Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

July 30, 2008

Honoring Milton Friedman on July 31

July 31, 2008 would have been Milton Friedman’s 96th birthday. To honor his vision and the impact he has had on our society, the Hispanic American Center for Economic Research (HACER) is hosting a breakfast discussion in his honor.

Speakers
Prof. David Levy, Historian of Economic Thought at George Mason University and former student of Milton Friedman.

Neal McClusckey, Associate Director of the Center for Educational Freedom, CATO Institute.

Moderator: Dr. Alejandro Chafuen, President & CEO of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation and Chairman of the board of HACER.

Time and Place
Thursday, July 31st 2008 from 8:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.
Raul Yzaguirre Building
1126 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

See map

RSVP & Contact Info
Email: pfeldman@hacer.org
Phone: 703.717.6481

More information here.

Posted by KevinRollins at 10:54 AM | Comments (1)

" Some political hygiene would seem to be in order."

Droll line from the WSJ's coverage of the Stevens indictment!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121737532663995153.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Posted by RobertCapozzi at 06:16 AM | Comments (0)

July 26, 2008

TSA's No Fly List Politicized

According to Jesselyn Radack, a whistleblower formerly with the Justice Department, the Transportation Security Administration is using the government's "No Fly List" to punish political opponents. Read her article here.

This is not surprising behavior for an unaccountable federal agency. Unfortunately, there is very little in the way of political momentum on behalf of getting rid of TSA. It would be nice if those who spoke out against government abuses didn't automatically wind up on a list supposedly reserved for terrorists, but when you put governments in charge of this sensitive information and makes them answerable to no one, politicization is an inevitable result.

Posted by PaulGessing at 10:42 AM | Comments (1)

July 25, 2008

Anarchy Works?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw

Interesting, charmingly entertaining video that seems to be saying: Anarchy works, because we already have it!

Well, all righty, then.

-RC

Posted by RobertCapozzi at 07:10 AM | Comments (4)

July 24, 2008

The Housing Bill

I have two comments on the Housing Bill.

The first is that the adjustable rate loans were, in many cases, designed to encourage flipping houses in an ever expanding market. Flipping benefits the financial sector because the new buyer pays the full range of closing costs. The end of the housing bubble stopped the expected flips, leaving mortgage holders planning to flip in a few years holding the bag.

The second comment is that the unstated effect of this bill is to bouy the financial sector by allowing at risk borrowers to make new loans to replace the bad ones, while the stabilization of the housing market will allow people to sell who need to. Both instances will result in yet more fees to keep the mortgage industry well financed by still more fees.

Posted by MichaelBindner at 09:09 AM | Comments (0)

July 22, 2008

Debt-Mail, All Over Again

In a year in which the Rs and Ds are putting up their weakest candidates, and serious if very long shot third-party candidates of substance are challenging the majors, it seems apropos to consider worst cases. Odds seem high that Obama will be our next president, mostly unless he makes some really bad mistakes between now and November or Americans retain a closeted racist attitude in large numbers. McCain's been uninspired and uninspiring, and his propensity to rationalize further war seems unattractive to a war-weary nation. Two former congressperson's, both hailing from Georgia, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney, have decided that their former parties are simply too corrupt to cotton any longer.

It's hard to argue with Barr and McKinney, yet we have to assume that neither will live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year, nor will Ralph Nader. An individual vote is mostly a symbolic gesture, since no single vote is mathematically consequential, despite what they told us in high school civics class. Voting one's conscience makes abundant sense this go 'round.

Obama, the fear goes, could be the next Jimmy Carter. McCain – Dr. Strangelove. So, those who will vote non-R or -D have to ask the practical question: For whom do we root, if not vote for?

During the Reagan years, the D Congress accused Reagan of "debtmail." That is, clampdown on tax rates, which in turn caps the ability to spend incrementally more. It sorta worked, as spending growth at least slowed under Reagan, even with increased defense spending.

Obama, for all his coercive economic promises, will walk into the White House next January with the economy shaky, or perhaps recovering from the current slowdown. Growth does allow a president more latitude, but it seems unlikely that the current deficit and debt levels will be anywhere near solved. So, he'll have few options. Yes, hopefully he'll have to good sense to exit the Iraq blood and money pit far more quickly than McCain, which all else equal helps stem the red ink.

But, with a globalized economy, it seems highly unlikely that Obama will launch a wholesale attack on the private economy. If he does that, capital will exit to higher uses off shore. He's far more likely to tinker with the tax code, put a patch on the health insurance gap, make baby steps toward a greener technological base (probably subsidizing the "wrong" thing), and so on. "Yes, we can," will become "let's try this tweak."

Non-optimal steps, and probably missteps, but so long as Americans can keep practicing some ingenuity, methinks we survive 'til 2012. We're due for a major technological breakthrough, like computers were in the 80s and 90s.

This, versus WWIII in Iran? A no-brainer.

-RC

Posted by RobertCapozzi at 07:20 AM | Comments (0)

July 21, 2008

Libertarian-Liberal Alliance

Jane Hamsher interviews the always interesting Bob Barr....

Posted by RobertCapozzi at 06:35 AM | Comments (1)

July 20, 2008

Mark Twain: An Original Free Liberal

In case you haven't seen it, Time Magazine recently published a magazine with Mark Twain on the cover (read article here). Calling him "Our Original Superstar," the article does a reasonable job of outlining Twain's politics and how he might have viewed some current events.

Having read many of Twain's stories and articles each of which contain eloquent social commentary and criticism of corrupt politicians and the hypocrisy of the establishment, there is no doubt that Twain remains one of the most entertaining and timeless writers in American history. Articles like his powerful "The War Prayer," show me that Twain had the makings of a Free Liberal.

Posted by PaulGessing at 08:20 PM | Comments (0)

July 18, 2008

The Power of Mumpower

When I ran for Asheville City Council 7 years ago, one of my opponents was Dr. Carl Mumpower. He won, I lost. "Dr. No", as he's come to be known for his resistance to creeping collectivism on the city council, has secured the Republican nomination for Congress and is using it as a bully-pulpit to demand that Republicans adhere to their stated principles. As the Wall Street Journal reports:

Carl Mumpower dropped all campaign activity against first-term Democrat Shuler in North Carolina’s 11th district until Republican Party committees in at least half of the district’s 15 counties sign on to the GOP’s “core principles” and agree to work against elected Republicans who stray from them. “I had to find some way to get their attention,” Mumpower said. “To tell them, ‘I’ve got the wheel guys. We’re on my watch now.’

In a letter to the 11th District GOP chairman, he explained that the he considers that standing for principles is "Job One" and getting elected only follows after this task has been accomplished.

The New Republic captured the outrage of establishment Republicans:

I would hope that "Mumpower!" becomes a dirty word around the NRCC offices, since it's one thing for a token opponent in an uncompetitive district to pitch this kind of ideological tantrum, but Shuler's conservative district ought to have been a good chance for a GOP turnover.
But the status quo has lost to the power of Mumpower's principles. The campaign is reporting that a majority of the county GOP committees have adopted his "Principles First" program.

While Mumpower has talked about "Principles Not Politics" ever since I first encountered him, campaign insiders tell me that Mumpower has been reading Ron Paul's "Revolution: A Manifesto" and this has even further emboldened him.

The power of Mumpower is that when one person is willing to put himself on the line and buck the status quo, others realize that they too must stand up for what is right. Otherwise, we all die, whimpering for mercy.

It's a revolution, after all.

/KDR

Addendum: 12pm. Leonard Harris passes along an amusing candidate cartoon about how challengers take down incumbents. Mumpower's next move?


Posted by KevinRollins at 10:55 AM | Comments (0)

July 17, 2008

Turbett on Bill O'Reilly's Fast and Loose Politics

Center for Liberty and Community treasurer Jim Turbett passes along a comment on a recent O'Reilly Factor:

The topic was a Fla. supreme court decision that overturned a probation that kept the sex crime parolee from possessing porno.

Megyn Kelly, the fair and generally conservative legal analyst-- and beautiful and smart too -- said that the decision was right. She said the parolee claimed the law was vague and that she agreed.

O'Reilly says, "Sometimes the greater good of society has to prevail in these pinhead courtrooms."

Megyn comes back with: "You are so wrong. You are so wrong. You know what happens when you take that view? You get judicial activism. You get things like Roe vs. Wade. You are wrong. That is a dangerous road you are going down."

This isn't the first time that the idea of decisions being made on thebasis of law and law principles has escaped O'Reilly. He always just wants the "right" outcome. That's truly the progressive view from the early 20th century. There is nothing conservative about him except for being ultra-patriotic and kind of a societal prude.

Here's another O'Reilly story. He lambasted the head of Chevron, coincidentally also named O'Reilly, for taking home $32M a year (or thereabouts). A viewer emailed in to challenge him to reveal how much he himself makes. (Bill) O'Reilly refused, of course, saying that he worked in private enterprise, but everyone knows that the oil industry is a monopoly with five companies controlling everything (so it's not private?)

I think you could safely say that Bill O'Reilly dismissed the question by saying that the oil industry is a five company monopoly. Apparently he doesn't know that such a thing is called an oligopoly. He really hates the oil companies (and the airlines). His view is apparently that because the oil industry is a "monopoly", they can pay exhorbitant salaries without suffering new competition (while the news industry is competitive and he earns his high salary, the one he won't reveal).


Posted by KevinRollins at 11:28 PM | Comments (1)

Bob Barr Gives Measured Response to Fannie Freddie Crisis

Bob Barr is taking a moderate position regarding federal government intervention in the government lending debacle. His reasoning: government created the problem, so in the short run government should help band-aid the problem, but in in the long run, government needs to clean up its act.
We will have to see how libertarians respond to this. My guess is that free liberals and other pragmatists will view it as sensible politics and policy, but the Ron Paul revolutionaries will be rankled.

Watch the video below.

/KDR

Posted by KevinRollins at 11:20 PM | Comments (1)

Who will watch the Watch List

Over the last few days, I have been noticing the saga of a CNN reporter who finds himself on the terror watch list (after reporting on the same critically some months before). He, and one of his interviewees, have applied to be taken off, but to no avail.

It is time to eliminate this assault on our liberties, as it is blatantly unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment to deprive American citizens of life, liberty and property without due process of law. Designation as a person of interest without some proceeding restricts both liberty and property interests of those so designated. Placement on the watch list restricts individual freedom of travel and the right to spend money on air transportation without undue interference. If someone is a suspected terrorist, they should be confronted immediately. The current regime is a hamhanded excuse for security.

I know I am preaching to the choir here - but it is time someone challenges this practice in court.

Posted by MichaelBindner at 04:15 PM | Comments (0)

July 13, 2008

Unfit for Office?

John McCain gives us another example -- with his humor -- of thoughts that rumble through his soul. Apparently, he finds it amusing that US cigarette imports to Iran kills them, and that's, to his way of thinking, a good thing.

Maybe this was just a stupid joke. Or, perhaps at least as likely, McCain harbors ill-will toward the Iranian people. We can't know, although I suspect the truth is something closer to the latter.

Gaffes often give us a window into the soul of the gaffer. This unfunny joke does not indicate to me a person stable enough to have his hands on the nuclear football. Regardless, this off-the-cuff remark does not speak well of a man who would be president.

(H/T Tom DiLorenzo)

-RC

Posted by RobertCapozzi at 09:44 PM | Comments (10)

July 11, 2008

American Conservative Defense Alliance: Fighting the War Party

Free Liberal board member and all around good guy Michael Ostrolenk has taken on yet another new project. He is now heading up the American Conservative Defense Alliance which is working for a non-interventionist foreign policy on Capitol Hill. Listen to a recent podcast from over at Antiwar.com.

Posted by PaulGessing at 06:05 PM | Comments (6)

Say you want a r3VOLution?

Many Ron Paul primary voters are split, or undecided, between the Presidential candidate of the Constitution Party, Chuck Baldwin, and the Libertarian nominee Bob Barr. An examination of the news as reported on October 2, 2001, three weeks after the terrifying events in New York and the Pentagon, might be instructive.

The October 2 Atlanta Journal-Constitution, drawing from a Washington Times story, reports on Congressman Barr's activities fighting the White House on the PATRIOT Act:

Washington Times's Gribben reports, Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) "is siding with his ideological foes in opposing" the Bush admin's anti-terrorism proposals. Along with Jud cmte colleagues Reps. Conyers, Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Barney Frank (D-MA), Barr "demanded to know why" the WH was rushing legislation "that might affect Americans' civil liberties." Though "he made a different argument" during the cmte hearing, Barr "later told reporters that what really troubled him was the attempt to broaden federal powers" (10/2). If his position "makes for what some see as unusual alliances -- Barr and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force on the same side, for example" -- he's "not troubled." Barr: "I simply try and be consistent and leave people's characterizations to themselves."

Meanwhile, Rev. Chuck published a new column that day. Some exceprts:

Must God Apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah?
By Chuck Baldwin October 2, 2001

It astonishes the mind to realize how many professing Christians refuse to believe that acceptance of moral perversity leads to divine judgment. . .

If the Bible teaches anything, it teaches that God is sovereign in the affairs of men. America's Founding Fathers believed that to a man. Our very form of government is predicated upon this principle. . .

Since the destruction of the Canaanite empire, every nation throughout history that has repudiated the moral laws of God has fallen victim to the wrath of God. There have been no exceptions. . .

It is true that God made a special covenant with only one nation, Israel. However, it is equally true that only one nation, the United States of America, made a special covenant with God. From the earliest days of our nation, our forebears made it crystal clear that this country was founded for "the advancement of the Christian faith" . . .

For far too long, too many of these sacred principles have been violated in our country! Are we now shocked that God could be using pagan nations (as He repeatedly did with Old Testament Israel) to judge Christian America? Instead of ridiculing the brave men who attempt to call America back to God, we should be doing what God demands. That means the White House and the church house need to stop normalizing adultery, homosexuality, and other acts of sexual deviancy. . .

Listening to many modern pundits, one would think they expect God to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah; however, God owes no nation an apology. God is righteous in judgment as much as He is in blessing. The only apology owed is the one owed to God from disobedient people.


So there you have it. Three weeks after 9/11, one candidate was reaching out to new allies in order to fight the onslaught of the Bush Administratoin's police state. The other candidate was demagoguing the tragedy in order to demonize innocent people and to score theological -- not to mention theocratic -- points.

Who's the candidate of the LOVE revolution here?

Posted by JamesPlummer at 01:39 AM | Comments (4)

July 10, 2008

Baptist Bloodlust

I've heard the Baptists credited with fighting for the separation of Church and State while the Constitution was being considered.

I've heard Baptists from some place called "Westboro" say some shocking things.

I've even been a Baptist myself. In fact, my first response when asked what variety of Christian I am is always "Baptist," even though "(ana)baptismatic" would be more accurate.

But I'd never heard this one before:

When the Rev. Martin Luther King was murdered, Jackson dipped his hands in King's blood and wiped them down the front of his shirt. Later, Jackson appeared on television and spoke to the Chicago City Council wearing the shirt. There are different interpretations of this gesture - including that Jackson was doing the Baptist thing and trying to absorb power from the slain leader's blood - but Mrs. Loretta Scott King didn't speak to Jackson for years.

That's Kathleen Parker (author of Save the Males) on The Corner, from a post responding to the recent Jesse Jackson/anti-Obama controversy.

Does anybody have any idea what she's talking about when she says, "doing the Baptist thing and trying to absorb power from the slain leader's blood"? I remember no such "power absorption" rituals from my time as a member of a Baptist congregation. I don't even remember any doctrinal points that would lead any Baptist to think you could absorb someone's power, much less through their blood.

And if Baptists did have such rituals -- involving blood -- should they be allowed to practice them? When does a creepy religious practice become legitimately bannable (sp?) in our Separation-of-Church-and-State system?

Posted by MicahTillman at 06:15 PM | Comments (2)

July 07, 2008

Rush's Deal

Rush Limbaugh renegotiated his contract, earning some 84 million dollars a year. Assuming a three hour show per day, five days a week, that amounts to about $1000 per hour (or $1500 for a two hour show). Given the fact that his rabid listeners also rabidly support his sponsors, this is a sweet deal for his sponsors.

The left (myself included) bemoans the lack of a competing program. Air America never caught on. Listening to it, this is not a shock - most of it is pretty bad as satire goes - then again, Rush's contribution to the nation's intellectual life is not what I would call extreme either. Having listened on occassion and examined one or two of his books more closely, the thing that strikes me about Rush is that the lack of conent - to wit - in a book called "The Way Things Ought to Be" never really says anything about how things should be. Rush does not seem to have a policy agenda. Then again, given his credentials, I wouldn't expect him to. He is not a wonk - he is a cultural commentator.

The reason liberals don't have a competing show is that their audience does not really go for that media. Liberals blog (as do conservatives). More importantly, the liberal audiance watches television.

The comparision of Rush to Randi Rhodes is therefore invalid. The real comparison is Rush Limbaugh to John Stewart. Liberals, it seems, watch television. Radio, not so much. When talking Liberal TV, of course, the biggest gun to the biggest gun is not Limbaugh to Stewart - but Limbaugh to Oprah.

Oprah could buy Limbaugh. LImbaugh is a court jester. Oprah is queen - and unlike Rush - her candidate in the primaries won - and she can claim some of the credit in bringing her audience to him.

Posted by MichaelBindner at 08:14 AM | Comments (6)

Nuanced to Death

This piece by EJ Dionne caught my eye. My take is that Dionne grasps the import of nuance and, at the same time, the urgency of principle.

Unfortunately, our politics are such that both can't seem to sound hypocritical, or else one's a "flip flopper." Even with most (including me) wanting an end to the Iraq Quagmire as quickly as possible, say that and some will say "Oh, you don't support the troops, and you don't care whether Iraq descends into endless civil war."

Frankly, this counter sickens me in its obvious manipulation. In fact, exiting Iraq's the best thing the US can do for its troops, and it MIGHT even abate the civil war...US presence could be the catalyst for the civil war. It certainly started it.

It strikes me that laying out specifics of how to get out of Iraq is a detail that is premature. Any specific promise lacks credibility, as Obama and his advisors don't have access to details to determine the optimum way to get out. Yet some want specifics DURING the campaign, which seems like an unreasonable demand to me.

I look forward to the day when a candidate can say: I strive to do X, with the details to be worked out later. So, in this case, a candidate might say: The war was a mistake. It's far too expensive in terms of both blood and treasure. If elected, I will draw up a plan in consultation with Congress, the Joint Chiefs, and others. Make no mistake: My goal is to exit Iraq as quickly as possible. I wish I could give you a specific timetable, but that would be reckless. I simply don't have enough information at this time to make an informed decision. I assure you that I believe it's in the interest of all Americans and the Iraqis that our military presence there should end.

Calculating campaigns are NOT the appropriate vehicle for such wide-ranging policy decisions.

-RC

Posted by RobertCapozzi at 07:43 AM | Comments (0)

July 06, 2008

Tabarrok on Living Under Authoritarian Regimes

From Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution:

There's nothing like visiting a foreign country like China to get an appreciation of what it's like to live under an authoritarian regime. I was reminded of this when I arrived home and found that the TSA had rifled through my baggage.

The best authority money can buy, eh?

/KDR

Posted by KevinRollins at 03:07 AM | Comments (0)

July 03, 2008

Honoring Kent Snyder

Kent Snyder family is not just coping with the tragedy of his passing, but with the over $4,000 of unpaid medical bills. Fortunately, a group of Kent's friends has organized an online effort to raise funds to pay Kent's medical expenses.

Also, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute has announced a to help educate the next generation in the cause to which Kent devoted his all to short life.

Posted by NormSingleton at 10:03 PM | Comments (6)

Free-for-all (frfr-ôl) -- n. A disorderly fight, argument, or competition in which everyone present participates.

from Dictionary.com



Advertisement
Free For All -- The Free Liberal Blog