RichmondLiberty.org

Not long ago the defining crises of our president's tenure, the Iraq war, hurricane Katrina and the Rove/Libby scandal among others were explained and justified to us from the White House as they happened through the voice of Press Secretary Scott McClellan, a professional spokesman/spinster as everyone who holds that position is. Unscrupulous, unquestioning, told what to say because that is how they make a living. No press secretary in modern times has ever resigned or made public a shadow of a doubt about their employing administration (unless this was the real reason McClellan stepped down to spend more time with his family). It would be like a lawyer casting doubt on his client.

Now McClellan has published a book to be released Monday, plainly titled "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception", scathing the Bush administration's actions during his time as poster boy, revealing what many suspected to be true that a "political propaganda campaign" was used to sell the Iraq war, "a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed".* On the Katrina relief crisis he says the President "spent most of the first week in a state of denial",* and on his relationship with Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, "I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood".**

This is not news to most people. Pres. Bush's father led a brief and successful war to defend Kuwait without the goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and this cause was transmuted into something else as George W. rose with the intended responsibility of "finishing the job". Every politician in his shoes makes their plans behind closed doors, McClellan writes "In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage".* Power is a secret world, all information subjective until the day it is replaced. Now the very voices who buttressed him, beginning with Colin Powell and then members of the intelligence community, finally speak the truth and their regrets, and now the current PR staff is rebuking them as traitors.

Before the book is even available his statements are being called "left wing", and the first articles entitled "White House fires back" etc. Press Secretary Dana Perino responded "Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad - this is not the Scott we knew."* As if she can't relate to his situation herself. He makes his allegations clear, he balances them with affection for the President (calling him "authentic" and "sincere"), and he was in an unmatched position to observe these facts and report them. He is not "disgruntled" except by what he admits to, he is simply stating what happened. This information is bookworthy and we are owed it.

In a parallel story, "How I Helped OJ Get Away With Murder" by Mike Gilbert was released just a few weeks ago, admitting Gilbert's role in the cover-up of Simpson's guilt, that Simpson confessed to him and that it was his idea to swell Simpson's hands so they wouldn't fit the incriminating bloody gloves.*** OJ's current lawyer fired back calling Gilbert "a delusional drug addict" who is in trouble with the IRS. Gilbert says the last person who ever offered him drugs was OJ himself, and the lawyer is describing his own client.*** (Gilbert was a long-time member of OJ's circle and seller of OJ Simpson memorabilia, an example of the dependence/slavery of anyone attached to the rich and powerful, including brainless murderers.)

Perhaps there will be no end to spin doctoring, no generation aware of all that is going on while they are living it. (Great Britain opened its classified files on UFO's to the public recently, revealing very little new information which suggests it might be our government alone that withholds such answers.)**** It would take leadership that is not only apart from every previous president but most libertarian frontrunners as well, because it requires fighting spin and media pandering itself, not employing it to gain and keep office. This means putting the media in its place at one's own risk and refusing to play the game of competing statements. Every successful campaign in the world advises against this, so maybe it takes an honest person who is ignorant of the logical course the world forces us into, like some of our longshot presidential hopefuls. Someone who just doesn't give a damn. Or perhaps the only motivator is book money and fame.

Ironically the Bush administration does fight the press, just not to any avail, and they certainly don't give a damn. For all the PR and spin do they have any clue about their appearance? The extent he can do whatever he wants without accountability has increased since he took office, making these statements just barking in which the choice of words doesn't matter. Does this mean the White House press dept. should be an independent outfit rather than appointed? On that note should there be a presidential oversight committee? Updates on McClellan's war of words are being posted on CNN.

*http://news.aol.com/story/_a/mcclellan-rips-bush-white-house/20080528063409990001
**http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/28/mcclellan.book/index.html
***http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/05/10/oj.simpson.ap/
****http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/14/britain.ufos/index.html

If you have comments to add to this thread send them to russo@richmondliberty.org and they will be posted. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 08:40 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Robert Russo

Several local affiliates attended the national convention this week in Denver. It was a pleasure to see their faces on C-SPAN, and any one of them can post a first-hand rundown of the event when they get back so here is merely a preliminary review of the results from someone who wasn't there. The event which began on Wednesday and ended yesterday, chose Bob Barr as our presidential nominee with a strong challenge by Mary Ruwart, Barr clinching the vote after the elimination of Wayne Allen Root who won the VP nomination. There was much vocal support and criticism of Barr and the other candidates, showing a rift between two philosophical camps over which direction our party should go.

To those who haven't followed a convention before, voting takes place in rounds with the lesser candidates eliminated each time until one nominee stands alone. Barr was ahead by a single vote in the first round, then gained some ground with the elimination of Mike Jingozian and Christine Smith. Ruwart tied and then took the lead with the elimination of Steve Kubby, George Phillies and Mike Gravel. When Root was eliminated he endorsed Barr and they won both tickets. Ruwart endorsed Kubby for VP.

Personally I liked all the speakers and would take any one of them over all Republican and Democratic candidates combined. It's a shame this was the last stand for most of them. Choosing between them was a tough decision and their differences don't seem that important. The sticking point of the debate was the fact that the LP nomination was courted by former candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties, raising the question of why any candidate who seeks the endorsement of one party after losing another party's favor in the same election should be welcome, and whether this reduces our ticket to a "consolation prize" and our platform to something the candidate doesn't represent. (Or whether this consideration should be waived for a candidate with enough strength.)

Sen. Gravel, age 78 made some convincing libertarian statements. His line that stuck in my mind though was "We are very carried away with our individual sovereignty, but you come together and you abide by majority rule... that is democracy."* Not the best pitch to a libertarian crowd considering how long majority vote has been holding us down, nor democracy itself unless it's a different democracy than what we've seen the past 50 years. Out of context this can give the wrong impression.

In contrast Mike Jingozian impressed me greatly and seemed to personify the libertarian spirit. Jingozian seemed like an average joe stating very clearly what is wrong with government, lumping that institution and its politicians as a member or former member can't do. "...those who benefit and profit from the status quo, they have no reason to change. They only pretend to listen to you on election day... They lie to you, they tax you, they'll regulate you and they'll track you, and in four years they're back, talking about change."* He also voiced the rare platform of military reform, citing the high rate of suicide and low morale among the ranks as a bigger cause than deployment.

Christine Smith, the first candidate in this lineup I wrote of back in mid-December, was the most vocal critic of Barr, giving a rebuttal to Root's endorsement of him long after she was eliminated, which drew boos and jeers. She opposes "neo-conservatives who come in with their principles and try to take over this party", saying many libertarians have vowed to leave the party if Barr is chosen, and delegates who support him have "sold out their badges". "This is a man who has much to prove to us before he can become our standardbearer." she says. "I don't know if he's had an epiphany... but he would need to serve our party longer and prove to us that he has changed...".*

Dr. Ruwart of course led the anti-Barr charge, saying "They are kind of like the newly converted wanting to go preach from the pulpit."** As the only 20+ year veteran of the party on the final ballot it's easy to see where she is coming from. She and Smith both deny the rifts in libertarian philosophy, but unlike Smith who takes a purist approach to unity she prefers moderation, saying "it takes every kind of person" to make the libertarian dream a reality.

Root was a strong candidate from the very beginning of the process, a proud homeschooler who cited that 89% of parents polled in his state voted against the public school system. He began his energetic speech with "open your wallet, look inside, vote for me and I promise to stay the hell out of there".* Kubby addressed the viewers at home directly, saying "the decision isn't whether or not we should have a revolution, 'cause that's coming. The issue is is it going to be peaceful or is it going to be violent? ...and (viewers) got to see what a civilized and civil society we are here, as libertarians".*

And now to Rep. Barr. The strongest criticism of him is his performance as a republican legislator, particularly his support of the Patriot Act (which he now opposes), and the war on drugs, along with the fact that his "star quality" (such as it is) overshadows candidates with longer and more trusted libertarian records. Barr played his best cards however, saying "don't cast me aside because I am a latecomer", and that he had seen more substance in three days of convention than in thirty years of being a republican. "The libertarian party has never been afraid of taking a risk, has never been afraid of leading. The libertarian party knows no fear. Fear is not part of our agenda."* It was certainly one of the best libertarian speeches I've heard, and you can say what you will about actions speaking louder than words, but I can't imagine people leaving the party over a man who at least says what a true libertarian would say in his shoes, and admits his shortcomings because that is what representing our cause is, and he said what he needed to.

Perhaps our ticket being up for grabs among the major party latecomers is a sign of progress since most future libertarians will be converts from those parties. Both Barr and Gravel praised us for being the only party of substance and this was done knowing neither will win the general election. On the other hand a big-name candidate stepping in may help us in the short term, but this wasn't our motive. We want people to join for reasons other than their personal ambition. And the recent acquisitions may indeed be true converts, but it's what happens after they lose that will prove this (for Gravel it is already over, for Barr it is just beginning). One can only be sure that a vote on the convention floor is a vote for that individual and whatever he or she stands for, not the party. The party and its officers only take us to that point, hoping not for a "token" candidate but a legal tender libertarian.

The convention looked good this year, it was covered for a wide audience and showed people we are a major party as any, and we are growing. It makes me wonder though, our state convention this year at the Richmond Marriott was similarly lavish (and pricey) even though there were no reporters and the turnout was less than previous years. Being a delegate to Denver does not come cheap. To quote Al Gore, it seems like only the wealthiest one percent of our members get to participate in this decision and be seen. Consider the average attendance of "plainfolks" residents at debates for even the smallest local office (people with no business interests, no political connections who vote solely to protect their way of life), then filter out most party members themselves leaving only lifelong students of the process with cash on hand to be selected just to attend our national con, where candidates are crossed off the ballot one by one until a privileged few, the crust of the crust, end their costly crusade with a few minutes of airtime to speak the most basic things a man living in a shack feels in his heart. And yet we're considered a third party and our nominee a spoiler, so just how big is this game? I'd be pleased if Bob Barr makes the presidential debates and repeats what he said on Monday. Highlights of the convention can be viewed at rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/rwh/rwh052508.rm. Detailed results of the vote have been posted at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Libertarian_National_Convention.

*rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/rwh/rwh052508.rm
**http://themoderatevoice.com/war/war-on-terror/patriot-act/19893/libertarian-national-convention-in-denver-today-opening-or-barring-the-door/

Question of the Week: If you could plan our next national convention what is the biggest issue you would emphasize?
1. Star power and getting our message to the nation. We should be courting bigger names!
2. Principle and making sure our true message is never lost. Stop the invasion!
3. Accessibility. The convention should be in Virginia with $5 admission.
4. It's on the right track the way it is.
Send your opinions to russo@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 10:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As if this election cycle weren't complicated enough, analysts like conservative commentator Tara Setmayer (interviewed by CNN's Mike Galanos last week) are saying Bob Barr could become the "Nader" of the general election, drawing enough republican votes to ensure if not augment the defeat of John McCain.*

Although I once called McCain the "most liked" of the Republican contenders due to their heated differences, many reps don't understand why he is their candidate (some attributing this to intervention by democrats) although it would be wrong to say Sen. McCain does not have widespread and deserved support within the party. People forget that 25% of the republican vote still escapes him and that much of this is still going to Mike Huckabee in the primaries. Bob Barr offers conservative voters another choice, doubly so with the endorsement of Ron Paul who carries a respectable number of republicans but will not run himself. Having done so to secure his name as a republican is Paul now hurting that party?

"Anything that pulls away from your core base is problematic." says Setmayer. "The undercurrent of Ron Paul supporters… may cause an uproar."* Other third party candidates and independents besides Paul have dropped out knowing they would be a spoiler, Mayor Bloomberg being one. It makes one wonder how oblivious or indifferent a candidate can be toward the effects of their personal ambition on their constituency (i.e. Sen. Clinton), or which is more important. There are clearly two types of contender in this race, those who weigh the political consequences of their candidacy either by stepping down or humbly taking the call (like McCain and Obama), and those who seek only their own promotion. Any number of politicians could have snatched that third seat and displayed this self-interest. Barr is a republican and so the libertarian ticket was a ripe base waiting to be claimed.

"He's going to undercut everything a libertarian would want" Galanos says, but this is the mistaken view that Libertarians naturally lean toward republicans. Not to those who see libertarian legislation and tolerance coming from the far left. Although I criticized Sen. Obama at first by saying he is not a true liberal, I have rarely seen a more upstanding candidate unwilling to get down in the dirt like his competitors, and for this he has been lambasted from everyone of fewer scruples. Originally he said no to candidacy believing it was too soon, and the people of his state convinced him to run. I also believe McCain is the least unscrupulous of his party's candidates, and a general election between these two might be the only one since I've been a voter where I don't feel there is a "lesser evil". All that can be said against them is practical preference, which will be helped by their choice of running mates.

It's a shame that private ambition clouds the process of choosing our leadership in this way, although party politics is certainly a different (if not lesser) evil. If they all respected their true influence on events there would be greater courting of the LP and independents, and the parties would truly go head-to-head with one strategy. Obama is expected to cross the needed milestone of delegates tonight and if he wins the presidency we will see a long break from imperialism. The CNN interview can be watched at www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/05/12/pn.barr.pres.bid.cnn?iref=videosearch.

*http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/05/12/pn.barr.pres.bid.cnn?iref=videosearch

If you have any opinions to add to this thread send them to russo@richmondliberty.org and they will be posted. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 05:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

No matter how advanced we as a superpower become and how connected we are to every other technology in the world, barbarism and other base human conditions will never cease to spring up wherever apathy is allowed to exist. The country most Westerners know as Burma (which doesn't even have that name anymore) has not been a player in world events in almost two centuries and barely qualifies as a nation. It has the largest geographical area of any state in Southeast Asia and the most minimal government, a small club of Chinese generals called a "junta", the Hindi word for "commoner" which is not currently used by any other world power, who feel little if any responsibility toward their native population. At the time of the events in the book Anna and the King of Siam, Burma was a source of refugees and mercenaries pouring into Thailand and after 150 years this role is exactly the same, including tribes fleeing from ethnic banishment and the recruitment of child soldiers.*

This same area is home to some of the wildest tropical zones left in the world and tribal cultures that have lived there for thousands of years, and is naturally prone to cyclones and typhoons. The combination of these two forces, politics and nature, into a humanitarian crisis was inevitable and yet the world waited. The seizing of the UN's first relief shipment last week by their military which would have fed some 95,000 people shocked the world, even though this government has never been any different.

According to the New York Times, Myanmar's government has responded to this catastrophe with a national PR campaign urging citizens to "vote" for a referendum that would strengthen military rule. "It appeared that some resources for cyclone victims was diverted to the vote campaign. In some cases, generals' names were scribbled onto boxes of foreign aid before being distributed… A resident of Yangon said refugees seeking shelter in schools were evicted so the buildings could be used as polling places…"** Political parties in Myanmar are one-man endorsements of a single general. Their government's estimate of the casualties is also a fraction of that of independent sources.**

This kind of response is nothing new, as last year's anti-government protests known as the Saffron Revolution were dealt with by loading fire engines with insecticide, persecution of journalists, and mandatory recruitment of civilians for staged government rallies to fool UN inspectors and the world.*** The practice of dictating national unity/consent from the top down has been dubbed "Myanmarification".*

Early tremors of this ruthless form of politics can be felt even in our own country. Most monopolies from FEMA to school boards to private corporations deal with the physical consequences of their mistakes as a "perception" issue, solved by advertising and rubbing elbows. Even our political candidates have taken this bent (i.e. Hillary Clinton's reputation as being unscrupulous and a sore loser) which should lead us to elect those who refuse to use such tactics (a case for Barack Obama). I have a sibling living in Thailand who works with Burmese refugees of the Karen tribe, whose leader was executed by the junta earlier this year. I read this story at edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/10/myanmar.vote/index.html#cnnSTCText.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma
**http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/10/myanmar.vote/index.html#cnnSTCText
***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Burmese_anti-government_protests

Question of the Week: Should the UN or U.S. use its superior military strength to protect aid shipments to Burma and ensure they get to the right people? Would this be a better use of military action than the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan? Send your opinions to russo@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 04:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/barr-announces-libertarian-bid/20080512103009990001

Posted by Robert Russo at 04:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/23/teen.be.gone.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

"Police fear those who loiter will eventually commit more serious crimes."*

*http://www.foxreno.com/news/16193035/detail.html

Posted by Robert Russo at 01:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Robert Russo

With national, state and local elections crisscrossing this year and next, a slew of fiscal promises are out there, some of them more realistic than others. Minimum wage always crops up but now states are debating how to comply with the Fair Minimum Wage Act (which decrees a gradual increase from $5.15 to $7.25), or to exceed it. Right now it is $5.85 until September.* And yet despite this measure people with competitive jobs can't support themselves and dual-income families are in debt. Virginia has no minimum wage laws of its own and relies on the federal rate, not counting jobs with some kind of exemption. Kansas currently has the lowest at $2.65.**

This problem is being tackled in a variety of ways. Yesterday Connecticut approved an increase to $8 starting next year. Illinois has an increase of 25 cents a year until 2010, while many states adjust their rate continuously based on inflation or the U.S. Consumer Price Index.** One idea for employers that can't afford to raise their rates is to increase benefits instead. Another is to stop paying hourly wages altogether and make them salaried.

Living wage is compensation based on a person's cost of living. In Europe this standard dictates a set lifestyle one is entitled to by their profession ("housing, food, utilities, transport, health care and recreation").*** This comes from a different school of thought than capitalism where wages are only a contract for doing the hired tasks. It suggests private businesses have a greater responsibility to the community, closer to socialism. Maryland and North Carolina are known for their campaigns to bring the minimum wage closer to the living wage for a given area, while other locales have posted restrictions on it.***

The downside to this is capitalism (especially laissez-faire) says an individual's life is in his own hands. An employer has no control over where he lives, how he chooses to spend and what his goals are. If employers took a more direct role in providing the needs of their workers, a set amount going directly to the landlord, another to the doctor, and allowances for food, fuel and spending money, they would become the new target of those who profit off the individual by raising those prices, along with any bad decisions he makes and unforeseen disasters that befall him.

There's a point where businesses can't say their employees' lives are not their business, which is where pensions and health plans come from. But this involvement is just a hairsbreadth away from owing your soul to the company store, which is where infringements on our rights come from (i.e. penalizing smokers and overweight people for having more health expenses). This catch-22 comes from wanting equality and laissez-faire when the current system is so economically mismatched the highest percentile would instantly gobble up the rest of us.

The only true solution is to lower our dependency on money and the workplace. Currency gives control over our lives to whoever has the most of it, and is therefore an enemy of true self-sufficiency and a smokescreen to the true cost of living, our needs overwhelmed by fees and gratuities toward our masters in every aspect of life. We require allowance to do almost anything and this makes us children competing for quite a pittance. The Dept. of Labor lists the minimum wage schedule and developments for each state at www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm, as does en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S.A._minimum_wages. Here are some resources on the living wage movement:
http://acorn.org/index.php?id=10265
http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_livingwage_livingwage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
http://www.letjusticeroll.org/

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Minimum_Wage_Act_of_2007
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S.A._minimum_wages
*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

Question of the Week: As an employer or employee you are the only person who knows exactly how much of a role a business should have in your life. What is the first thing that would put it closer to having that role? Is there no one move that won't eventually push everything one way or the other? Send your thoughts to russo@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 05:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Patrick Henry Supper Club presents:

Del. Chris Peace (R)
candidate for 97th district
www.chrispeace.com

The PHSC will meet at its usual location, Eastern Buffet, 7586 W. Broad St. Richmond, VA 23294
(in Merchants Walk Shopping Center). Dinner is at 6pm and the main event is 7pm.

Posted by Robert Russo at 12:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)