Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Two Parties


There are two political parties in the United States. They are the Libertarian Party and the Anti-Libertarian Party.

The Anti-Libertarian Party is the party of war and meddles with the world to preserve the balance of power. The Libertarian Party is the party of peace and follows the advice of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson advocating avoidance of entangling alliances.

The Anti-Libertarian Party is the party of monarchy. Libertarians are enemies of monarchy.

The Anti-Libertarian Party is the party of the affluent, using corporate welfare and manipulation of the money supply to control markets and power not controlled through war. The Libertarian Party will hold these thieves responsible.

Anti-Libertarians have displayed a hatred and distrust of the people by campaigning one way and voting the opposite. Libertarians are appealing to the people through reason and will govern with principle.

Anti-Libertarians have increased the public debt and taxes. Libertarians favor reduction of both taxes and public debt.

Anti-Libertarians are using the "Patriot Act" and a political supreme Court to invade and sometimes take homes in violation of the U.S. Constitution and many State Constitutions. Libertarians support the Constitutions of the United States and the rights of the Citizens of the States.

Anti-Libertarians favor an established church (from Christian Crusader to Secular Humanist). Libertarians favor religious freedom with no government support.

This contrast is not an original idea. The wording is similar to what one paper used for the election of 1800. It can be found in the book "Adams vs. Jefferson The Tumultuous Election of 1800" by John Ferling (2004).

It is time for Citizens to pay attention to what is taking place around them. Like the 1790s, we must soon choose between freedom and oppression.

By Ed Gluck, LPVC Chair

Wisdom of Crowds

Four Conditions
In a review of the book "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki, Ilya Somin writes,

Surowiecki argues that “four conditions characterize wise crowds: diversity of opinion (each person should have some private information, even if it’s just an eccentric interpretation of known facts), independence (people’s opinions are not determined by the opinions of those around them), decentralization (people are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge), and aggregation (some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision”

Notice the libertarian conditions needed for wise crowds.

The review mentions problems with voter ignorance over the last 50 years, but that leaves much for us to solve. Wisdom is much easier noticed in the free market because buyers spend much time investigating. Voting is more like children yelling for the latest sugared cereal they see advertised while watching cartoons. This analogy comes too close to home when we consider the cartoonishness of today's "news" programs.

Monday, February 06, 2006

Eminent Domain Within Reason

I offer this Reason piece with suggestions for State and Municipal Governments to halt eminent domain abuses.

CIA and Drug Trafficking?

The CIA has an interesting website. At one time they had across their homepage “It has not been proved that the CIA has ever dealt in drugs.” It no longer has this disclaimer anywhere that I can find. I have always said that the CIA should put on there, “To Ed Gluck’s satisfaction it has been proved that the CIA has been involved in drug trafficking.”

This stuff is disappearing. Perhaps the CIA knows where the info is.

Serendipity has some good information.


Plan "A" preceded Plan "B"

In the late 1980's the U.S. Military could be heard on Public radio (NPR) saying we must transform our military into a releif organization with the end of the cold war. Here is a story by someone catching on to plan "A". We are obviously well into our plan "B" of hot wars, sometimes on "Terrorism". Most Americans as of this writing like plan "B".


[An earlier version of this essay appeared in _Z_ magazine, Feb. 1993. This version was revised in November 1993.]

Imagine that in a house down the block someone is behaving in a way that you do not approve of. Surely it would not normally be right for you to break down the door, storm in, and try to set things straight. On the other hand, suppose the behavior in question were truly horrendous: for example, a child has been tied up in the basement and deprived of food. Suppose further that you had called the Division of Youth Services and the police, and for some reason they were unwilling or unable to act. In this case, it would certainly be proper for you to put aside any concern for principles like "the sanctity of the home" and to intervene, forcibly if necessary.
Many Americans saw the situation in Somalia in late 1992 as analogous to this hypothetical example. Generally, a country's sovereignty should be respected and one should not intervene in its internal affairs; on rare occasions, however, the situation will be so monstrous that basic humanitarianism will require that the principle of non-intervention be set aside. According to many, the massive starvation going on in Somalia was one of those horrific occasions where intervention was justified, and the dispatch of the U.S. Marines was a welcome and necessary means for saving large numbers of lives.
But consider another hypothetical case. Imagine that there's a house in which a parent regularly abuses a child. Mr. Moneybags, the richest man in town, has often stopped by the house, had a drink or two with the parent, and even provided a pair of brass knuckles. Some neighbors try to get a Youth Services worker or the police to visit the house, but the town's upper class, led by Mr. Moneybags, has made sure that taxes are so low that these agencies are understaffed and unable to act. In the meantime, Mr. Moneybags has a retinue of bodyguards who have been routinely harassing the town's citizens. A few brave voices begin to question whether armed thugs ought to be allowed to roam the streets. At this point, Mr. Moneybags volunteers to send some of his "boys" to the house to prevent child abuse.
In this situation, we might reluctantly indicate our support for Mr. Moneybags's thugs going to the house, believing that it's the only way the battered child is going to survive. But our praise for Mr. Moneybags would surely be muted. He helped create the terrible situation and he blocked all alternative ways of dealing with the situation that didn't at the same time serve his interest by enhancing the reputation of his thugs.
It is this second hypothetical example that I will argue is the real analogy to what has gone on in Somalia. In making this argument, I will replace the simple question, "Should U.S. Marines have been sent to Somalia?" with two separate questions: One, "why did the United States send troops to Somalia?" And, two -- logically distinct from the first -- "Did the Marines help or hurt the Somali people?"

"Media Center" should be shut down

Why don't U.S. reps. say anything? Ed

December 10, 2005
Military's Information War Is Vast and Often Secretive
Military's Information War Is Vast and Often Secretive - New York Times
By JEFF GERTHPublished: December 11, 2005
The media center in Fayetteville, N.C., would be the envy of any global communications company.
In state of the art studios, producers prepare the daily mix of music and news for the group's radio stations or spots for friendly television outlets. Writers putting out newspapers and magazines in Baghdad and Kabul converse via teleconferences. Mobile trailers with high-tech gear are parked outside, ready for the next crisis.
The center is not part of a news organization, but a military operation, and those writers and producers are soldiers. The 1,200-strong psychological operations unit based at Fort Bragg turns out what its officers call "truthful messages" to support the United States government's objectives, though its commander acknowledges that those stories are one-sided and their American sponsorship is hidden.
"We call our stuff information and the enemy's propaganda," said Col. Jack N. Summe, then the commander of the Fourth Psychological Operations Group, during a tour in June. Even in the Pentagon, "some public affairs professionals see us unfavorably," and inaccurately, he said, as "lying, dirty tricksters."
The recent disclosures that a Pentagon contractor in Iraq paid newspapers to print "good news" articles written by American soldiers prompted an outcry in Washington, where members of Congress said the practice undermined American credibility and top military and White House officials disavowed any knowledge of it. President Bush was described by Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser, as "very troubled" about the matter. The Pentagon is investigating.
But the work of the contractor, the Lincoln Group, was not a rogue operation. Hoping to counter anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world, the Bush administration has been conducting an information war that is extensive, costly and often hidden, according to documents and interviews with contractors, government officials and military personnel.
The campaign was begun by the White House, which set up a secret panel soon after the Sept. 11 attacks to coordinate information operations by the Pentagon, other government agencies and private contractors.


Sunday, February 05, 2006

Before We Head Into Iran...

On Second Thought…
In Friday’s PBS program “NOW”, David Brancaccio interviewed Larry Wilkerson. If you were undecided on whether Iraq had WMDs before the “war” then you should read this interview. This flies in the face of a new book out by a General Sada saying the WMDs were sent to Syria after 2000. Neither the article in the “Sun” nor description of the book explains that he is a Kurd. Brian Lamb interviewed General Sada and asked him a few days ago on c-span. (I believe the Kurds are in on scamming the U.S. citizens.)

This false evidence still does not refute the contention by Scott Ritter that Iraq got rid of its WMD by 1999. In “Iraq Confidential”, Ritter points out the U.S. government should not always be trusted. This is worth reading the front and back portions. (It’s a little boring in the middle.) It is available in the Vigo County Library.

Bin Laden Says…
The book Bin Laden recommended, “Rogue State” by William Blum can help tie things together. Wilkerson gives an example of “bad” intelligence being the attack on the China embassy in Yugoslavia. Blum explains that the U.S. took out Yugoslavia’s electronics and China was feeding them positions until….

Blum also gives some history of the Kurds without calling Kissinger a war criminal.

Although the Blum information can be gotten elsewhere, it is important to know it was translated into Arabic, therefore, the Bin Laden recommendation. That’s 700,000,000 or so people with the ability to understand what we are doing.

Much of this information is necessary to seeing the truth. The Glaspie conversation with Saddam in 1990 is as important for understanding the first Gulf War.

Who Profits?
People will buy into the Sada lies, bringing more killing of U.S. soldiers and more profits for the corporations in on the great scam. The paper evidently can’t or won’t print my articles explaining who profits so here are a few names: Halliburton (KBR), Fluor, Bechtel, Raytheon, Baker Hughes, Louis Berger, Parsons, and the Carlyle Group (John Major on the Board of that one).

Aaron Russo
My man Aaron Russo, who I supported in the Libertarian battle to run for President, has put out a new film, “America: From Freedom to Fascism” prescreened January 28 and due out this summer. “The ending contained a call to action that Russo promised will be significantly enhanced in the final edition.” Libertarians, he will be calling to you.

Friday, February 03, 2006

'Marlboro Man' Turns Against War He Symbolised

From www.Truthout.com:

By Andrew Buncombe The Independent UK
Thursday 02 February 2006
A cigarette hung from his mouth in the manner of John Wayne or Humphrey Bogart, his grime-covered face showed the exhaustion of battle.
This image of US Marine Lance-Corporal Blake Miller, taken during the battle of Fallujah, instantly captured the public imagination and for a while he was known simply as Marlboro Man.
But 15 month after that photograph appeared in more than 100 US newspapers, the 21-year-old is back from Iraq, back on civvy street and he is talking about the trauma of what he experienced and the scars he still bears, physical and mental. The once unquestioning Marine is now also questioning whether US forces should be in Iraq.
The mental health experts who are treating him call his condition post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but Mr Miller describes it in more immediate language: nightmares, sleeplessness and periods when he will "blank out", not knowing where he is or what he is doing. "I could tell you stories about Iraq that would make the hair stand up on the back of your neck," he said. "And I could tell you things that were great over there. But that would still not tell you what it was actually like. You had to be there and go through it to really understand."
Mr Miller is not alone. The federal Veterans Affairs (VA) department revealed last week that up to a third of US troops returning from Iraq or Afghanistan - about 40,000 - suffer mental health problems. It is to spend an extra $29m (£16.3m) on troops who have PTSD. Days ago, The Independent reported the suicide of another veteran of the Iraq war, Doug Barber, a National Guardsman who took his life after struggling with his experiences of the war after he returned to civilian life.
Mr Miller, who received an honourable discharge last November after military psychologists decided he would be a threat to himself or his colleagues if he continued to serve, said there remained a stigma about mental health issues. He told Knight Ridder Newspapers: "I want people to know that PTSD is not something people come down with because they are crazy. It's an anxiety disorder, where you've experienced something so traumatic that you're close to death." Mr Miller's photograph was taken in November 2004 during the battle for Fallujah, the insurgent stronghold. The two-week operation resulted in the deaths of up to 50 US troops, an estimated 1,200 insurgents and an unknown number of civilians.
The former Marine says he now questions the US tactics and believes troops should have been withdrawn some time ago. He said: "When I was in the service my opinion was whatever the Commander-in-Chief's opinion was. But after I got out, I started to think about it. The biggest question I have now is how you can make a war on an entire country when a certain group from that country is practising terrorism against you. It's as if a gang from New York went to Iraq and blew some stuff up and Iraq started a war against us because of that."
Mr Miller's image was captured by the Los Angeles Times photographer Luis Sinco. At the time, he smoked five packs a day. Now, recently married and looking to make a fresh start, he has cut down to just one.

Day the World Changed

The world changed in two respects on 3/19/03 and this morning I spent too much time remembering the second one. So the time has come to write them down. First you'll notice that 9/11/01 was pretty much a day like any other.

Big Changes:

1) After 3/19/03 all nations without WMD must get them or face a war crime invasion by the United States.

2) The Machiavelli rule that nation states "go with the big dog no matter what" stays the same. What changed is that as of 3/19/03 many Nation States no longer see the U.S. as the Big Dog. These include, China, Russia, (and probably the rest of BRIC - Brazil and India), Germany and France.

I await comments on whether this is good or bad.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Google in China

Sent to Max at Tribune-Star.

After learning of the Hamas victory in Palestine, I Googled to find information concerning how much U.S. money was spent to defeat Hamas. A Washington Post article contained this:

“The plan's $2 million budget, although a tiny fraction of USAID's work here, is likely more than what any Palestinian party will have spent by election day. A media consultant for Hamas said the organization would likely spend less than $1 million on its campaign.”

Valuable information like this, (and much more) accessible through Google, explains why Libertarians like myself support the restricted presence of Google in China.