ADULT commentary. Do not drive or operate heavy machinery while reading
these comments and opinions. Do not take internally. Do not fold, staple,
or mutilate. Store in a cool, dry area. Do not stack over 5 high. Do not
read if seal is broken. Sanitized for your protection. If symptoms persist
for more than 5 days, consult a physician. WARNING: Exposure to standard
old-party politicians is dangerous and may lead to severe problems.
take to crime (Not a text article. Requires "flash player"
and loads very slowly)
"A former Los Angeles police officer has admitted to federal authorities
that he and a group of fellow area law enforcement officers conducted
a string of brazen armed robberies across Southern California staged to
look like legitimate law enforcement raids. Ruben Palomares, 34, and his
cohorts stole hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of drugs, cash, guns
and other items over a nearly four-year period beginning in 1998, according
to a plea agreement and related documents filed Tuesday. The one-time
Rampart Division officer has agreed to plead guilty to a potential life
sentence in connection with the crime spree and to cooperate with authorities.
Commentary: With friends like these... The more we make local and other
police agencies into full-fledged armies of occupation, the more likely
we are to get cops who fit that mold; a band of brothers more
like the members of the armies who ravaged Germany during the Thirty Years
War or the British troops in the Southern Colonies portrayed in Mel Gibsons
The Patriot than anything we would care to have around today.
Except for the uniforms, the main difference between this gangs
activities and those of real outlaw gangs appears to be that
the real gangs are not so terroristic. It is important to
remember that many police officers are sincere in their efforts to help
people, but have been or are being corrupted. The really good ones leave
and go into other work, but some weaker ones stay in and may be salvageable.
It is not a reason to shoot first, like the US did in Iraq.
Since RRND had some trouble on Friday and it appears to be continuing
today, here are both news stories AND commentary from RRND, with my own
Iraq: Blasts kill 22; ambush wounds six GIs
The litany of attacks, dead, and wounded in Iraq continues, with the tempo
increasing as both the US and Iraqi elections near. Whatever the legitimacy
of the Allied occupation forces and the new Iraqi government, the illegitimacy
of their enemies is clear as well. True freedom fighters do not attack
innocents, and do not carry out attacks in ways guaranteed to ensure civilian
casualties and destruction of the very people, property and economy you
are supposedly seeking to liberate. Is it possible to have both sides
in a fight on the wrong side? Certainly, and we are seeing it here in
Girl killed, NATO soldiers wounded in attack
Manchester Union Leader
As with Iraq, so also with Afghanistan. Those opposed to the present interim
government and the Allied (NATO) occupation of the country could fight
in an honorable way for their freedom, and that of their nation. The fact
that they choose otherwise discredits them and their movement. Is their
cause freedom, or just a change in masters?
evidence of election terror plot (Alternate
must be nice to plan to prevent something for which there is no evidence,
makes the assumptions the most important part of the operations plan.
But we are still hearing and seeing fear-mongering, and the deployment
of troops (yes, we call them police, but its the same thing) to
protect the polling places. It adds spice to the Get
out the Vote campaign.
to go where he hasn't before
Well, I wish Shatner the best I hope that he is in good enough
physical shape to be allowed to fly. Fiction becomes reality? Not hardly,
but he has shown a love for space even the government-ridden universe
of Star Trek space.
Coulter, meet coconut cream
appears to be one lady who wont let this kind of attack bother her
- she reminds me sometimes of a pale shadow of some of our feisty libertarian
ladies: Im sure you can think of a number, including the editor
of this paper!
interview with Michael Badnarik
by Jonathan David Morris
Mike has that odd mental quirk that makes people like me poor (or unsuccessful)
politicians: he can sincerely believe he has a chance to win and at the
same time, know he wont. But we are hearing more and more of him
as we approach the election, and he has the potential for perhaps the
highest vote AND the most impact of any LP candidate in a long time.
on items 7-10: The next four comments present the four most common alternatives
facing libertarians who are not adverse to voting at all. None of
the Above, Michael Badnarik, George W Bush, or John F Kerry). My
own decision was made long ago and I see no reason to change, but I am
voting in a state where Bush is 90% certain to win, and even if we tripled
the highest Libertarian vote ever received in a three-way race, it would
not be enough to change that. So let us see what others have to say.
None Of The Above -Questions and Observations
by Jon Henke
I am at a loss to understand Jons position: how is Badnariks
principled failure a negative, and a reason
not to vote for him, if you have no objection to voting in principle?
Jon says he cannot vote for anyone on principled grounds yet
his objection to Badnarik is that Michael is principled? Maybe it is possible
to be too principled? Much as I wish None of the Above
were on the ballot in all fifty states, it is not, and so, the only logical
thing to do (assuming you dont have a moral objection to voting)
is vote for someone who stands for basic principles of freedom and liberty,
even if you may disagree with his style, his position on some issues,
or his hair color. But if you are disagreeing with his decision to preserve
principles over an increase in votes, well perhaps you need to
question whether you are properly identifying yourself as a libertarian.
resistance - The American Conservative
by Alan Bock
Comparing Alans logic to Jons, as you might imagine, I think
Alans is superior as well as being pragmatic. A vote for
libertarians, no matter how kooky or how little chance they have of winning,
can make the biggest impact for liberty in 2004. And for those who believe
strongly that GWB (or JFK) is the Anti-Christ and reelecting him (or,
conversely, electing him) is the last (or one of the last) step to the
Final Collapse of Western Civilization, AND you live in a swing state
where you are sure that your vote may be one of the critical 10 or 50
or 500, then take the time to go and trade your vote with someone elsewhere.
Then at least the impact nationally will be more although your
state will not benefit.
this libertarian is voting to reelect George Bush
by J. Neil Schulman
Ive seen a lot of vitriol spent on Schulmans encouragement
to vote for GWB, far more than on Benjamins opposite pleading. GWB
seems to bring out the hate and loathing more than JFK does, for some
reason. But though I deplore the acid frothing against Schulman, I find
his arguments mystifying and unacceptable. I am not comparing Badnarik
to Jefferson or Patrick Henry when I say I am voting for him but
of all the candidates on the ballot in my state, he is the best one. Not
perfect, but no matter how charitable one is towards GWB, he is clearly
an also-ran when the liberty of our nation and us as a people is considered.
No single issue, in my mind, can merit voting for Bush, and all Schulman
does is raise a lot of single issues.
libertarian case for Kerry- The Volokh Conspiracy
by Stuart Benjamin
This argument seems to be summed up in the sentence: It is better if we
make things as bad as possible as quickly as possible, to get everyone
to wake up before it is too late. Except that if things are that bad,
it WILL be too late. Arguments for wasting a vote by voting for Kerry
are as full of pus as the arguments to vote for Bush. The appeal to vote
for FDR posted by one wag shows how poor the arguments to vote for a poor
second or third are. In fact, libertarians voting for either GWB or JFK
are akin to a Polish citizen voting on whether to be invaded and annexed
by Hitler or Stalin: the candidates will ignore your effort, and five
years later, it is unlikely that anyone in the village will be alive to
see the future.
Note: I've come to the conclusion that voting for any candidate violates
the nonaggression principle: No human being has
the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another
human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. (Click
here for more information.)
is not able to do anything without the initiation of force and operates
only by theft. Voting for anyone to fill government office is the delegation
of that force.
Nathan Barton is a libertarian (both politically and nonpolitically) and
writing from the Four Corners. Your comments on his comments are welcome,
and your ideas and news stories are also welcome.
previous Commentaries, go
to the archives page and click onto the day link. The commentaries
are linked from the daily front pages.
feedback form below to contact Nathan. If you want an answer, please include
an email address. Only serious questions and comments will be considered.
Please note: Information about readers is
never given or sold to anyone for any purpose. Remember, however, that
many people can read and recover anything posted to web sites or email,
unless carefully encrypted. MamaLiberty)
Review News Digest
are on the front page for each day. Check the