An update to this blog is long overdue. You won't find a substantive update in this post. However, please be aware of the following: I've created an article (aka "lens") on Squidoo tracking the Barr '08 campaign for president.
You can view this article here: http://www.squidoo.com/barrforpresident08
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel joins LP
This news has been out for a while now, but it's still worth mentioning.
Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel joined the Libertarian Party in March. In joining the LP, Gravel declared that his views "seem not to be tolerated by Democratic Party elites who are out of touch with the average American" and deemed the two major parties as lacking in their "commitment to freedom and peace." As this LP press release notes, Gravel served in the U.S. Senate between 1969 to 1981 and, most recently, was a Democratic presidential candidate forced out of debates by party leadership and the mainstream media.
It's certainly an interesting development. Gravel now gives the LP at least one former member of Congress from the big two parties (the other being former Republican Bob Barr). The reaction of the libertarian blogosphere, at least as much as I skimmed it when the news first made headlines, seemed to be mixed.
Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel joined the Libertarian Party in March. In joining the LP, Gravel declared that his views "seem not to be tolerated by Democratic Party elites who are out of touch with the average American" and deemed the two major parties as lacking in their "commitment to freedom and peace." As this LP press release notes, Gravel served in the U.S. Senate between 1969 to 1981 and, most recently, was a Democratic presidential candidate forced out of debates by party leadership and the mainstream media.
It's certainly an interesting development. Gravel now gives the LP at least one former member of Congress from the big two parties (the other being former Republican Bob Barr). The reaction of the libertarian blogosphere, at least as much as I skimmed it when the news first made headlines, seemed to be mixed.
Friday, March 21, 2008
LP may have presidential candidate in Bob Barr
Apparently, Rep. Ron Paul must be standing firm on his intent not to run for president as a Libertarian or independent.
The Washington Times reports that former Georgia Representative Bob Barr may campaign for president as a Libertarian Party candidate. The article immediately opens by reporting that Barr may have a damaging effect of McCain's candidacy in a manner similar to that of Ralph Nader's effect on the Democratic nominee. Thus, the myth of the "stolen vote" continues to be perpetuated in much the same manner it was when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in 2000.
Barr brings with him the credentials of a former representative, but he also brings with him some apparent baggage. As a Reason interview and a Politico article both note, Barr wrote the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, protested practicing Wicca in the military, and once wrote an amendment preventing the enactment of a medical marijuana initiative in Washington D.C.. But, when you consider some changes in his position (he lobbies for the Marijuana Policy Project and regrets voting for the Patriot Act) and his past experience, he is probably the Libertarian Party's best bet at running a competent candidate for president.
If Barr decides to run, it will be interesting to see if the Republicans try to disown their shortcomings just as Democrats did when they hung Nader out to dry in 2000.
The Washington Times reports that former Georgia Representative Bob Barr may campaign for president as a Libertarian Party candidate. The article immediately opens by reporting that Barr may have a damaging effect of McCain's candidacy in a manner similar to that of Ralph Nader's effect on the Democratic nominee. Thus, the myth of the "stolen vote" continues to be perpetuated in much the same manner it was when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in 2000.
Barr brings with him the credentials of a former representative, but he also brings with him some apparent baggage. As a Reason interview and a Politico article both note, Barr wrote the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, protested practicing Wicca in the military, and once wrote an amendment preventing the enactment of a medical marijuana initiative in Washington D.C.. But, when you consider some changes in his position (he lobbies for the Marijuana Policy Project and regrets voting for the Patriot Act) and his past experience, he is probably the Libertarian Party's best bet at running a competent candidate for president.
If Barr decides to run, it will be interesting to see if the Republicans try to disown their shortcomings just as Democrats did when they hung Nader out to dry in 2000.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Mainstream media outlets eliminate Paul
The details about this development are unclear, but there seems to be an indication that Ron Paul is being excluded from a debate hosted by Fox News this weekend. An Associated Press report (here's one from the L.A. Times) reports that ABC is eliminating Paul from a Republican debate in New Hampshire occuring after the Iowa caucuses. The same report also states that Paul is being eliminated from a candidate forum being hosted by Fox News on Sunday.
Paul supporters posted this protest website urging Paul's inclusion into the Fox News forum.
However, the state party chair Fergus Cullen issued a statement stating that it is not the Republican Party's tradition to exclude candidates from debates. Cullen is right. It isn't a Republican Party tradition to exclude candidates. It's a tradition of American politics, which has long been monopolized by two political parties. The fact that Ron Paul got any air time from mainstream media outlets is impressive in its own right.
To my fellow libertarians, I issue this New Year's resolution: If Paul is excluded from any debate, raise hell.
Paul supporters posted this protest website urging Paul's inclusion into the Fox News forum.
However, the state party chair Fergus Cullen issued a statement stating that it is not the Republican Party's tradition to exclude candidates from debates. Cullen is right. It isn't a Republican Party tradition to exclude candidates. It's a tradition of American politics, which has long been monopolized by two political parties. The fact that Ron Paul got any air time from mainstream media outlets is impressive in its own right.
To my fellow libertarians, I issue this New Year's resolution: If Paul is excluded from any debate, raise hell.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Guns and College Students: Response to a Concealed Carry Opponent
A letter written to an Alabama newspaper, The Times Daily, criticizes a concealed carry bill proposed by an Alabama state senator allowing qualified college students to carry concealed handguns on campus. According to the letter, Sen. Hank Erwin is proposing the bill in response to the Virginia Tech shooting in which over 30 were killed. However, the anonymous author of the letter still rejects the notion that allowing concealed carry among qualified college students is a good idea.
The letter states: "In theory, Erwin's reasoning seems logical." The author still concludes that, "the reality of armed students roaming state campuses is much less romantic or plausible."
The author of the letter offers the following reasons to ban concealed carry on college campus: "First, few students these days have ever handled a pistol or sp(e)nt time on a firing range learning how to use one. Second, virtually no students have undergone training in how to react to the sort of chaos that ensues in situations like the one at Virginia Tech. The confusion and panic is difficult for trained police officers to manage; there's no reason to expect students to cope with the madness."
To the author's first objection, I submit the following section of the Ohio Revised Code (specifically, ORC 2923.125), which requires license applicants to submit proof of competency certification from a qualified firearms instructor. In this packet, provided by the Ohio Attorney General, one can find that such certification requires two hours of practical training (live-fire, range experience) and 10 more hours of instruction on firearms safety and related material. There is no reason why the Alabama legislature cannot enact laws requiring qualified college students to meet similar requirements (which can, and should, include range time).
To the author's second objection, my response is twofold. First, the packet linked above does give CCW license holders familiarity with what the law expects of them with respect to the use of a firearm for self-defense. Second, although the training a CCW applicant receives is not comparable to the training of police officers, the duties of a CCW license holder are also not comparable to the duties of a police officer. A police officer is charged with the task of maintaining law and order. A CCW license holder is simply licensed by the state to defend him or herself (or, under strict circumstances, another person) from an imminent threat to his or her life. If a CCW holder goes beyond that capacity, he or she can be held liable for his or her actions.
Meanwhile, criminals don't care about any of the above discussion. They'll carry their weapons without a license, without regard to firearms safety, and without regard for the law. College students are vulnerable also; a round of ammunition fired at a college student will kill or injure the same as it would a college graduate. It's time to quit letting fear-based attitudes influence public policy. It only endangers responsible gun owners.
The letter states: "In theory, Erwin's reasoning seems logical." The author still concludes that, "the reality of armed students roaming state campuses is much less romantic or plausible."
The author of the letter offers the following reasons to ban concealed carry on college campus: "First, few students these days have ever handled a pistol or sp(e)nt time on a firing range learning how to use one. Second, virtually no students have undergone training in how to react to the sort of chaos that ensues in situations like the one at Virginia Tech. The confusion and panic is difficult for trained police officers to manage; there's no reason to expect students to cope with the madness."
To the author's first objection, I submit the following section of the Ohio Revised Code (specifically, ORC 2923.125), which requires license applicants to submit proof of competency certification from a qualified firearms instructor. In this packet, provided by the Ohio Attorney General, one can find that such certification requires two hours of practical training (live-fire, range experience) and 10 more hours of instruction on firearms safety and related material. There is no reason why the Alabama legislature cannot enact laws requiring qualified college students to meet similar requirements (which can, and should, include range time).
To the author's second objection, my response is twofold. First, the packet linked above does give CCW license holders familiarity with what the law expects of them with respect to the use of a firearm for self-defense. Second, although the training a CCW applicant receives is not comparable to the training of police officers, the duties of a CCW license holder are also not comparable to the duties of a police officer. A police officer is charged with the task of maintaining law and order. A CCW license holder is simply licensed by the state to defend him or herself (or, under strict circumstances, another person) from an imminent threat to his or her life. If a CCW holder goes beyond that capacity, he or she can be held liable for his or her actions.
Meanwhile, criminals don't care about any of the above discussion. They'll carry their weapons without a license, without regard to firearms safety, and without regard for the law. College students are vulnerable also; a round of ammunition fired at a college student will kill or injure the same as it would a college graduate. It's time to quit letting fear-based attitudes influence public policy. It only endangers responsible gun owners.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Ron Paul's Record: Congressional Votes on Abortion
The popularity of Ron Paul on the Internet and among libertarians demands that we take a closer look at his record in Congress.
In 1999 and again 2001, Paul voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (click to view the 2001 bill and the 1999 bill), which treats harm done to a fetus as a result of assault and murder to the mother as a seperate crime. However, Paul claims that the "right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty."
According to his website, Paul authored legislation defining the beginning of life at conception and never found abortion to be necessary during 40 years of medical practice. If such is the case, why would Paul vote against a bill that makes it a seperate criminal offense to harm an unborn child twice?
Monday, December 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
