Month: August 2004

monolithic libertarianism: oxymoron?

Reason: John Perry Barlow 2.0: The Thomas Jefferson of cyberspace reinvents his body — and his politics. : “But generally speaking, I felt to engage in the political process was to sully oneself to such a degree that whatever came out wasn’t worth the trouble put in. I thought it was better to focus on changing yourself and people around you, to not question authority so much as bypass it whenever possible. But by virtue of our abdication, a very authoritarian, assertive form of government has taken over…. Most of the people in the think tanks behind the Bush administration’s current policies are libertarians, or certainly free marketeers. We’ve got two distinct strains of libertarianism, and the hippie-mystic strain is not engaging in politics, and the Ayn Rand strain is basically dismantling government in a way that is giving complete open field running to multinational corporatism.”

Reason: John Perry Barlow 2.0: The Thomas Jefferson of cyberspace reinvents his body — and his politics. :

But generally speaking, I felt to engage in the political process was to sully oneself to such a degree that whatever came out wasn’t worth the trouble put in. I thought it was better to focus on changing yourself and people around you, to not question authority so much as bypass it whenever possible.

But by virtue of our abdication, a very authoritarian, assertive form of government has taken over. And oddly enough, it is doing so in the guise of libertarianism to a certain extent. Most of the people in the think tanks behind the Bush administration’s current policies are libertarians, or certainly free marketeers. We’ve got two distinct strains of libertarianism, and the hippie-mystic strain is not engaging in politics, and the Ayn Rand strain is basically dismantling government in a way that is giving complete open field running to multinational corporatism.

Libertarianism seems to be such an individualistic philosophy, it has never seemed to me all that well organized. I have gotten the impression that the trappings of a party — conventions, platforms, etc. — are anathema, as if by agreeing to anything but the most abstract and intangible ideas would undermine their whole premise. But I do like Barlow’s description of the two strains: it seems unlikely they could be united as a common party or bloc, so I suppose we end up with the less rigid hippie-mythic types lining up with democrats — based on the opposition to the corporate state — and the more doctrinaire types lining with the conservatives, in opposition to state intervention to free markets.

I also found this piece by Barlow interesting and commented on it[1].

I found his high opinion of — or at least respect for — Cheney puzzling at the time: I don’t credit people as being intelligent if they persist in unwise acts or just plain stupidity. There’s much about the war and its cobbled together justification that doesn’t bear out any theories about an insightful or disciplined intellect.

fn1. the muy borracho theory of foreign policy.

guilt by association?

[Media Matters for America]: “On August 11, on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports, when Blitzer asked O’Neill if he would like to “disassociate” himself from Corsi’s comments “which appear to be anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic,” O’Neill quickly responded, “Oh, absolutely” — but then O’Neill proceeded again to downplay Corsi’s role…. He simply helped us in editing the book,” O’Neill said. When Blitzer returned, asking, “All right, but he’s listed as the co-author of the book, isn’t he?” O’Neill admitted that Corsi was listed as the book’s co-author but again claimed that he performed only “a function in editing, in — particularly in the second half of the book, in historical research, because he had done a great deal of research on the anti-war movement, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, but not in the Vietnam section of the book.”… ] Contrary to O’Neill’s assertion that Corsi only edited “particularly” “the second half of the book …


Unfit book materials show Corsi more than just … [Media Matters for America]:

“On August 11, on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports, when Blitzer asked O’Neill if he would like to “disassociate” himself from Corsi’s comments “which appear to be anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic,” O’Neill quickly responded, “Oh, absolutely” — but then O’Neill proceeded again to downplay Corsi’s role. “Corsi acted as sort of an editor of our book. … He simply helped us in editing the book,” O’Neill said. When Blitzer returned, asking, “All right, but he’s listed as the co-author of the book, isn’t he?” O’Neill admitted that Corsi was listed as the book’s co-author but again claimed that he performed only “a function in editing, in — particularly in the second half of the book, in historical research, because he had done a great deal of research on the anti-war movement, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, but not in the Vietnam section of the book.”
[ . . . ]
Contrary to O’Neill’s assertion that Corsi only edited “particularly” “the second half of the book … but not in the Vietnam section of the book,” according to the book jacket (as well as Unfit’s “BOOK DETAILS,” which are posted on the Regnery website), O’Neill and “his coauthor” Corsi “interviewed dozens of veterans” and “meticulously documented” Kerry’s record[.]

So first, we have this O’Neill character, recruited by the Nixon administration to undermine the anti-war movement and its articulate spokesman, but no one questions his ties to the only president ever resign his office. And now he seeks to disassociate himself from his co-author for his hate-filled views. And this is the party of honor and integrity?

Is anyone else getting the “Nixon as Voldemort — he who must not be named” vibe from all this?

why do the Swift Boats Vets (and their paymasters) hate America?

CJR Campaign Desk: Archives: “t’s a “slick smear,” says Digby, because “[a]ll these right wing vets get filmed saying ‘he’s unfit to be commander in chief’ without providing any details. They don’t say specifically why, but you are left with the clear impression that 200+ Vietnam vets think Kerry’s lying about his record at best and that he’s a coward at worst.” Digby suggests a way to counteract the slurs, “I think the way to frame this issue is that these men are smearing the United States Military by saying that all those glowing reports and medal recommendations were lies.”

CJR Campaign Desk: Archives:

“It’s a “slick smear,” says Digby, because “[a]ll these right wing vets get filmed saying ‘he’s unfit to be commander in chief’ without providing any details. They don’t say specifically why, but you are left with the clear impression that 200+ Vietnam vets think Kerry’s lying about his record at best and that he’s a coward at worst.” Digby suggests a way to counteract the slurs, “I think the way to frame this issue is that these men are smearing the United States Military by saying that all those glowing reports and medal recommendations were lies.”

This is what I have been saying for months now[1]: anyone who tries to undermine a veteran’s service record by claiming they didn’t earn their medals (Max Cleland left three limbs in Vietnam, and some people think he didn’t earn a Purple Heart?) is attacking the credibility of commanders in the field specifically and the military honor code generally.

fn1. And again, I have to ask, why the continued emphasis on the wounds sustained by then-Lt Kerry? What’s the point there? Why keep on impugning the integrity of his commanders? Are you a decorated veteran? Have you commanded under fire? Have you made the judgment as to whether or not someone deserves a purple heart?

Inverse Darwinism

[Prosecutor] Stein argued that Petterson and his passenger Jonathan Douglas were watching a DVD movie when Petterson’s pickup truck crossed the center line, hitting the Weisers’ sport utility vehicle head-on. Petterson testified he was not watching a movie and that his truck strayed into oncoming traffic when he reached for a soda…. Marty Zoda, Douglas’ former wife, testified that her ex-husband told her the DVD was running when the accident happened, a claim Douglas denied. If installed as recommended, DVD players will not work in an automobile unless the emergency brake is on or the vehicle is in park. Prosecutors said Petterson overrode those safety measures when he installed an entertainment system including a DVD player, speakers and a Sony PlayStation 2 in his pickup truck.”

Or, what you get when idiots take out responsible people instead of themselves . . .

Wired News: Driver Watching DVD: Not Guilty:

“[Erwin Petterson] hasn’t been able to drive in over two years,” she said. “He just wanted to be alone for a while. He’s very happy he can get on with his life again.”

[Prosecutor] Stein argued that Petterson and his passenger Jonathan Douglas were watching a DVD movie when Petterson’s pickup truck crossed the center line, hitting the Weisers’ sport utility vehicle head-on. Petterson testified he was not watching a movie and that his truck strayed into oncoming traffic when he reached for a soda.
[ . . . ]
If installed as recommended, DVD players will not work in an automobile unless the emergency brake is on or the vehicle is in park. Prosecutors said Petterson overrode those safety measures when he installed an entertainment system including a DVD player, speakers and a Sony PlayStation 2 in his pickup truck.

Yeah, he wants to see if he can beat his old high scores and I’m sure his NetFlix account needs to be attended to, what with a two-year hiatus.

I can’t believe there is no law against inappropriate or distracting devices in the driver’s view that could be applied here.

who owns ‘fair and balanced?’

scribble, scribble, scribble….: Life’s rich pageant Archives: The stunning passage, to me, is this: Perhaps one of the most important insights to emerge from the computer is that 9/11 sprang not so much from al-Quaeda’s strengths as from its weaknesses. The computer did not reveal any links to Iraq or any other deep-pocketed government; amid the group’s penury the members fell to bitter infighting. The blow against the United States was meant to put an end to the internal rivalries, which are manifest in vitriolic memos between and Kabul and cells abroad.

AlterNet: MediaCulture: Fox News: Unfair and Unbalanced:

As Robert Greenwald’s film “Outfoxed” generates controversy and acclaim, AlterNet joins MoveOn.org in a major campaign to challenge Fox as a partisan news channel – a 24/7 commercial for a political party, and an insult to America’s media consumers. And we’re going to need your help to carry the battle forward.

That’s why AlterNet has established a media fund to help cover the expensive legal costs connected with this challenge to Fox, and to support the research and investigation that will further reveal Fox’s blatant bias masquerading as journalism. For a minimum of a $30 contribution to the AlterNet “Fight Fox” fund, we’ll send you a free copy of Robert Greenwald’s powerful documentary “OutFoxed.” We appreciate your support.

I don’t watch TV, much less TV news, so I only know how bad Fox is from what I hear and read (this includes people who like it as well as those who don’t: if Sean Hannity or Newt Gingrich have free rein, that’s all I need to know).

As noted in the piece at AlterNet, Fox tried to claim ownership of the phrase “fair and balanced” (is there a better example of the Big Lie[1] currently at work?) in its suit against Al Franken, but thought better of it when the judge suggested it might be indefensible.

fn1. Joseph Goebbels: some of his techniques below.
* “The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed”
* “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly… it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”
* ” …the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious.”

freecycling hangover

It turns it’s a lot easier to give stuff away than to get things through this. The whole notion of responding through email makes it seem like a game show (I have the buzzer with the intermittently faulty button, apparently). And it seems there are some attitudes I didn’t expect.

It turns it’s a lot easier to give stuff away than to get things through this. The whole notion of responding through email makes it seem like a game show (I have the buzzer with the intermittently faulty button, apparently). And it seems there are some attitudes I didn’t expect to find in something that seems to be rooted in generosity and conservation. I got some weird pushback from some folks who didn’t feel I was enthusiastic enough about picking stuff up: driving to West Seattle/Alki at rush hour to pick up some kids project materials doesn’t make a lot of sense. If this is rooted in some kind of conservation ethic, dropping everything to collect this stuff seems to defeat the purpose. I have tried to be accommodating about this stuff I gave away, to the point where I almost regret giving it away at all. I’ve essentially been told, I’m putting this outside NOW and the first person to come get it wins.

Yesterday, someone posted a WANTED: cash email, with the additional information that they were expecting a baby in a few weeks and were broke. Last I checked, the normal gestation period was 9 months, so the arrival should be no surprise: I don’t want to seem uncharitable, but that seems like the “internet as wishing well” writ large.

So I just posted my last OFFERED listing and have dropped off the mailing list. I may get back on but I think it will just be to get rid of stuff. It’s not worth the hassle to take anything. I did stay on long enough to see a car go up on the list: a 1976 BMW 530i, trashed interior and dubious drivetrain, but free.

some of us do our best work when we don’t look like we’re working at all

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Book extract: How To Be Idle by Tom Hodgkinson: The art of living is the art of bringing dreams and reality together. I have a dream. It is called love, anarchy, freedom. It is called being idle.

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Book extract: How To Be Idle by Tom Hodgkinson:

The art of living is the art of bringing dreams and reality together. I have a dream. It is called love, anarchy, freedom. It is called being idle.

A lively look at the connection between unstructured time and creativity, even genius. Next time they tell you to stop looking out the window and get back to work, tell ’em you are working.

Only available in the UK, at this writing: How To Be Idle

cognitive dissonance as an article of faith

Maud Newton: Blog: I’m aware of the situation in the US – mainly because it’s a terrifying cop out on the part of a whole superpower – never mind union laws, never mind the environment, never mind life, let’s get on to the End Times and get raptured up…. Plus, you know you have this position where people are living within the fictions they create, or have been given – “I know you’re telling me facts, but I know my congressman is a Christian and therefore cannot lie…. It’s proof of the power of fiction – especially if you tailor it to flatter people’s spiritual pride and fear, but it’s the black side of the art. I deal in imagination and I am always interested in questions where that imagination brings faith, alters character – or leads to awful acts. Someone, for example, must have imagined sodomising prisoners in Abu Grahib before it happened –you imagine a poem, you get a poem, you imagine rape, you get rape – it’s all coming from the human brain. I don’t like to forget that we have these two sides and I really don’t like the cop out where “God told me to”, or “the devil told me to” – no, YOU told you to.

Perhaps I need one of those link logs for these: I have nothing to add to this.

Maud Newton: Blog:

I’m aware of the situation in the US – mainly because it’s a terrifying cop out on the part of a whole superpower – never mind union laws, never mind the environment, never mind life, let’s get on to the End Times and get raptured up. The identification of wealth with virtue is disturbing, too – although less new. It’s a kind of huge suicide cult, rather than a religion, and certainly has nothing I would identify as Christian about it. Plus, you know you have this position where people are living within the fictions they create, or have been given – “I know you’re telling me facts, but I know my congressman is a Christian and therefore cannot lie.

It takes facts and accuracy out of the loop and makes everything a proof of faith – the loonier the assertion, the bigger the proof of faith. It’s proof of the power of fiction – especially if you tailor it to flatter people’s spiritual pride and fear, but it’s the black side of the art. I deal in imagination and I am always interested in questions where that imagination brings faith, alters character – or leads to awful acts. Someone, for example, must have imagined sodomising prisoners in Abu Grahib before it happened –you imagine a poem, you get a poem, you imagine rape, you get rape – it’s all coming from the human brain. I don’t like to forget that we have these two sides and I really don’t like the cop out where “God told me to”, or “the devil told me to” – no, YOU told you to. So you’re responsible.

[link]