Rassmussen has the latest Florida poll averages out for the Republicans, and America’s Mayor has been relegated to third place. I say he’ll be lucky to hold on to that spot – the best thing he has going for him is that a good deal of the votes were cast in early balloting, and his slide might be ameliorated by the serendipitous timing……

The good news for Rudy? I hear the Victoria’s Secret spring line is going to be to die for.

Might I suggest a lavender heel, Mr. Mayor?

So it turns out that our fearless leader isn’t the only one who’s gone gaga over the doctrine of preemption.

Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, chief of the Russian general staff, said should Russia or any of its allies be substantially threatened, nuclear weapons could be part of a Russian armed response, RIA Novosti reported.

 

“We do not intend to attack anyone, but consider it necessary that all our partners clearly understand, and that no one has any doubts, that the armed forces will be used to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, including preventative action, and including the use of nuclear weapons,” the general said.

So while we’re busy threatening preemptive nuclear attack on Iran, it seems the Russians have really taken a shine to the concept.

If you’re a fan of the ‘War on Terror’, then this should be great news for you. Oh, wait – the Russians don’t see eye to eye with us on what constitutes a terrorist. They wouldn’t preemptively nuke us, or our allies, would they?

We hope not, of course. But this is more of the unintended consequences that Ron Paul has been talking about. We’ve pulled our finger out of the dike, and now preemptive nuclear strikes are on the table. What moral high ground do we claim to deny the Russians the same prerogatives we claim for ourselves?

The answer: There is none. We gave up any moral authority on the subject of invading countries who haven’t attacked us, and we’re on record claiming a right to use nukes in just such a scenario.

Congratulations, King George. You’ve unleashed the ‘Bush Doctrine – Russian style’, on the world.

Are we safer yet?

Rudy got thoroughly thumped by Ron Paul again…… and I believe that smell is his decomposing corpse somewhere down in the sunshine state.

One has to wonder if this is what has done his campaign in:

It just might be, but I suspect that it might have even more to do with this:

I had wanted to write about economics today, but I suppose there is plenty of doom and gloom in the big media. Not that there aren’t good fundamental reasons for it – I just decided I’d go a little different direction.

As a long-time libertarian and Ron Paul supporter, I’ve grown accustomed to being called idealistic to a fault and labeled as basically dismissive of opposing points of view. I’d say I’m guilty, and don’t intend to change anytime soon. So why do professing libertarians tend to be this way? Why are we intellectually intolerant of competing worldviews? Good questions that deserve a stab at an answer.

Libertarians necessarily view the world idealistically, and give little weight to pragmatic arguments that don’t comport with our basic belief that no one has the right to run the life of anyone else. This is the core of libertarianism, and any deviation represents (to us) a moral infraction.

The indignation you see from libertarians on the subject of taxation (that can come across as being rigid and inflexible) is rooted in that basic premise. The most basic right among natural rights (beyond the right of each to their existence) is the right of property. This right is seen as inviolable, in that I have no morally compelling reason to appropriate the belongings of my neighbor without his consent. It doesn’t matter that I might deem that I could use his belongings more efficiently, or that I might think him undeserving of his property. The inverse is also true, that my neighbor cannot morally lay claim to any portion of my own labors. This is the golden rule in action.

The immoral act, according to libertarians, does not become less immoral as a groundswell develops in favor of confiscating my neighbor’s belongings. Let’s see how that works.

To the scenario detailed above, we add a third neighbor, who agrees with me that our neighbor has more wealth than he deserves, and is not using it wisely. We now have a majority. Does it become moral for us to appropriate his belongings for the ‘common good’ – as determined by those doing the appropriating ? If the wealthier neighbor disagrees with our determination, is there any manner by which we can affect such confiscation without employing force or the threat of force? If he resists, is forcibly taking his belongings justified?

If your answer to those questions is no, you just might be a libertarian too.

To be certain, society is more intricate and complex than interactions between me and my neighbors. The pertinent question becomes – How big does the clamoring mob have to be before theft stops being theft and becomes good government? Is adding a third neighbor on the side of seizure enough? The entire neighborhood? The whole city?

To the libertarian, there is not a quorum so large that it ever becomes moral to steal the rightful property, fairly earned by their labors, of any individual. Any suggestion that there is a point at which the would-be plunderers of his wealth gain a moral imperative for the theft is in direct contravention of the libertarian’s understanding of morality.

If you don’t share our outlook on this subject, you might be able to gain insight into our viewpoint with an analogy. Most human beings find rape to be an evil without excuse or redeeming trait – correctly, of course. If a particular isolated town has 500 men and only 50 women, these are obviously ripe conditions for social unrest. Only 10% of the men can have their primal needs met (assuming a traditional, one-man-one-woman paradigm). The same principle of scarcity that existed when we were talking about my neighbor’s belongings is in play in this analogue. Is there ever a point at which the needs of the majority (by my count, the 450 men left to ‘fend for themselves’) become more important than protecting the rights of the other 100 people (50 men and 50 women) who have entered into voluntary association with one another? Does a majority vote render the social proscriptions against forcibly appropriating the body of another person less relevant? Does the vote of the 450 relegate the rights of those 50 women null and void in the pursuit of the common good?

My answer is a resounding no, whether the right at issue is that of those 50 women to be free from physical violation or of my neighbor to dispose of his wealth as he alone sees fit. Rationalizing can make both instances of popular immorality expedient; but there is no amount of rationalizing that can ever render the actions moral.

It is from this basic concept that all libertarian thinking emanates. To a libertarian, the arguments are equivalent. Understand this and you will have a much better frame of reference for understanding the perception that libertarians are intolerant of opposing viewpoints – just as the reader is likely a libertarian on the subject of rape, and intolerant of the pro-rape arguments. Are you ever asked to defend your ‘rigid, inflexible’ positions for opposing relativistic arguments justifying rape?

Beyond the philosophical argument, it is tough to deny that collectivist policies do not generally comport with a free society.

This video certainly isn’t new to the assembled Paul backers, but I simply wanted to have quick access to a URL of the video for easy dissemination.

Whether you love or hate Ron Paul (or still aren’t sure who that is) , every American should be offended at a news organization unilaterally deciding who is a serious candidate and what ideas are worth considering.

For the contextual understanding of those not familiar with this situation, this is from the South Carolina debate held on January 9. The previous week, Fox News held a candidate forum (their euphemism for a debate without lecterns) in New Hampshire, and Ron Paul was not included. That in spite of the fact that he was fresh off a 10% showing in Iowa – resoundingly beating the included Rudy Giuliani (3.5%) – and in New Hampshire was polling well ahead of Da Maya and Fred Thompson (also invited), and close to the Iowa winner Mike Huckabee. Objective criteria could have been cited to limit the debate to just the top 3 (McCain, Romney and Huckabee), but not for the configuration that was invited. Fox didn’t even feign that objective criteria was employed in determining the invitees. They alone decided to invite those they deemed as ‘electable’.

After having it crammed down their throats, Fox invited Paul to the SC debate. Obviously, there was a bad taste in their mouth over the fallout from excluding Paul in the forum. In addition to jeers from Paulites, their competitors repeatedly noted the arrogance of Fox to exclude a candidate who had pulled in 10% of the votes in Iowa based on their own judgment of what constitutes ‘electability’. Even Shepherd Smith and Greta Van Sustern (two of Fox’s bigger names) lobbied for Paul’s inclusion in the forum, to no avail.

For Mr. Cameron and the rest of the motley gang at Fox, I have a better question.

“Mr. Cameron – on the subject of credibility – Do you have any, sir?”

To the readers of my spurts of random rambling posts – I apologize in advance.

You may find my writing style amusing. Endearing even. You might just as easily find it pedestrian and laborious to read. Call this my disclaimer.

I have the unfortunate habit of abusing punctuation. I writes like I talks…. and punctuation is just one of what’s bound to be many casualties among accepted conventions regarding the English language. I haven’t picked up an AP stylebook in about 10 years, and don’t intend to pick one up for at least another 10.

I tend to write in the first person, but can turn on a dime as the mood hits me. I really don’t do it just to confuse readers, and I do try and refrain from changing in mid-graph. I did say try, and I do apologize should you be among those that find navigating my regular bastardization of the language a painful experience.

My submissions contain my thoughts at a moment in time. They will most certainly probe at the periphery of what is acceptable, meaning that the subject matter may be objectionable to some people. There may be frank language at times, though I certainly try to refrain from waxing scatalogical. My standard soliloquy will not be carefully constructed prose – it will be off the cuff and raw and may be offensive in the opinion of those with agendas or a persecution complex.

I am not a rascist/sexist and I refuse to engage in doublethink to avoid being tagged as either by agenda driven race-baiters or their simpleton partisans. I do not feel the need to be “inclusive”, “balanced”, “fair” or otherwise beholden to any other person’s idea of intellectual honesty or moral propriety. I believe in right and wrong as objectively knowable, and write with the conviction of being one that is right. When I change my opinion about a matter I am not afraid to say so, and I will always make a point of admitting when I have been shown to be wrong.

I am a deeply committed Christian, but I don’t readily identify with what passes for modern Christianity. This collection of writings will not generally be about my religious insights, and I offer it only as a further glipmse into my perspective so you can add to your prejudices about what you can expect. Do not make the mistake of thinking that I won’t be irreverant or mocking (of religions or other “sacred cows”) simply because I am “religious”.

I don’t like to be told what I can think or say, and I have a tendency to say things that I haven’t completely vetted the logic on – a kind of free association. I’m just following the logical process in the direction my brain takes it. It’s not always a pretty process.I don’t want people I don’t agree with to be silenced. I want everyone to be able to say anything they want to say. If it is racist or sexist or homophobic or incendiary or hateful – whatever other derisive term you might lablel a person’s thoughts and beliefs that you find repugnant – SO WHAT. Get a sense of humor. Remember what your grandma told you about sticks and stones. Whatever it takes to keep your world spinning in light of the realization that some people will disagree with you. Some people will not like you because of characteristics you have over which you may or may not have control. People will make generalizations that you will disagree with, and you will be incorrectly or unfairly judged based on prejudices of virtually every other person with whom you come in contact on this planet. People will say things that are offensive, off-handedly or by design, and you must find a way to go on. Do not abdicate the responsibility of free people to always strive to remain free for the convenience of not being bothered with opinions you find objectionable or with which you simply disagree. I believe whole-heartedly in the golden rule – and I don’t want people I disagree with to be silenced.

If you are uneasy with the sketchy parameters I’ve laid out about my future efforts, I advise discretion on your part. If you are easily offended, don’t like to have your opinions challenged or are otherwise wedded to popular orthodoxy, you should heed this warning: You will be offended, your opinions will be challenged and I will linguistically urinate on the rotting corpse of any notions of popular orthodoxy. Consider yourself warned.Winston