TOTALITARIANISM TODAY
Monday, November 11, 2002
POSNER AIN'T MISBEHAVIN'?
That remains to be proven, and I am clearly not the woman for the job. A little ditty about increased police surveillance powers in the post-911 period.
Sunday, November 10, 2002
A POEM WORTH QUOTING FOR THOSE WHO FIND NIGHTS PARTICULARLY DISCONCERTING
Harvey Shapiro's new poem, "Nights", eulogizes what we have yet to lose to the familiar, womb-like darkness. With my tongue tied in knots, I await some better choreographer.
Drunk and weeping. It's another night
at the live-in opera, and I figure
it's going to turn out badly for me.
The dead next door accept their salutations,
their salted notes, the drawn-out wailing.
It's we the living who must run for cover,
meaning me. Mortality's the ABC of it,
and after that comes lechery and lying.
And, oh, how to piece together a life
from this scandal and confusion, as if
the gods were inhabiting us, or cohabiting
with us, just for the music's sake.
Sunday, November 10, 2002
WHY THE ALLURE OF NEW YORK CITY NEVER FAILS TO BRING ME CRAWLING BACK
If Steve Earle, Tori Amos, PJ Harvey, and Ryan Adams didn't remind me of New York city when I switched on my CD player, then my daily media consumption would certainly do so anyway. What can I say except, "I still love you, New York"? For those lucky enough to share in the nobility of New-Yorkerness, here are a few of the not-to-be-missed events taking place there in the next week.
The Antagonist Movement (check out The Antagonist Manifesto) is holding a Zine Fest and Convention in New York on 17 November at Black & White: 86 E. 10th st (3rd ave/4th Ave). Readings start at 8pm. Sign-ups at 7pm. This event is open to all fanzines. Go along, read 5 minutes of "your best stuff" and flog your rag.
Another event that should not be missed is Shocking Shorts -- on November 10 at the Library Bar, 7 ave A (2nd st/Houston) (8pm): "Come see the best shocking shorts the East Village has to offer. Be stunned and amazed!" By more than just the free admission...
Several delicious films are playing this coming week. At the Film Forum on Wednesday & Thursday at 3:20, 5:20, 7:20 & 9:20, Luis Bunel's 1974 film The Phantom of Liberty, which remains closest to his earlier surrealist schematas, returns to haunt those who never quite got over the all-seeing eye in Le Chien D'Andalou. For a combination of action and eroticism, The Chinese Torture Chamber will be playing this Thursday.
The art-enthusiast can join hands with the lazy-Saturday-morning-lounging-in-bed-enthusiast to view an exhibit of France Scully Osterman's photography, which applies variations to the theme of people sleeping in sensuously disheveled sheets. The perfectly-unposed portrait.
Saturday, November 9, 2002
KRAUTHAMMER THINKS U.S. MUST SHOW ISLAMISTS THAT AMERICANS DON'T "LOVE LIFE" AS MUCH AS THEY THINK
Let me preface this short commentary by noting that pro-life conservatives should watch where they fall in the pro-war debate, as it does tend to reveal inconsistencies in their positions. In a recent interview, Charles Krauthammer made it clear that he believed Sept. 11th "was not just a tragedy, it was an act of war". Krauthammer encouraged the American public and the political elite to internalize the events of 9-11 by allowing their most visceral reactions to influence their policy solutions.
"And I'm concerned that we're going to spend all our time looking backward, and I think that we need to, on this September 11, look ahead administration remember not just that these people who died, but how, and at whose hands, and what we're going to do about it....I think that fundamental understanding, the fundamental anger, the fury that we felt a year ago, has not dissipated. I think it's only hibernated.
We have to keep that up by pursuing Al Qaeda, by punishing any government that even thinks of supporting terrorism, and by making a second example, not just Afghanistan, but now Iraq, of any country that harbors the idea of attacking us, and that is acquiring weapons that would destroy us....And it's because Islamic radicalism and the terrorism launched against us, it lives in an idea, it lives in the idea of their primacy, of their toughness. They love death, we're weak, we love life.
We have to show them that they're absolutely wrong in that understanding of us."
Admittedly, while the US political class might appreciate death and power politics, I think most Americans aren't as enamored of "death" (certainly this is true for the family members of the World Trade Center bombings).
Saturday, November 9, 2002
SOMETIMES GOOD GIRLS WONDER.....
If the fact that Bin Laden is alive has anything to do with the newly-victorious Republican move towards restraint in its Iraq-blasting policy. This should come as no surprise, since bin Laden was "hailing infidels" as recently as last month. I must hand it to the Bushies-- impeccable media strategy to move the focus from al Quaeda to Saddam. Americans love nothing more than old familiar enemies. Hmmm... maybe we should pull another one of those covert operations to assasinate Castro-- that should keep the public sassified.
Saturday, November 9, 2002
WHAT DO AMERICANS WANT?
Though only one-third of Americans turned up at the polls this last Tuesday, those who did participate in that particular aspect of the "democratic process" generally voted more conservatively on economic issues and moderately (as affected by regional affiliations) on social issues. In Oregon, voters rejected a proposal to create the nation's first completely government-dominated, single-payer health care plan in response to warnings about higher taxes. Concern about higher taxes led Massachuetts voters to give 47% of their support to a Libertarian-sponsored referendum abolishing the state's personal income tax. This initiative was opposed by all political parties, including the victorious Republican party who will now see Romney the next governor of this notoriously-liberal state.
Since the Supreme Court's decision in US v. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Corporation two years ago, the horizon for state-based efforts to effect drug laws has gotten murkier.In some states, it might even be argued that there has been a backlash against loosening of drug policies and penalties. Voters in Arizona
Arizonans defeated a ballot proposition liberalizing marijuana laws. The measure stirred controversy by requiring the state to give away marijuana for free. More ominously, they also passed another measure toughening penalties. Ohio voters defeated a proposed state constitutional amendment that would required judges prescribe treatment instead of jail time for drug possession offenses. Unfortunately, the drive to make Nevada the first state with legal (as opposed to merely decriminalized) marijuana failed overwhelmingly as 61% of voters rejected the ballot's Question 9. For enlightened drug policy, it seems California is the only state to be counted on to tenaciously oppose the backlash against drug liberalization. San Francisco voters approved a measure to have the city study growing and dispensing marijuana for medical purposes in response to federal crackdowns on medical-cannabis clubs. Meanwhile, the Europeans move towards an increasingly sound, liberalized drug policy, as the British government publicized its decision allowing cannabis-based drugs to be prescribed in the UK as early as 2003, following successful final-stage trials in patients with multiple sclerosis. Compared with standard treatments alone, the drugs significantly improved symptoms of MS and reduced pain caused by other types of nerve damage.Clearly, foreign policy is not the only area in which Americans are significantly more pro-big-government than their European allies.
On one of my pet issues-- the state's role in legitimizing marriage-- Nevada voters showed their conservative side at the polls, voting to add a ban on gay marriages to the state's constitution. Ironically enough, though I believe gays have just as much reason to be married as heterosexuals, the Nevada conservatives (who seem, by the way, to be of two minds on the family issue, given the legal status of prostitution there) did exactly what I would have preferred. In fact, I wish Nevadans would ban all marriages between fundamentalist Christians or red-heads or blonds. Even better, why not allow only a chosen few to recieve the honor of a state-sanctioned marriage? It is high time the state removed its nose from the marriage racket and allowed marriage to return to its original status as a sacred, individualized contract between two people. Granted, the incentives for the state to stop the disgusting practice of marriage licensing are few and far between, given the extremely lucrative divorce industry as well as the social engineering prospects which stem from so close an involvement. The American state will NEVER legitimize any marriage contract that I may enter; allowing government interference in this most honorable of realms would be the kiss of death.
Saturday, November 9, 2002
THE PROBLEM OF AKRASIA IN THE MODERN WORLD
For the ancient Greek philosophers, the question of individual will and self-restraint played a crucial role in the formation of a man's character. As the concept of "integrity" continues to fascinate me, revisiting the ancients might be a sign that my study of this concept has moved from the realm of hobby or fancy to the realm of serious investigation. Either way, pretension taints the picture, as should the understanding that I paint with a shaky hand in an area that is not of my expertise.
Deborah
Kerdeman's paper delineating the Aristotlean conception of akrasia is interesing as she responds to a Newsweek article asking if the teaching of ethics would be enough to encourage businessman to act ethically. It is perfectly clear that mere knowledge of the ethically correct does not necessitate correct action. For the Greeks, "akrasia" signified a weakness of will, as an akrates denoted a morally weak man-- a man who could not act in accordance with his morals. Aristotle contrasts the akrates with the enkrates, or man who can resist temptation. Kerdeman notes that, while Aristotle thinks popular beliefs about "incontinence" (or the inability to practice moral self-restraint) are "varied and often contradictory", Aristotle thinks these beliefs do settle on a few points:
(1) The continent person seems to be the same as one who abides by his rational calculation; and the incontinent person seems to be the same as one who abandons it.
(2) The incontinent person knows that his actions are base, but does them because of his feelings, while the continent person knows that his appetites are base, but because of reason does not follow them.
In short, popular opinion concludes that with respect to akrasia, feeling overpowers reason; the individual, as a consequence, is seduced into acting irrationally. This conclusion, in turn, is marked by two deeper suppositions: a) feeling (or appetite) is distinct from reason; b) reason can be disciplined, but feelings cannot.
This might appear to remove some flesh from the Christian argument that blind faith (or emotions like shame and guilt and joy) can provide adequate moral guidelines for ethical behavior. Of course, the argument could be made that shame and guilt are very reasonable reactions to certain circumstances-- reactions which should not be ignored as they can provide guidance and even assist (or be somehow intimately related to) our rational ethical discernment.
Richard
Kraut compares Aristotle's conception of akrasia to the Socratic reading which posits it as a kind of ignorance. Kraut writes:
"Aristotle holds that if one is in the special mental condition that he calls practical wisdom, then one cannot be, nor will one ever become, an akratic person (1152a6-7). For practical wisdom is present only in those who also possess the ethical virtues, and these qualities require complete emotional mastery. Anger and appetite are fully in harmony with reason, if one is practically wise, and so this intellectual virtue is incompatible with the sort of inner conflict experienced by the akratic person. Furthermore, one is called practically wise not merely on the basis of what one believes or knows, but also on the basis of what one does. Therefore, the sort of knowledge that is lost and regained during a bout of akrasia cannot be called practical wisdom. It is knowledge only in a loose sense. The ordinary person's low-level grasp of what to do is precisely the sort of thing that can lose its acuity and motivating power, because it was never much of an intellectual accomplishment to begin with. That is what Aristotle is getting at when he compares it with the utterances of actors, students, sleepers, drunks, and madmen."
Whether akrasia should be considered a part of practical wisdom might be best considered in the modern context, where ethics has taken a turn for the pragmatic. Political and social life today requires us to engage a wider variety of moral and ethical conumdrums in quotidien negotiations. With an eye to praxis, integrity must become a more closely-watched aspect of individual character. As integrity is only loosely related to self-perception and self-evaluation, as it is an impression formed by others about the extent to which personal principles and public behavior converge.
Thursday, November 7, 2002
ECONOMIC DOLDRUMS: TO BLAME OR NOT TO BLAME MAY NOT BE THE CORRECT QUESTION
The debate over the current economic situation, and how it might be favorably or adversely affected by the war on terrorism, continues with an article by Felix G. Rohatyn in the New York Review of Books. Having served as a governor of the New York Stock Exchange, Chairman of the New York Municipal Authority, and US Ambassador to France, Rohatyn is no outsider to the convergence of political and economic power in the post-Cold War world. Comparing the current situation to that of the Nixon years, Rohatyn writes:
"New York City's looming crisis is, once more, caused by New York's vulnerability to the condition of the national economy, and particularly of its financial industry, as well as to the international situation. The recession of the 1970s and the collapse of the stock market were caused by war in the Middle East, higher oil prices, and the US invasion of Cambodia, all coming on top of the speculative bubble of the late 1960s. I would argue that similar factors are at work today. We are absorbing the collapse of the stock market bubble of the late 1990s and its related financial scandals. But New York, its economy, and its psyche are still feeling the wounds of September 11, and, as a result, the city's economy and many companies located in New York are more sensitive to the possibility of war in Iraq and its likely aftermath."
In a previous article, Rohatyn argued that capitalism had been betrayed by the irresponsible American monetary and fiscal policies during the Clinton administration.
"The increase in speculative behavior in the stock markets was astonishing. In 1998, as a result of reckless speculation by its managers, the giant hedge fund Long Term Capital Management went bankrupt and, in doing so, threatened the financial system itself. The New York Federal Reserve organized a group of banks and investment houses to rescue the company at a cost of several billion dollars. The sharp rise in dot-com stocks came soon after, together with relentless publicity campaigns to push the markets higher and higher. TV ads of on-line brokers urged everybody to buy stocks and trade them day by day. So-called independent analysts made fantastic claims about their favorite stocks in hopes of generating investment-banking business for their firms. These claims were often supported by creative accounting concepts such as "pro forma earnings"—a management-created fiction intended to show strong results by excluding a variety of charges and losses and one that was implicitly approved by supposedly independent auditors. A large part of the stock market was becoming a branch of show business, and it was driving the economy instead of the other way around.
The financial regulators—whether in the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, the SEC, or other agencies—were either unwilling or unable to check this behavior. The then chairman of the SEC, Arthur Levitt, tried to adopt rules that would prevent the more obvious of the conflicts of interest that were widespread among auditors. He was blocked from doing so when the accounting industry lobbied members of Congress to oppose his initiative. The Federal Reserve could have raised the margin requirements for stocks listed on the NASDAQ, which would have sent a powerful signal to the rampant speculation on that market and somewhat limited the damage caused by it. The Federal Reserve chose not to do so."
Is it possible that the Federal Reserve could have prevented the bubble? I remember Greenspan giving fair warning about "irrational exuberance" (which is either code for "beware a bubble" or jabberwocky). Is it his fault that investors refused to change strategies? In an interview with the Mises Institute, Frank Shostak calls the most recent lowering of interest rates "a disastrous move". He goes on to comment:
"Last year, the Fed cut interest rates 11 times. Why anyone should believe the 12th is the charm is beyond me. From the end of last year until now, the federal funds rate was 1.75 percent, and now we have a very aggressive lowering by half a percent to 1.25 percent.
This indicates desperation. It shows that the Fed believes the economy is doing poorly, more poorly than is usually reported, but that they have no idea why or what to do about it."
Thursday, November 7, 2002
POSNER WILL SPEAK ON THE "RIGHTS AND WRONGS OF GOING TO WAR"
Richard Posner will be speaking at Columbia University on November the 15th. Posner, the Chief Judge of the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and George P. Fletcher, Columbia Law School, will debate “The Rights and Wrongs of Going to War (including restrictions on civil liberties).” It should be an interesting talk.
Wednesday, November 6, 2002
BA-BA WAH-WAH UNEARTHS THE VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY'S RELATION TO WELLSTONE'S DEATH
Jennifer G. Hickey from Insight magazine reports:
In her latest "Truth Alert," Barbra Streisand shows her level of sensitivity is as low as her ego is high by taking umbrage at recent press criticism of her political and social musings. At issue in the latest installment on her Website was a Nov. 4 New York Post article reporting remarks allegedly made about the death of Minnesota senator Paul Wellstone in a plane crash to a group of interior decorators competing for her favor.
Consistently referring to herself in the third person (or at least in this dictation to her secretary), Streisand draws an interesting and unique correlation between typographical errors in one story and alleged factual errors in another article.
Perhaps Babs should cease and desist from the consumption of highly-mind-altering health-food herbs and apply those rational faculties to more than just talk-show appearances. Next thing we know, she will be calling the Southern Baptist campaign against state lotteries another part of the alleged vast right-wing conspiracy. Before she steals this idea, it might behoove her to know that the state lottery passed in Tennessee anyway.
Wednesday, November 6, 2002
WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ELECTION RESULTS IN REAL TERMS?
Republicans were jubilant yesterday for several reasons (see the Senate election results, the House election results, and the gubernatorial race results), the most important of which might just be the fact that the future of the judiciary is assured, as conservative nominees will now allow Rehnquist and O'Connor to retire, making way perhaps for Miguel Estrada and other "culture of life"-friendly nominees.
Adding to the festivities is the new question of who will lead the committees now that the Republicans have a majority in the Senate? Forbes magazine takes a few guesses. Although Senate Republican leader Trent Lott said he does not see any immediate increases in Republican legislative agenda activities, the smile on his face suggested otherwise. He has certainly hinted that the ever-elusive ban on partial-birth abortion will pass through Congress, pleasing many Christian constituents.
While it appears that the markets rallied to the Repub victory, a change in Federal Reserve interest policy might have more to do with it. In any case, the economic prognosis might be improving-- which is always the case when wartime spending increases to subsidize failing American steel, technology, and wepaons firms. More ominously, the Republican victory will allow Bush to move more quickly and unilaterally against Iraq, as it now appears that the American people support his cowboy crusade.
As for the Democratic Party, it looks like Dick Gephardt has been named the scapegoat for electoral loss-- a strategy which will do nothing for the Democratic Party (at least, nothing more than Gore's decision to sprout a guru-beard after losing the last presidential).
Wednesday, November 6, 2002
TRICKY MACHINATIONS UNDER THE RUBRIC OF "REAUTHORIZATIONS"
It looks like the Bush administration is not as anti-centralization as it would have us believe, as
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) is being re-authorized
in the US Congress in 2003. In plain English, this means its funding is up for recosisderation.On September 12th, the U.S. Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness conducted its first re-authorization hearing, "Implementation of the Workforce Investment Act: Promising Practices in Workforce Development." The Chairman of that subcommittee is Rep. Buck McKeon, a Republican from California. Written and oral
testimony about WIA was taken at that time.
An excerpt from one piece of testimony
submitted in writing to the committee by MREdCo might paint a more accurate picture of why the WIA should be opposed by skeptical minds. In his "Objection to the Overall Workforce Restructuring Scheme", Michael Chapman of the Maple River Education Coalition, explains his objections to the reauthorization of the WIA.
We oppose the reauthorization of the 1998 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) because it represents a "radical" and "revolutionary" departure away from America's successful free-market economic system. Instead it embraces and helps establish a government-planned and managed economy. In order to understand how this could
be, one must realize that the WIA is simply one piece of a larger federal reform agenda broken apart and passed piece-meal under the
Clinton Administration. The 1998 WIA, along with the 1994 Goals 2000 Educate America Act, and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, built the framework for this federal system.
These three laws effectively merged education and businesses under a government-appointed bureaucracy, which will oversee a "seamless system" of human resource development to meet the government-perceived needs of the future economy. These planners will
determine future workforce need and approve specific "career-
clusters" that regional schools may offer to students. Under
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the term "career cluster"
was replaced with the term "smaller-learning communities."
In Minneapolis, ALL students are required to apply for a specific
career cluster by 9th grade. Eventually, however, the Workforce
Investment System is meant to include everyone in this scheme -
whether one is a young student, unemployed, or an "incumbent"
worker seeking a job change.
On November 11, 1992, Marc Tucker, president of the National
Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), wrote a letter to
Hillary Clinton explaining how best to implement the design
they had worked on together, now that Bill Clinton was president.
(See Congressional Record, Sept. 25, 1998)
In that letter, Tucker explained how that design would manage
and control all people throughout their lives:
"We think the great opportunity you have is to remold the
entire American system for human resources development...
What is essential is that we create a seamless web...
that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the
same system for everyone."
His plan was to align and coordinate ALL EDUCATION, WORKFORCE
PREPARATION, and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT into a single,
comprehensive, "seamless system" under a government-appointed
planning board that would encompass every child, worker, school,
and business.
On September 12, 2002, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce heard testimony in favor of reauthorizing (and
strengthening) the Workforce Investment Act, which confirmed
that WIA represents the culmination of Marc Tucker and Hillary Clinton's plan to ensnare all children.
Mr. Tim Barnicle, Co-Director of the Workforce Development
Program at the NCEE, and a former official with the US
Department of Labor during the development of the Workforce
Investment Act, testified in favor of reauthorizing WIA for
the purpose of completing the "comprehensive workforce
investment system for the United States." He explained that
WIA would require an "EVER INCREASING investment" to meet its ultimate goal to "leave no child, no worker, no contributing member of our society behind."
Echoing the Tucker/Clinton plan for a "seamless system" was
Mr. Bruce Stenslie, Director of the Ventura County, California Workforce Investment Board, who explained that the goal of WIA is to "integrate workforce, education and economic development strategies."
Robert Jones, the Undersecretary of Labor during the Carter
years, helped create the Secretaries Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) - where the preliminary work for WIA was begun. Jones is now the president of the National Alliance of Business and was Minnesota's keynote speaker the Workforce Development Seminar put on by the state this October 10th. Jones explains that WIA is about "Managing the K-80 Knowledge Supply Chain" in a newsletter:"To stay competitive, US companies are making a science of pulling together the right supplies at the right time in the right place. What would happen if companies could apply this process, known as supply chain management, to people?" Jones explains that schools are to become the "suppliers" and businesses the "customers" under this new "seamless system." The Workforce Investment Act echoes this idea explaining: "The state's Education system...must be more closely attuned to the needs of the employer community...including more...just-in-time training."
Keep in mind; the system is designed for all learners - "K-80," not just those who "choose" to enter two-year technical college. The proponents of the system call this concept "Life-Long Learning," because eventually EVERYONE will be part of the system.
Chapman summarizes the objections to the WIA as follows:
1) The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) is one of three federal bills
that combine to create an aligned and unified "Labor Supply Chain," in effect, re-inventing government, education, and the economy in all 50 states.
2) WIA interferes with local free-market forces by controlling workforce and economic development through government-appointed planning boards. Furthermore, it usurps and damages the private job-matching industry.
3) WIA waters down existing programs for the truly needy,
disabled, and unemployed by spending limited funds for ANY and ALL citizens.
4) WIA has a proven track record of failure in its pilot states. More funding WILL NOT SOLVE the fundamental problems inherent within a government-planned economy!
5) WIA usurps states' (and the peoples') right to self-
determination guaranteed by the constitution and the 10th
amendment.
Wednesday, November 6, 2002
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOW VOTER TURNOUT AND THE SUCCESS OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS
Some Republicans have touted yestreday's election as a sign of the continuing vitality of American democracy. The statistics, however, show something more discouraging, namely that only one-third of Americans voted. Bill Murchison notes that a New York Times/CBS Poll released on the Sunday before the election shows voters divided equally as to the parties' merits or lack of same. Democrats were seen as likelier to "make the right decisions about Social Security," the Republicans as likelier to "make sure U.S. military defenses are strong." And neither agglomeration is seen as hugely compelling when it comes to vision or presentation. A full 40 percent in the poll professed less enthusiasm about voting than in previous contests.
Wednesday, November 6, 2002
DOES VICTORY FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY MEAN A VICTORY FOR REPUBLICAN IDEAS OR IDEOLOGY?
The election results suggest a new Republican upsurge in American political identification. Most political analysts agree that the voting trends have been towards a more moderate politics, yet even news-buffs like Michael Barone did not predict the extent to which Republicans would win in this last election.Bruce Bartlett predicted gridlock, which he followed with a sweet little argument about gridlock being the condition intended by the Founders. Granted, Bartlett's "gridlock" arguably holds even if Republicans take control of the Senate and keep the House, as "even when the same party controls both houses, there are institutional reasons why they will differ on the issues".
But votes for Republican candidates might not be so much a vote for Republican ideology as a vote against what David Limbaugh calls the "disarray" of the Democratic Party. What happened to the Democratic Party of the Clinton era? For one, Democrats have always appealed to minority voters and women as the party who stands for civil liberties and civil rights. Thanks to "compassionate conservatism", however, Republicans can now mount a strong case for political moderacy which, when combined with a populist appeal to "the American people", wins both women and blacks.
Armstrong Williams argues that traditional black loyalty to the Democratic Party has been changing. According to a recent opinion poll by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, young black Americans are breaking from traditional voting patterns on issues no less pervasive than Social Security, educational quality, vouchers and federalism. So why are Democrats so surprised that blacks are struggling for independence from the state sector? In my view, this is merely a continuation of the civil rights battles of the 1960's, which assisted blacks by tethering their fortunes to the goodwill of the American government.
Perhaps the "race card" just isn't what it used to be, as demonstrated in the victory of Maryland Republican gubernatorial candidate Robert Erlich. When Ehrlich said he favored affirmative action based on economic deprivation rather than race at an NAACP talk, his opponent, Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, gave a "virtuoso clinic on pushing hot buttons".
"She packed references to slavery, lynching and Jim Crow into a crashing 28-word non sequitur: "Slavery was based on race. Lynching was based on race. Discrimination was based on race. Jim Crow was based on race. Affirmative action should be based on race."
Maryland's population is 27.9 percent African American, the highest percentage of any state outside the Deep South, so it is amazing that Townsend neglected to mention Simon Legree. This contest will reveal whether putting an African American on the ticket is enough to enable a Republican to make inroads among African American voters."
Wednesday, November 6, 2002
WHO SAYS ELECTIONS CAN'T BE FUN: MEET ONE OF 2002'S QUIRKIEST CANDIDATES
When Jeff Vachon explained Massachussets electoral candidate Barbara Johnson's platform to me last night, it consisted of fighting for smokers' rights, which Johnson apparently does from the deck of the decommissioned fire-truck she calls transportation. There is something compelling about such characters in American electoral politics.
Tuesday, November 5, 2002
HATS OFF TO THE MOST HONORABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS (AND THOSE THAT MOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE BEEN)
Thanks to Jeff Vachon, I got to meet the most brilliant woman in politics today-- the Massachussets libertarian candidate for governor, Carla Howell. She drags dignity, kicking and screaming, back into the ultra-hypocritical state political environment. Inside sources report she can also dance. I only wish she had more reason to do so.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is a gem and a true role model. Personal acquaintance with his Congressional staff forces me to say that he is surrounded by some of the most dedicated and wonderful people in the business. Especially Norman Singleton.
John Sophocleus, the Alabama libertarian candidate for governor, apparently has decided that rocking the town of Auburn is not quite as fun as rocking the entire state. He might be the reason for incumbent Democratic candidate Don Siegelmann winning the Alabama governorship. Sophocleus was my teacher about the pitfalls of eminent domain law, in addition to a constantly mesmerizing presence on the Auburn libertarian scene.
Tuesday, November 5, 2002
THE GREEK TRAGEDY OF THIS ELECTION
As James Carville sat with a wastebasket covering his head, Paul Begala called the election a "defeat of the accomodationist wing of the Democratic Party". I couldn't have said it better myself. Shame on those Democrats that lacked the integrity to stand out against the war on terrorism. The GOP's significant victory today remains so significant precisely because it demonstrates how important it is that a political party stand for something.
