Quote of the Day
For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain,and big words Bother me.
Winnie the Pooh
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
Markup of the Day: Walmart Fact-Checks the Gray Lady
 |
| HT Overlawyered |
Hillary Clinton, Benghazi, and a New Book
The New York Post published an excerpt of a new book called "Blood Feud", referencing a split between the Clinton and Obama clans. I cannot attest to the authenticity of author Klein's sources, but if true, it leaves me with a more nuanced view of Hillary. In essence, it argues that Hillary did understand the basic facts of the the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack, that Obama, who had been campaigning for reelection on a talking point that he had al Qaeda on the run, desperately wanted to sidestep the reality of the attack and the Youtube video was a politically convenient straw man. Clinton knew that the cover story wouldn't pass the smell test, that (as I have repeatedly blogged since then) there was a far more obvious explanation--the symbolic anniversary of 9/11 itself and pushed back, to no avail. Hillary reportedly discussed the issue with Zipper, including whether she should resign in protest. They eventually calculated that anything seen as disloyalty by the Democrat base in the midst of a reelection campaign would poison the well for her eventual 2016 bid.
I thought the Romney campaign had jumped the gun and left itself open to criticisms of politicizing the tragedy; I think they were gun-shy after that. I knew from overnight news reports it was a terrorist attack, and what the Romney campaign should have been doing is point out the things I've been discussing since then: why, after Britain had evacuated its diplomatic personnel in the area, had we not done the same? And despite the claims of no nearby military assistance in the area, why not on the 9/11 date, the most likely time for an attack, even if for no other reason than to deter an attack, a preventive measure? Of course, Hillary Clinton was still responsible for protecting diplomats on her watch; there is no good explanation for why the Benghazi mission was given short shrift priority. It reflects, at best, managerial incompetence and poor judgment, a lack of responsibility and accountability.
Let's be clear: I oppose US intervention in north Africa, the Middle East/Gulf region. We should never have intervened in the first place; we are not the world's policeman. But I particularly despise Hillary Clinton's de facto 3 AM call from Barry Obama. Recall the Saturday Night Massacre? AG Richardson resigned when Nixon ordered him to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Cox (the same for deputy AG Ruckelhaus). Personally, I would have respected Hillary Clinton if she had stood her ground with Barry, refusing to stand by totally dishonest talking points to avoid a campaign kerfuffle. She had to know this manipulation of the media would come back to haunt both Barry and herself once the truth came out. Was the political calculation correct? I don't think so. I am not, nor will ever be, part of the Dem base, and I can't speak for them. But Hillary had lost the nomination in 2008 by an eyelash, and a term as Secretary of State made her the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination in 2016. Obama needed Clinton more than she needed him. It would have also allowed her to establish herself as an alternative to the Obama Presidency. I have been in these kinds of situations in my own career; for example, while at IBM, my boss ordered me to do something I knew would be a mistake. I told him I would carry out his directive, but insisted on filing a disclaimer, and my boss decided to back off. Did it help my career at IBM in the long run? Probably not, but it was a matter of professional responsibility. In Clinton's place I would have resigned; I probably knew enough about Obama that he wouldn't risk a public confrontation with me and/or a backlash from ideological feminists. If there's one thing Hillary showed during the Zipper Scandal, she knows how to play the victim card..
Soldier Homecoming for Pet
HT Libertarian Republic
Facebook Corner
Some preliminary comment about the first thread: I got 3 replies to my comment yesterday, two of which I reproduce below, the last from a "progressive" troll whom didn't really tip his hand until after I responded (his concluding comment about how libertarians don't win elections made that clear). Keep in mind my comment had more to do what I thought was a betrayal of Cato Institute on libertarian principles of using the State to intervene in the social context. It's more of a general consideration, not aimed just at gay "marriage". Notice the troll once again refers to the "ban" on gay "marriage". All the 30-odd state reaffirmations of the traditional definition of marriage did not prohibit gay relationships; it does not sanction people for performing or participating in nontraditional ceremonies. Marriage recognition is qualified, just as there are criteria on whom can join a school athletic team (e.g., gender, performance, academic standing, residency, etc.) But just because you don't qualify for your school's team is not a ban on playing sports in other contexts, e.g., intramurals. My high school didn't have a baseball team, so I had no opportunity to win a letterjacket. But I could still play ball elsewhere.
Argumentative trolls test my patience. I'm not engaging in mere namecalling when I use the term "fascist". For anyone whom doesn't understand the context, fascism as an economic concept differs from socialism by the nature of ownership; the commonality is authoritarian control of the economy. Fascism isn't necessarily opposed to privately-owned businesses so long as they de facto control the business through interventionist policies. It's like rent control; your ownership is extremely limited in the sense you can find it impossible to charge market rents or even evict tenants. Hence your ownership is, at best, nominal in nature. Now consider the context of "progressive" intolerance. You are free to express your opinion--only so far as it is deemed politically correct and/or other conditions. This is not freedom; it's censorship. Hence your liberty is nominal in nature--a sophistic sham. That's why I use the term "fascism" in this context.
There's also a lot going on in that last exchange. Familiar readers know I am a long-time opponent of infamous footnote 4. In short, SCOTUS in the late 30's, instead of backing economic liberty, decided it would let the majority mob have its way on legislation provided it was "rational" (which in practice is an easy sell to the judiciary) except for certain arbitrary conditions like discrimination. I do not like people overusing the term "discrimination". Social norms abound (e.g., public nudity). If I choose to sell my Babe Ruth baseball card for any or no reason, it's no one's business but my own. To argue that the social preference of clothed individuals is "discrimination" against nudists; you can be nude at home or frequent a nudist colony. This guy wants to reduce everything to government oversight of contracts, which I don't recognize, and also is extending equal protection beyond the province of public policy to social constructs, which I find anathema.
(Cato Institute). A follow-up to my critical comment on judicial mischief overturn traditional marriage yesterday:
What presumptuous crap! The idea that you support special interest cronies and the State intervening on private-sector community social norms, institutions and values is an intrinsic violation of libertarian principles. Utterly contemptible and morally indefensible...
We heard this exact argument in many states regarding mixed-race marriage until the 1970s. Needs modification. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not impose on me or my activities. Much of your objection is subjective and vague.
In response to the fascist troll ("exact argument"): First of all, no one is talking about banning gays having relationships, having whatever commitment ceremonies in the context of their communities and calling their commitments whatever they want, including using the heterosexual term of "marriage". Real marriage is between a man and woman; it was evolved as a means to promote social self-preservation and stability as the foundation for the related construct of family. Incidental characteristics like race are arbitrary and not relevant to the consideration of procreation. Homosexuality and procreation are intrinsically inconsistent.
Marriage thus is not an arbitrary institution, and its universal adoption across cultures and thousands of years reflects that. It has been traditionally regulated on a state level in our system and universally recognized as such during the entire history of the US; it particularly became a federal issue during the Civil War era given the practice of plural relationships in the Utah territory (and the law was subsequently confirmed by SCOTUS).
Now a "progressive" troll would not recognize the distinction between negative liberty/rights and positive liberty/rights, but Cato Institute does--even Barry Obama knows the distinction. The former is a suppression of your own individual rights by the government or others--e.g., my right to free speech; the latter refers to the obligation on government or others to do something in my behalf. It's one thing for gays to "marry" (negative) and another to impose on a greater community/state the requirement to recognize said union. The so-called "ban" on gay "marriage" was an invention by the politically correct media--not one of the so-called bans prohibited gay relationships; gay "marriages" were simply not recognized by the greater community. Gays have the right to persuade the greater community to adopt marriage-like standards for their relationships and have the freedom to migrate to a community providing for said recognition. But using the force of State to impose special-interest recognition is a direct violation of libertarian principles, and the hypocritical Cato Institute knows that.
Marriage is simply another contract under law. So why can't gays enter into a contract? And why can govt prevent the Unitarian church from marrying them without violating the 1st of the church?
No, marriage is a social construct, i.e., in the private-sector. Any consistent libertarian would never allow State intervention into the social context any more than in the economic context. The State should stay out of marriage, period. The community laws I was referencing simply reflected existing social norms.
If you read what I said, gays have the right of free association in their own communities. The issue is whether they can impose special interest recognition of said relationships on the greater community using the State monopoly of force. I argue this is, by definition, unacceptable. I said they could seek to persuade the greater community the special recognition of nontraditional relationships. If certain states/communities want to market themselves as gay friendly, fine, but only fascists/authoritarians would impose those values.
The last question is hopelessly muddled. I just got through explaining that negative liberties should be protected, including (if this is what you mean) the Unitarian Church voluntarily performing nontraditional "weddings" or if gays want to invent a gay god/religion and create their own tradition of "marriage". This is quite consistent with a libertarian context of live-and-let-live. It's quite a different thing to insist that the greater community recognize what the church does. There's a distinction between a qualification and a ban.
First, the state is involved in marriage. It is what it is. It became important due to property rights related issues as well as to define the contracts to prevent abusive relationships from hiding behind the contract to rationalize abuse, subjugation, etc. As a result, marriage as a contract IS addressed by the state as a contract. After all, with divorce rates, someone has to define the world after the contract ends for property rights for the couple.
Second, to the extent that government IS involved with marriage, then the sanctioning of gay marriage comes under their domain. It is pretty simple. It is a contract, and yes, government enforces contracts. When someone discriminates in contracts, then it falls under law. That is the pragmatic side of what is, not simply an academic discussion of what ought to be.
Third, I would love it if religions simply married and there was no need for government involvement. But that isn't reality and not likely to be reality anytime soon. So since reality has government sanctioning and determining what marriages count and what marriages don't... then since it is a contract, then they cannot discriminate against people for being gay from entering into that contract. Additionally, to use one religious view over the other (picking one religion over say the Unitarians) becomes a violation of the first amendment.
So let me know when banning gay marriage wins a major court case. And let me know when the Libertarian view of government gains a 30% support in the voting public.
Whether or not the State has intervened in the social context, it is NOT a libertarian position, and resolution of property issues does NOT require State intervention. In any event, gays are free to engage in property agreements without intervening in community standards on marriage.
A good point on applying the principle of Subsidiarity; I would like to see more of a move towards privitization.
(Independent Institute). Research Fellow Anthony Gregory: "It would appear that the biggest changes in American politics that arrive when one party displaces the other in power do not concern what the government actually does as much as what the populace thinks about what it does."
It SHOULD be about regulating our southern border, not playing the race card and guilt-tripping the public into bilingual, multicultural compliance.
No. It should be about abolishing archaic, counterproductive restrictive immigration policies that violate our Constitutional pro-liberty principles.
As a Catholic libertarian (whom personally thinks using recreational drugs is a stupid abuse of one's body), I'm troubled by the pope's embrace of a strong State. We spend far more on enforcement than helping people cope with their addictions. I don't have an issue with the Pope talking about the sinfulness of indulgence and being responsible with God's gift of life given one's free will, but given his current issues with the Mafia dealing with the underground economy, I think he would realize that State prohibitions make for obscene profits luring the criminal element, and a heavily imprisoned population in the land of the free hasn't eliminated supply or demand.
A Proud Uncle
I taught at the university level for 8 years, 5 of them as a full-time assistant professor, but never got a review like this comment to my niece, whom teaches elementary school:
[niece], by far you are the example of a true teacher. I have never had a teacher team up with me to teach my kids. I love how you respected me as a mother & never tried raising my kids...instead you allowed me to do the parenting while you focused on teaching. You have touched us. You became more than a teacher, you became family. My kids are smarter because of you. They love school because of you. They have college goals and they want to succeed. I would of never been able to lift their confidence without your help & guidance. We were more than lucky to have you in our lives. We were blessed. ..because YOU ARE A BLESSING! We are forever grateful.
Political Humor
The doctor said Obama passed his physical. That's the first thing he's passed in the second term. - David Letterman
The White House issued a press release, touting the latest success of ObamaCare.
Yesterday French President Francois Hollande announced that he will be having two consecutive dinners on Thursday night in order to keep President Obama and Vladimir Putin separate. It’s an old trick he learned from having a wife and a mistress. - Seth Meyers
You see, the trouble started when Putin asked Obama to pass the SALT.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Robert Ariail via Townhall |
Dan Fogelberg, "Part of the Plan"
