should he run; having seen what he's done to civil liberties in New York City as mayor, I believe he'd be an even worse dictator than Bush should he come to power. But I have to support someone, because there's no None of the Above option.

After that, I'm going to start looking for a label for my kind of politics, and to see if there are any people like me. I think I've got a good name in mind, but I need to flesh out the ideas before I go further. In the meantime, keep watching this blog...

The Last Straw May Have Dropped...

The following was in a mass mailing I got yesterday from the Libertarian Party of Texas, seeking candidates and supporters:

An Update on the Ron Paul Campaign

Presidential Candidate Ron Paul continues to exceed many people's expectations. Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party nominee for President in 1988. Since then, he has been elected to the U. S. Congress from Texas District 14 as a Republican, and he is currently seeking the Republican Party nomination for President.

Some Libertarian Party members have been supporting Ron Paul's campaign as a donor or volunteer, as I have.

But remember, Texas election law prohibits anyone who votes in the 2008 primaries from participating with the Libertarian Party as a candidate, a county chair, or a convention delegate. (This does not apply to National Convention delegates.)

Clyde Garland, an activist from Brazos County, suggested that if you want to support Ron Paul, you can do a lot more to support him by running for office than you would by simply giving him one vote in the primary.

Why? As an individual, you have one voice and one vote. But as a Libertarian Party candidate for public office, you can use your bully pulpit to let people know you support Ron Paul. (Only if you wish to - - I recognize some Libertarians do not support Ron Paul for President.)

Some Libertarians have worried that Ron Paul's presidential campaign will hurt the Libertarian Party by taking away from our fundraising efforts and candidate recruitment. I respectfully disagree.

We may be losing old donors, but we're also gsining new members and new donors, and I'm sure some of the new interest in the LP is a result of Ron Paul's campaign. Long-term, I expect the Libertarian Party will benefit greatly from Ron Paul's publicity for Libertarian ideas.

Just think of all the liberty-loving people who Ron Paul's campaign is bringing out of the shadows. If we can identify who these folks are, it will benefit our party tremendously.

Frankly, I think activists from some other states, whose efforts haven't been as successful as they'd like, may just be using Ron Paul's campaign as an excuse for their own failures. I don't care for that attitude.

That's one page out of a six-page letter devoted to a candidate who is not running for the party's nomination- indeed who has repeatedly disavowed any interest in the party's nomination.

Furthermore, it was written by the LPTex Executive Director, Wes Benedict...

... so I'm reading this as official Libertarian Party endorsement of Ron Paul.

And let's look at the things Benedict says. First he describes who Ron Paul is- a candidate for President and for Congress as a member of the REPUBLICAN Party.

The whole point of my supporting the Libertarian Party is that they are the party which best represents my views. The Republican Party is NOT such a party. If I wanted to support Republicans, I'd join the Republican Party.

As for the suggestion that a Libertarian candidacy supports a Republican candidate... not only is that innately offensive, but it as much as admits that Libertarians cannot actually win elections. "Why, no, I'm not running because I want the job- I'm running because I support Ron Paul, a member of a party I oppose, for President!"

(And the little quip recognizing that some Libertarians don't support Ron Paul is the back of the hand to those people- myself included. The tone of the rest of the section is the strong presumption that all true Libertarians want Ron Paul for President- despite the many good reasons I've presented here why Paul should NOT be President, nor even the Libertarian Party nominee. It's the same smug "of course, we don't all have to agree" tone that Democrats use on anti-abortion Dems or Republicans use for the Log Cabin caucus.)

As for injuring Libertarian prospects, workers for Libertarian candidates in Louisiana, Indiana and Virginia reported potential donors telling them outright that all their free money had been given to Ron Paul. Go ahead and shrug off the churn of old and new members... the churn that happens EVERY election cycle, as voters investigate options and try new things. Finally, utterly fail to mention places where voter registration and primary votes determine ballot access for the 2010 cycle- places where Libertarians will vote for Ron Paul, avoiding the Libertarian Party, and thereby causing our party to lose the ballot access we've fought so hard for.

And what, in the final paragraph of the page, is Benedict's response to those who object to Ron Paul and to his effect on our party?

Contempt.

I'm not quite ready to make a final, bridge-burning decision...

... but at this point, I officially see no reason whatever to continue supporting the Libertarian Party, not if it acts like nothing more than a splinter of the Republican Party.

Rapidly Approaching the Crossroads

Lately I've been telling my friends that I'm a Libertarian despite the party, rather than a Libertarian because of what the party stands for. It should be no surprise to people who read this blog that I'm both disgusted and disillusioned with the way the party has gone, and where it appears to be headed. Historically I've had a lot of company- the Libertarian Party has a lot of what marketers call "churn," i. e. turnover in members. Only a tiny number- usually the most radical and dysfunctional- remain with the party, working hard to ensure that nobody else can stand to work with them for long.

At the moment- emphasis on moment- I'm still a big-L Libertarian. Right now I'm deciding if I'm going to work to get Libertarians on the ballot and in office next year. It's a very big decision, because I personally believe it wrong to bail on a political party in mid-cycle. If you commit to a party in January, you ought to be with them come November- presuming, of course, that the party actually stands for something.

So before I commit to that long haul, I have to answer some very serious questions.

1. What do I expect out of a political party? I want a political party which best represents what I believe and is not merely the tool or a splinter of some other political party. That party must also make a good-faith effort to actually win elections: it should not be merely an "educational organization" or an elitist club.

2. Does the Libertarian Party represent me well enough to stay with it? I honestly don't know yet. That will depend entirely on the new platform that comes out of the national convention Memorial Day weekend. If the platform represents a turn away from anarchism and towards a small-government message that can be sold to the electorate, then I stay. If the anarchists regain control and go back to the old smash-the-state rhetoric, then I'm out.

3. Is the Libertarian Party independent, or is it just a faction of the Republican Party? That depends on the Ron Paul movement, and again on the national convention. Currently party rules forbid Libertarians nominating non-Libertarian candidates for office, but there's a major movement afoot to void that rule and nominate Ron Paul with or without his consent. If Ron Paul gets nominated by the LP, I won't even wait until November- I will resign the LP then and there, because it will no longer be anything more than an annex of the GOP- a goal Paul has worked towards since 1988.

4. Does the Libertarian Party actually work to win elections? Signs point to no at present; today I was called by the Texas LP's secretary and asked to run for office again. I said no- I could never do as well as I did last year, when I proved that the people here don't want me in office. The focus, as usual, is overwhelmingly on recruiting candidates, any kind of candidates, with no regard to the one thing needed for any candidate to accomplish anything: organization on the ground. We need to organize counties and precincts, build a network of events for our candidates to appear at... and we're not doing it. If I see no improvement in the LP's organization in Texas, or in general, then I'm out at the end of 2008.

Yes, right now my Libertarian affiliation is very conditional indeed. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if there's any way I can get the ball rolling towards a new party, a party that favors smaller, more accountable government while at the same time opposing anarchy and the unfettered power of corporations or the immensely wealthy.

It might be time to revive the old Whig name from history- not the Whigs of Henry Clay and Zachary Taylor, but the Whigs who opposed the Tories and led the American Revolution of long ago. I want the Whigs who opposed corruption, office-holding, gerrymandering and rotten boroughs. I want the Whigs who favored expanded freedom and sufferage and lower taxes.

But I don't want the anarchists who tarred and feathered tax collectors, or destroyed courthouses to prevent having their farms foreclosed on for debts. Freedom requires a law that is not enforced by the individual at his own whim, but is the same for all persons at all times. It requires a government strong enough to see that law enforced, yet limited enough that it cannot be bent to the will of the powerful. Our Whig forefathers understood this- learning it at times by hard experience- and tried their best to craft a system toward this end.

I think I could be a Whig.

I'm wondering if I can still be a Libertarian.

CORN FLAKE FRIDAY: Pat Dixon

Interestingly enough, it's been rather a slow week for Corn Flakes, especially when you consider why this week's winner has been named. Remember, though, a Corn Flake is a person who embarrasses either the Libertarian Party or the liberty movements the LP is associated with by their actions in public. Corn Flakes are usually extremists and anarchists with no grasp of reality or common-sense politics... but, as this example shows, sometimes a rational person can show Corn Flake potential.

Patrick Dixon, state chairman of the Libertarian Party in Texas, won election to the city council of Lago Vista, TX in 2005. The election was nonpartisan; he was not listed as a Libertarian, and he mentioned the party nowhere in any of his campaign materials. This year he was the only elected Libertarian in Texas seeking re-election... and he failed of election, getting slightly more than 40% of the vote. (Early votes composed two-thirds of the final total and showed him down 25%-75%.)

Now, being defeated in election is not an embarrassment. Very few Libertarians get elected to anything. Even being defeated for re-election is not an embarrassment- although if that 25% number had held up it probably would have been.

No, the embarrassment comes because of Pat Dixon's conduct in office, and the voters' reaction to it. As quoted from this interview on Last Free Voice...

"Like many cities, there is a ruling regime. These people are not necessarily stupid or evil. They want to keep things as they are. These people endorsed me 2 years ago and I won. They must have thought I was going to be more supportive than my incumbent predecessor. When I actually started voting the way I said I would, they discovered that I had no problem dissenting. This year the same “old guard” that endorsed me 2 years ago recruited one of their own to challenge me. It is obvious from the election results that we were outnumbered. Twice as many votes were cast in early voting as on election day. Most younger and working people don’t have time during the workday for early voting, but the retirees can. I was down 70% to 30% from early voting. On election day that margin was too large to overcome... I had a much better run campaign than my opponent, but she was part of the 'old guard' that I was not going to persuade no matter how many advertisements I sent."

So... you got elected by persuading the voters you supported what they supported. Then you voted against the interests of those who supported you. Since you know this, obviously these people spoke to you personally and brought you their grievances... and, apparently, you blew them off. That's what I get from reading this.

Now, this example would seem to demonstrate that Libertarians, once elected, will follow their own agenda and pay no heed to the desires or needs of their constituents. This is NOT a good thing, since the only way a political party can win is by persuading the electorate that its candidates will serve the voters, not themselves, once elected.

But wait- there's more:

"In my first campaign 2 years ago the LP was a significant factor in my victory and I believe it can be for many libertarian candidates in small city municipal races. I did not run around telling everyone I was a Libertarian as this election was non-partisan. There is no reason to use a party label in such a race. However I never deny my affiliation with the LP and because of that I am known as a Libertarian. In that respect the party label can be an impediment."

So, wait. In your campaign you kept silent about your Libertarian association... and because of this you're known as a Libertarian?

And you begin the paragraph saying the LP was of significant aid, but end it by saying it's an impediment?

And finally:

"Additionally, this community is much more aware of the term “Libertarian”. I predict in 2008 that Lago Vista will have a significant increase in Libertarian voters."

Um... the same electorate which brought you in in 2005 threw you out pretty overwhelmingly in 2007, after having experience of you for two years as a person who didn't call himself a Libertarian but was one... and you predict this experience will INCREASE support for the party in Lago Vista?

For blowing an opportunity to show that Libertarians can be office holders that respect those who vote for them... Pat Dixon, this week's Corn Flake!

(Hopefully, though, Pat won't reappear in this feature. What I've seen of Pat is positive- a sensible, businesslike person with a level head on his shoulders. I don't think he's bad or inherently nutty- I just think, in this case, he really, really blew it for himself and our party. And since no Libertarian won in last Saturday's non-partisan elections, it's highly probable that we'll have to wait another two years or so for another chance to prove to Texans that Libertarians can be trusted in power. Hope whoever we have then has a clearer idea of what an officeholder's responsibilities to constituents are than Pat did.)