Glenn Greenwald Demonstrates Leniency in Describing Hillary Clinton

Glenn Greenwald is a class act. The man manages to find very polite ways to describe horrible people. Read his recent interview with GQ. In it he describes Hillary Clinton and demonstrates a level of professionalism that I couldn’t achieve if asked to describe that war criminal:

Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she’s been around forever, the Clinton circle. She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically. She’s surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere.

Only one f-bomb? That’s being extremely charitable with Hillary. After all Greenwald is describing the same woman who was downright giddy over the killing of Gadaff. Just look at the joy on her face. That’s pretty sick. But Greenwald also hits another nail on the head during his interview:

But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. It’s going to be this completely symbolic messaging that’s going to overshadow the fact that she’ll do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power. They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing.

I’m fairly certain his prediction is correct and Hillary will be the next president. Why? Because the Democratic Party has been fawning over her forever and the Republican Party is too incompetent to field a candidate that isn’t an equally horrific human being. And like racism with Obama, criticizing Hillary will end with accusations of misogyny (I’m going to criticize the every living fuck out of her anyways because I don’t give a damn about the opinions of her supporters).

Selling Rand Paul

Mondays are rough for blogging. The new cycle hasn’t ramped up to the weekly top speed so we’re left scraping the bottom of the barrel. In my quest to give you guys some content to read I’ve decided to go for the low hanging fruit of politics. Specifically the popular (in libertarian circles) political topic of Rand Paul.

Something has been bugging me about Rand’s supporters that I couldn’t quite figure out until now. Whenever Rand’s name is mentioned on a libertarian discussion board a handful of people always try to sell him. Any seemingly poor decision (poor in regards to libertarianism) made by Rand is justified as him needing to play the political game in order to generate neocon support that is necessary to win the presidency. When somebody expressed ideological differences with Rand one of his supporters invariably shows up to talk about how libertarians, whether aligned with Rand or not, must support Rand because he’s the only small government option on the board (it’s rather ironic that so-called libertarians feel that it’s appropriate to tell other people what they must do).

And this is what bugs me about Rand Paul’s supporters. In my experience if a politician has to be sold to an ideological group than that politician doesn’t support that group’s ideology.

In fact Rand’s supporters remind me of a sleazy used car salesman in a way. They approach you when you’re browsing their lot and point out a few cars that will supposedly fit you well. Listening to the salesman would lead you to believe that every car you’ve looked at is in excellent mechanical condition even if the body looks a little banged up. You’ll also be lead to believe that the previous owner (of which he assures you there was only one) was very strict about performing scheduled maintenance and drove like an old man. But when you run a CARFAX report you find that the vehicle was actually rebuilt after being totaled out due to an accident with a semi that pushed it into a river.

Like the used car salesman above, Rand’s supporters are being deceptive in the hopes of selling him to libertarians. The only part about this entire exercise that I don’t understand is why. Libertarians, unfortunately, make up a small percentage of Americans. A presidential candidate can easily win without their support. So why are Rand’s supporters investing so much time in trying to sell him? My guess is self-reassurance. If they can convince a majority of other libertarians that Rand Paul is in fact a super secret libertarian then his libertarian supporters can sleep well at night convinced that they are supporting a candidate who reflects their ideology. Either that or they’re just trolling the libertarian community, which would be hilarious.

Minnesota Legislature and Governor Dayton Strikes a Blow Against the Boys in Blue

The Minnesota legislature just struck a blow against our heroes in blue! With a swipe of his pen Governor Dayton has made it unlawful for police to keep confiscated property without a conviction:

In a big win for property rights and due process, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton signed a bill yesterday to curb an abusive—and little known—police practice called civil forfeiture. Unlike criminal forfeiture, under civil forfeiture someone does not have to be convicted of a crime, or even charged with one, to permanently lose his or her cash, car or home.

The newly signed legislation, SF 874, corrects that injustice. Now the government can only take property if it obtains a criminal conviction or its equivalent, like if a property owner pleads guilty to a crime or becomes an informant. The bill also shifts the burden of proof onto the government, where it rightfully belongs. Previously, if owners wanted to get their property back, they had to prove their property was not the instrument or proceeds of the charged drug crime. In other words, owners had to prove a negative in civil court. Being acquitted of the drug charge in criminal court did not matter to the forfeiture case in civil court.

Civil forfeiture is one of the best sources of police funding. By simply accusing an individual of wrongdoing the police could confiscate his or her property and sell it to fund their department. Now our boys in blue will be required to actually convict an accused individual in order to sell their property! It’s obvious what this will do to our fine state. Without profits from civil forfeiture the police departments won’t be able to afford as many guns, as much body armor, and an ever growing fleet of cruisers. How can we expect our heroes to keep up their record number of curb stompings, dog slayings, and no-knock raids at incorrect addresses if they can’t afford the equipment those jobs require? This is a travesty!

Sincerely,

Your friendly neighborhood statist.

War Criminal Claims American Gun Culture is Out of Balance

I’m still laughing about this:

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday the nation’s gun culture has gotten “way out of balance” and the U.S. needs to rein in the notion that “anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime.”

This coming from a war criminal. Talk about hilarious!

But few people are discussing the irony of a war criminal lambasting gun owners. Instead they’re talking about supporting whatever candidate the Republican Party runs against Hillary (because Hillary is almost certainly going to be the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate). The fear machine is already ramping up as I’ve started seeing comments on several gun forums that claim Hillary will be even worse than Obama. Although this will fall mostly on deaf ears I might as well make an attempt to point out the game being played. I again return to Noam Chomsky’s great quote about political debate:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate

Here in the United States the oligarchs have successfully narrow the spectrum of acceptable opinions to the point where only one opinion is truly acceptable. It doesn’t matter if you consider yourself a liberal or a conservative, if you play the Republican versus Democrat game you’re arguing in favor of the oligarchy. Within this narrow spectrum only a handful of issues are allowed to be debated. Gun rights, the legalities of abortion, how open the borders should be, whether we’ve always been at war with Eurasia or Eastasia, and so on. The trick is that all of these issues are very emotional for those who are invested. And those issues are almost always argued in a manner that insinuates that our rulers have a right to make decisions about what we can and cannot do.

So long as we all continue to fall for their tricks and play their game we’re never going to be free. Unfortunately the oligarchy is good at playing the game and know exactly what buttons to push to get the results they desire. By simply referring to the gun culture as being out of balance an army of gun owners are whipped up into a Republican frenzy and not even thinking about the prospects of a society devoid of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

A Real Minimum Wage Proposal

My biggest criticism of minimum wage laws are the people who proposed them. You can tell that those people don’t actually believe the bullshit they spew out. If they did they would propose major hikes in minimum wage instead of the incremental steps they always throw out. Thankfully we have Barbara Lee, a senator from California who believes in minimum wage laws and isn’t a pussy about it:

California Democratic congresswoman Barbara Lee expressed support for a $26 minimum wage in her state — a move Republican congressman Andy Harris encouraged, assuming jobs would rapidly flee California to his state of Maryland.

[…]

“Let me ask you this question, you’re a good advocate for this,” Gingrich asked Lee. “The mayor of Seattle is proposing that the minimum wage ought to go up to $15 an hour.”

“Good for him,” Lee responded. “In California — more than likely, from what I remembered — a living wage where people could live and take care of their families and move toward achieving the American dream was about $25, $26 an hour.”

“So would you support that as a minimum wage for California?” Gingrich asked.

“Absolutely I would support it for California. I think the regional factors –”

“And you don’t think that’d have an effect on unemployment?” Gingrich interrupted.

“No, Newt, trust me, believe you me,” Lee replied, “you’d have a more productive workforce, you’d have people who could afford to live in areas now where they cannot afford to live. You would increase diversity in certain communities where you don’t have diversity anymore. You would have economic parity and the income gap would begin to close.”

Finally! None of this $11 or $15 per hour nonsense. I think it’s time for everybody to finally put their money where their mouths are. If minimum wage laws are good for the economy, as many economically illiterate people claim it is, then they should demand a minimum wage that would put everybody into the middle class. That way poverty could be entirely eliminated.

Of course when economic reality hits everybody will be unemployed. Facing the decision between starvation or working in the “underground” economy most people choose the latter. Then we can finally see real markets in action instead of this coercive cronyism we suffer under now. So my desire to see an absurd minimum wage is not entirely without self-interest. As an agorist any restriction placed on the market by the state is a good thing because it pushes people into the “underground” economy, which deprives the state of authority and resources.

It’s My Least Favorite Time Again

It’s time again for yet another frivolous waste of everybody’s time. I am, of course, talking about the biennial political season. This year doesn’t involve a presidential election, which has an upside and a downside. The upside is that we aren’t being assaulted with wall-to-wall coverage of meaningless political drivel. The downside is that the people who involve themselves in off years become more annoying. They believe that the off years are the years where one can really make a difference. Since most of the politicos are supposedly sitting at home the people who show up can get politicians elected who will actually changed thing. Except the politicos aren’t sitting at home because politics is their one and only hobby. Political wannabe power players, the people who run local conventions and are well known in local political circles, never take a year off and they have enough influence locally to get their way every year.

But that doesn’t stop my more politically involved friends from calling, e-mailing, and messaging me on Facebook to beg me to show up to a local caucus, speech by their favored politician, or fundraiser. No matter how many times I explain to them that I’m not interested in politics they keep harassing me. They tell me that “This year is the most important year ever!” Yes, they tell me that every year. When I ask what’s in it for me (because I’m a self-interested bloke) they always try to feed me a line of bullshit that they think will convince me to stop doing whatever it is that I’m enjoying so I can go suffer through the mind numbing political process. As you can guess the most common reason given is that politician So-And-So is planning to take my guns so I must get out there and work for So-And-So’s opposition. Of course they usually leave the part out about So-And-So having a abject hatred of brown people in sandy regions, two men getting it on (they’re usually cool with two women getting it on but they would never tell you that), and people who want to keep secrets from the state. But I digress.

The point is I fucking hate this season. I hate the people running for office. I hate how people think they can make a meaningful difference through politics (trust me if you could it would be illegal). I hate how persistent my friends are no matter how clearly I state my hatred of politics. In fact I hate everything about the political season.

What I am about to write will almost certainly fall on deaf ears but I’m going to try anyways. I’m not going to help your pet politician. I don’t even like your pet politician. The fact that your pet politician is running for office already tells me everything I need to know about his or her moral character (which is to say he or she has no notable moral character). There are roughly 100 trillion other things I would rather do including watch paint dry, getting hit by a school bus that is on fire, or being locked in a five square foot cell with ravenous badgers (the number of badgers doesn’t matter).

Shot Down in Flames

Rand Paul has obvious aspirations of the presidency (everybody has dreams, some dreams are just stupid). Anybody who has researched presidential politics knows that becoming president requires one to kneel down and perform fellatio on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). For those of you who don’t know the AIPAC labels itself as America’s biggest Jewish lobby. In reality the group is America’s biggest pro-zionist lobby and not all Jews are zionists. But the point is you must appease the AIPAC to stand a realistic chance of attaining the presidency.

So Rand Paul decided to demonstrate his loyalty to it by presenting the Stand With Israel Act of 2014:

Sen. Rand Paul today introduced the Stand with Israel Act of 2014. This legislation halts all U.S. aid to the Palestinian government until they agree to a ceasefire and recognize the right of Israel to exist. The bill, S. 2265, can be found HERE and below:

“Today, I introduced legislation to make all future aid to the Palestinian government conditional upon the new unity government putting itself on the record recognizing the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state and agreeing to a lasting peace.”

Too bad for Rand but the AIPAC is having none of his shit:

While the legislation is expected to garner widespread backing in Congress, AIPAC is quietly expressing reservations about it, according to those familiar with the group’s position.

“We are not supporting the Paul bill,” said one AIPAC insider. “We believe the law currently on the books is strong and ensures that aid is contingent on key conditions that help maintain America’s influence, keep Israel secure, and advance the peace process.”

“I want to be very clear, AIPAC supports a cut off of aid to any Palestinian government that includes an unreformed Hamas, and this is what is provided for in current law,” the AIPAC insider said.

In other words it’s not fucking stupid. The United States already has a policy of not providing funding [PDF] to any organization in Palestine that could possibly be against Israel. You can’t buy off one of the most politically powerful lobbies in the United States by simply making something that is currently against policy more against policy.

I could point out how Rand Paul’s attempt at picking sides in a foreign conflict isn’t a libertarian thing to do. But commenters over at The Daily Paul reminded me Rand Paul’s “liberty” supporters will perform fantastic feats of mental gymnastics to explain away any of Rand’s anti-libertarian actions as part of his super secret plan to bring libertarianism to America. If that’s what Rand’s supporters want to believe so be it. But one thing is certain, if Rand doesn’t figure out how to play the game better he’s never even going to become president.

The Minnesota GOP Setting Itself Up to Fail Again

It’s nice to sit on the sidelines and observe the great political competitions as they play out. People often criticize those of us on the sidelines and claim that we’re not pulling our weight. But we see things from our vantage point that those playing the games do not. One example is the apparent inability of those playing for the Minnesota Republican Party (MNGOP) to see how ineffective their strategies are.

The MNGOP is currently putting its weight behind taking Al Franken’s seat. Considering Franken’s political track record this competition should be in the bag. Franken’s track record of supporting draconian intellectual property and Internet censorship laws and defending the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance apparatus should be enough ammunition to get young politicos fired up against him. At that point the MNGOP would only need to run a candidate who could stop himself from saying stupid shit in public, advocated Internet freedom, and demanded the abolition of the NSA to achieve victory.

But anybody with knowledge of Minnesota politics knows that the MNGOP can’t bring itself to use winning strategies. Instead one of the leading candidates for the MNGOP senate candidacy has decided to play the Democrat Party’s war on women strategy:

In a petition published on her Facebook page yesterday, Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Julianne Ortman says a recently released secret recording of Al Franken joking around in an Arizona driveway shows he “still doesn’t take women seriously.”

Here is the video in question:

Pro tip: never attempt to use your opponent’s strategy against them unless you actually understand it. The war on women strategy only works when the target has said something in a serious manner that makes him look misogynistic. It’s a strategy that works wonderfully against Republican candidates because they have a habit of saying very stupid shit in public. But Franken has never really said anything too misogynistic so using the strategy against him is foolish. In fact the video, which makes it obvious that Franken was trying to be comical, does more to humanize him than make him look misogynistic.

But the failboat doesn’t only dock at that harbor. Ortman also demonstrates that she’s not opposed to the NSA’s surveillance apparatus:

The FISA Court first was authorized in 1979 and operates in secret and ex parte (only the government gets to present its case). It makes sense that we don’t want our foreign enemies to know how we are gathering information to protect ourselves. However, I am deeply concerned that the court has migrated to granting orders authorizing the wholesale gathering of information about presumably innocent private citizens and residents of the United States under the guise of intelligence gathering against unnamed foreign threats. This is where there must be more transparency. To begin with, we should insist that the FISA Court’s analysis and legal justifications be reviewed and discussed publicly by policymakers, with the right of the general public to be heard and considered.

Justifying secret courts is something only a petty authoritarian would do. So that justification was the first mistake. The second mistake was asking for more transparency instead of complete abolition of the secret court. She could have said that the secret courts made sense at the time but now their time has passed and saved herself from looking like a complete authoritarian. But she chose to justify the establishment of the secret courts and then argue that they are still necessary but a little additional oversight would be nice. Franken’s campaign won’t be able to argue against secret courts due to its candidate support of the NSA surveillance apparatus. What it will be able to do is point out that Ortman also supports the NSA surveillance apparatus and render the issue irrelevant for the race.

To quote my friend, “This is why the GOP can’t have nice things.” The party is flailing in a desperate search for a life preserver. Franken’s seat would be pretty easy to snatch if the MNGOP would use an effective strategy. Instead it’s marketing a candidate who is little more than Fraken lite. I’m not aware of any races where an incumbent was removed from office by a candidate advertising him or herself as a lite version of the incumbent.

What’s even more pathetic is that the MNGOP will likely pull the same stupidity in the governor race. Mark Dayton has burned a lot of bridges and his seat could easily be taken but the MNGOP will likely run another lackluster candidate and use absolutely idiotic campaign strategies to ensure its defeat.

This is one hell of a game to observe but I sure am glad that I’m not playing it.

Road Discrimination

One of the most common comebacks statists have when talking to anarchists is to ask who will build the roads. The thought being that only a violent gang could possibly manage to build and maintain transportation infrastructure. Whenever the idea of privatizing road construction or allowing local communities to handle the task statists say that such systems would mean the rich would enjoy good roads while the poor would have shitty roads. Apparently they believe that the state provides quality infrastructure to all. In other words statists have never looked at Minneapolis:

Minneapolis City Hall has one of two problems: Either it intentionally fixes the potholes of rich, white people faster than the potholes of poor, minority people, or the data-collection system it uses to perform basic functions is asleep on the job.

The background: Last week, the Star Tribune relied upon city data to conclude that City Hall responds more quickly to pothole complaints in wealthier, whiter areas of the city. The Department of Public Works rejects any claim of bias, and instead has tried to downplay the discrepancy as representing “strictly a paperwork process” (“Minneapolis fixes potholes citywide,” April 8).

It’s funny watching the state squirm when somebody actually looks at what it does. I just wish the Department of Public Works would be honest and explain why they give preference to wealthier neighborhoods. Wealthier people tend to make larger campaign contributions to politicians. That being the case the politicians are going to favor the wealthy. The wealthy purchased their government fair and square but the government doesn’t want to admit it because it wants to maintain the facade that it represents all people equally.

The Republican Party Continues Its Downward Spiral Into Irrelevancy

It’s funny how people continue to tout the Republican Party (GOP) as a viable alternative to the Democratic Party. While the parties agree on every important political issue the GOP has been spiraling into irrelevancy for the last several decades. This downward spiral has gone mostly unnoticed until the last decade or so. But the signs of irrelevancy are all around us. Take, for example, the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA is at the top of the GOP’s hit list. That being the case you would think the GOP would be pouring everything it has into repealing the legislation. If it is then the GOP obviously doesn’t have much left because all that party has managed to do is lower its standards:

At the prodding of business organizations, House Republicans quietly secured a recent change in President Barack Obama’s health law to expand coverage choices, a striking, one-of-a-kind departure from dozens of high-decibel attempts to repeal or dismember it.

Democrats describe the change involving small-business coverage options as a straightforward improvement of the type they are eager to make, and Obama signed it into law. Republicans are loath to agree, given the strong sentiment among the rank and file that the only fix the law deserves is a burial.

“Maybe you say it helps (Obamacare), but it really helps the small businessman,” said Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., one of several physician-lawmakers among Republicans and an advocate of repeal.

We’ve gone from the GOP trying to repeal the legislation and replace it with the exact same thing (Romney’s “repeal and replace” slogan) to improving the law to sliding in minor updates and declaring them as victories (quietly of course since they still want to pretend that they want to repeal the law).

I think the GOP is learning a lesson many businesses have learned throughout history. One cannot compete by being exactly the same as your competitor. You must find a way to distinguish yourself whether it be from different products, lower prices, and better customer service. The GOP has become nothing more than the Democratic Party mixed with religion. Needless to say the American people seem less and less inclined to have a large and powerful government that is mixed with religion so they’re opting for just having a large and powerful government. This choice is making the GOP less relevant every year. I’d say this is also turning American into a one party political system but it already is one so nothing is really changing in that respect.