Friday, January 13, 2012
The GOP field: theocracy, minocracy, Newtocracy & ambiguocracy
The GOP field: theocracy, minocracy, Newtocracy & ambiguocracy
By: A. Barton Hinkle | Richmond Times-Dispatch
Published: January 13, 2012
Remember when pundits accused the GOP of abandoning its big tent the one big enough to include a broad diversity of views? You can kiss that meme goodbye. This year's presidential candidates span the political spectrum. They are both pro-abortion and anti-abortion. They have both embraced and opposed bans on assault weapons. They have both accepted and rejected the idea of human-induced climate change, both promoted and derided a government takeover of health care, supported both amnesty for illegal aliens and building a giant wall on the border.
And that's just Mitt Romney. We haven't even touched on the rest of the field yet.
Jokes aside, the GOP campaign really does present voters with sharp contrasts. Take Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.
Santorum, the paladin of the religious right, opposes not only abortion but also birth control. ("Many of the Christian faith have said . . . contraception is OK," he said in October. "It's not OK. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.") His views on homosexuality are simian. His economic platform is a mix of protectionism, tax-code social engineering, and industrial policy. His foreign-policy views are straight out of the GOP hawk's nest. He is, as Paul observed during a debate in New Hampshire, a "big-government conservative."
And proud of it: In 2006 Santorum told NPR, "One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarian-ish right. … This whole idea of personal autonomy, well, I don't think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want." That was not Santorum's view then, and it certainly isn't now: In July he said he would "fight very strongly against libertarian influence" within the GOP.
Paul, who once ran on the Libertarian Party ticket, has built his entire political career around "this whole idea of personal autonomy." As a minarchist -- someone who believes in minimal government -- he would call off the war on drugs, slash government spending, eliminate five Cabinet departments, and allow states to legalize prostitution and recognize gay marriages. His foreign-policy views are isolationist [actually, non-interventionist which is quite different] -- one staffer claims Paul opposed even the war in Afghanistan, although he ultimately voted for it. Paul supports gun rights and home schooling. (He falls short of perfect consistency on immigration, where he sounds like a Michele Bachmann wannabe.)
Between those two extremes lie Newt Gingrich and Romney. Gingrich's ideological core seems to be an abiding belief in his own historical greatness. Romney's core is pragmatism. He is the apotheosis of git-er-done business acumen: If it works, use it; if it doesn't, fix it; if you can't, drop it.
Pragmatism may be America's most important contribution to philosophy, and there are many things to be said for the approach. Romney's record as a rescuer of the Olympic Games underscores one of them. What's more, the pragmatist is open to evidence. He can be persuaded by logic. He is not going to conduct a reign of terror against ideological deviationists and other Enemies of the People. Unlike the ideologue, the pragmatist is never in danger of believing that while certain notions might work well in practice, they are useless in theory. A little more pragmatism during the 20th century might have saved a few million lives.
There are also several things to say against the pragmatic approach. First, there are often several practical solutions, and pragmatism can't easily decide among them. Keynes and Friedman both offer compelling advice on economic crises. Whose do you take? Second, pragmatic solutions to certain problems can create others. Illegal drug use is a problem. Universal drug testing would be a pragmatic solution, but it would not be the right one.
Third, and most important, before you can decide the best way to do something you have to know what you want to do. And pragmatism offers little guidance on many profound questions such as gay marriage, the rights of embryonic life, the right to collective bargaining, or the morally just degree of income redistribution in a market economy.
It's possible that when Romney tells different audiences different things about the same topic, he is simply taking a very pragmatic approach to getting elected. But it also is possible that he gives contradictory answers about which way he would lead the country because, deep down, he simply doesn't know.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2012/jan/13/tdopin02-the-gop-field-theocracy-minocracy-newtocr-ar-1607429/
Opposing Imperialism Is Not Isolationism
Opposing Imperialism Is Not Isolationism
by Sheldon Richman, January 12, 2012
When pundits and rival politicians call Ron Paul an "isolationist," they mislead the American people and they know it.
They know it? How could they not: Ron Paul is for unilateral, unconditional free trade. He believes any American should be perfectly free to buy from or sell to any person in the world. In that sense the laissez-faire sense he favors globalization, which, applied consistently, would require a worldwide free market. He's such a strong advocate of free trade that he objects to the world's governments, led by the U.S. government, setting up international bureaucracies, such as the World Trade Organization, to manage trade. He thinks trade should be a totally private matter. That's a solid classical-liberal, or libertarian, position.
So why is Paul repeatedly called an isolationist?
Apparently in today's political world, being an isolationist means opposing the U.S. government's policing the rest of the world through invasion, occupation, and war that is, militarism. The word "isolationist" has always suggested a fear of foreigners, and no doubt those who apply the word to Paul want to cash in on that sense. So we are left with the daffy conclusion that Ron Paul is a xenophobic, head-in-the-sand isolationist precisely because he prefers peaceful trade with foreigners rather than invasion, occupation, and demolition of their countries.
If that's what it means to be an isolationist, count me as one too.
It's easy to understand why this inappropriate label is stuck on Paul. Establishment conservatives and progressives are terrified by him and desperately want him to go away. They're terrified because he has done the worst thing imaginable: he has held up a mirror and reminded them of what they are.
He has shown establishment conservatives and even so-called Republican moderates (such as Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman) that they are, and long have been, apologists for empire and therefore betrayers of the republican (small-r) ideals they say they embrace. When Paul condemns past, present, and future aggressive wars (such as the one being planned for Iran); when he calls for closing America's 900 military installations in over 40 countries and removing America's troops from 130 countries; when he advocates an end to all economic and military aid to foreign governments (including Israel's); and when he opposes wholesale violation of the Bill of Rights (see the PATRIOT Act and the National Defense Authorization Act), he is saying to his Republican rivals, You have helped destroy individual liberty by shamefully supporting the U.S. global empire, which brutalizes foreign populations, fosters an exploitative military-industrial complex, violates civil liberties, and burdens the American people with obscene debt, taxation, and Federal Reserve monetary manipulation.
That charge must be hard to take from a fellow Republican. So his rivals strike back in the way they know best: they smear Paul. The thought of a consistent antiwar, pro-Bill of Rights candidate running against Barack Obama scares the daylights out of them, because they know only one way to run against a Democrat: accuse him of being an appeaser and a socialist.
This is absurd, however, because Obama is neither. He has steadfastly carried on the empire's program of global militarism and corporatism. If you doubt it, look at his foreign-policy record and the long list of Wall Street people who advise him and give him money.
Which brings us to the progressives. If you think establishment conservatives are scared of Ron Paul, imagine how Obama and his supporters must feel. Can you imagine their having to run against a consistent antiwar, pro-Bill of Rights opponent? This is the same Obama who has maintained Guantanamo, launched more deadly drone attacks than George W. Bush, signed into law the authority to detain individuals indefinitely without charge or trial, claimed he may kill even American citizens without due process, cracked down harshly on whistle-blowers, protected torturers from legal consequences, invoked state secrets to quash lawsuits by torture victims, and on and on.
Most progressives live in a fantasy world where they are champions of peace, tolerance, and the rule of law, when in fact they support and refuse to criticize a man who has mimicked George W. Bush in virtually every way.
How can they tolerate a man Ron Paul who reminds them of that?
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1201h.asp
Gingrich, the Historian, Says Washington and Jefferson Would Have Violently Suppressed Their Own Crops
Gingrich, the Historian, Says Washington and Jefferson Would Have Violently Suppressed Their Own Crops
Jacob Sullum | January 4, 2012
This morning Newt Gingrich, the historian, insisted that renowned hemp growers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have violently suppressed their own crop:
- Dude in Audience: Would Jefferson or George Washington have been arrested for growing marijuana?
- Gingrich: I think Jefferson or George Washington would have strongly discouraged you from growing marijuana, and their techniques for dealing with it would have been rather more violent than the current government.
- Gingrich: I think Jefferson or George Washington would have strongly discouraged you from growing marijuana, and their techniques for dealing with it would have been rather more violent than the current government.
- The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others....Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2bf9Yb23jQ&feature=player_embedded
http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/04/gingrich-the-historian-says-washington-a
Re: So Misunderstood.....Ron Paul Continues Assault On The Media
"Some don't forget" what?
That ABC is purportedly a Jewish network? That Dana Bash allegedly showed some type of bias against Ron Paul? That Dana Bash is married to Jeremy Bash?
More clear cut examples of Ron Paul supporters who continue to stay misinformed, continue to stay focused on misinformation, but nevertheless continue to spread their misinformed views on others, treating their misinformation as somehow being gospel, and clinging to the misinformation as the truth.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:13 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, Revolution PAC, a super PAC supporting Paul's candidacy,---
called
on CNN to remove Bash from covering the campaign.
as they should ... she's another jew who is flagrantly anti-RP.
Bash said during a CNN report that she was worried that the Ron Paul
campaign continuing into the summer, and that he could "hurt whomever
the Republican nominee is." Revolution PAC alleged this showed bias
against Paul.
Bash's father is a producer for the jewish network ABC and her husband
is Jeremy B. Bash, the Chief of Staff to Leon Panetta, the Secretary
of Defense.
some don't forget
On Jan 12, 7:34 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Ron Paul continues assault on the media*
> **
> Dyland Stableford
> 01.11.2011
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/ron-paul-continues-assault-media-...
> CrazyUncleRon.1.jpg>
> Fresh off his second place finish in the New Hampshire primary, Ron Paul
> still found reasons to criticize the media's coverage of his presidential
> campaign.
>
> "You know, it's pretty amazing how sometimes if you're in second place,
> they talk about the first and the third place," Paul told supporters at a
> campaign stop in West Columbia, S.C. on Wednesday. "But last night was a
> little different--they had a little harder time avoiding the real
> conversation."
>
> And during another speech in New Hampshire late Tuesday, the 76-year-old
> Texas Republican zinged the media even more.
>
> "There was one other acknowledgment I wanted to make," Paul said after
> thanking his family and assorted campaign staffers. "I wanted to thank the
> Union Leader for not endorsing me."
>
> He continued:
>
> We don't always get the coverage or the interest shown on what--what is
> going on, because if they did, they wouldn't--they wouldn't be ignoring so
> much of what we're doing. But, you know, I find it sort of fascinating when
> they finally get around--and this is different people, it could be in the
> media, could be our opponents, or whatever--but I sort of have to chuckle
> when they describe you and me as being "dangerous." That's one thing they
> are telling the truth, because we are dangerous to the status quo of this
> country.
>
> The media hasn't exactly been ignoring Paul. On Sunday, Paul was forced to cut
> a campaign visit to a New Hampshire diner short after a mob of more than
> 100 reporters descended on the breakfast stop.
>
> "We ask the press, at all upcoming events over the next day and a half, to
> be respectful of both Dr. Paul and of New Hampshire voters, who are
> entitled to examine their candidates in a safe and responsible atmosphere,"
> Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign manager, said in a statement.
>
> Later the same day, CNN's Dana Bash asked Paul about cutting out early from
> the morning's event. Paul blamed the press, and walked off, cutting the
> interview with CNN short. "This is junk," Benton said. "We're stopping."
>
> On Tuesday, Revolution PAC, a super PAC supporting Paul's candidacy, called
> on CNN to remove Bash from covering the campaign.
>
> 36KViewDownload
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Fwd: [I-S] DHS' X-ray scanners could be cancer risk to border crossers | Privacy Inc. - CNET News
---------
Subject: [I-S] DHS' X-ray scanners could be cancer risk to border crossers | Privacy Inc. - CNET News
To: individual-sovereignty@yahoogroups.com
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57358146-281/dhs-x-ray-scanners-could-be-cancer-risk-to-border-crossers/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
DHS' X-ray scanners could be cancer risk to border crossers
Internal Homeland Security documents describing specifications for border-crossing scanners, which emit gamma or X-ray radiation to probe vehicles and their occupants, are raising new health and privacy concerns, CNET has learned.
Even though a public outcry has prompted Homeland Security to move away from adding X-ray machines to airports--it purchased 300 body scanners last year that used alternative technology instead--it appears to be embracing them at U.S.-Mexico land border crossings as an efficient way to detect drugs, currency, and explosives.
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=134d4cb7cc932435&attid=0.1.1&disp=emb&zw>
The Z Portal scanner in use at the San Ysidro, Calif., border crossing uses high energy X-ray radiation to probe the interior of vehicles. Homeland Security says it's safe for humans, but some biophysicists disagree.
(Credit: AS&E)
A 63-page set of specifications (PDF), heavily redacted, obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center through the Freedom of Information Act, says the scanners must "be based on X-Ray or gamma technology," which use potentially dangerous ionizing radiation at high energies, and "shall be capable of scanning cars, SUVs, motorcycles and busses."
"Society will pay a huge price in cancer because of this," John Sedat, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California at San Francisco, told CNET. Sedat has raised concerns about the health risks of X-ray scanners, and the European Commission in November prohibited their use in European airports.
The specifications do not say how Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, will notify people crossing the border about the radiation emitted by the devices, how frequently the devices will be tested to ensure they're operating properly, or whether travelers will be presented with a choice of declining the scan, which is an option at airport body scanners that use X-rays.
X-ray scanners made by American Science and Engineering are already in use at the busy San Ysidro, Calif., checkpoint. CBP, which says the level of radiation emitted falls within commonly accepted norms, is planning to announce details about the next round of scanner purchases on February 1.
Unlike, say, radio waves, ionizing radiation is dangerous because it can damage living tissue, rearrange chromosomes, and raise cancer risks. Whether the radiation is harmful depends on the dose: ionizing radiation at very low doses is ubiquitous in the environment, including from cosmic radiation, radon, and high-altitude air travel. Pregnant women are especially sensitive to high doses of ionizing radiation.
"This seems to be a massive escalation in the use of these systems," says Peter Rez, a professor of physics at Arizona State University who has studied the way the X-ray scanners work.
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=134d4cb7cc932435&attid=0.1.2&disp=emb&zw>
This scanner uses X-rays to probe the interior of vehicles. It's called the Z Portal and is in use at the San Ysidro, Calif., border crossing. (Click for larger image)
(Credit: AS&E)
Rez says the name that Homeland Security has picked for its border scanners--"Low Energy Drive Through Portal Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems"--is highly misleading. "To call anything based on high energy X-rays 'low energy' is worse than 1984 doublespeak" because radiation emitted by the scanners "goes right through the person" sitting in a vehicle, he says. (High energy X-rays can penetrate not only human flesh, but steel plates that are multiple centimeters thick.)
For its part, Homeland Security says the dose is safe and based on commonly accepted government standards (PDF) established by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, which would permit 2,500 scans a year for each person. CBP's specifications also require the manufacturer to "perform an evaluation of the potential effect of radiation exposure on public safety on the proposed system." In addition, a CBP representative told CNET that the machines are currently only used in secondary inspections (most people go through just the primary inspection).
But Homeland Security did not respond, citing insufficient time, to a list of questions that CNET posed on Wednesday evening asking about independent testing that has been performed on the scanners that would measure the actual dose of radiation emitted. In the case of its airport scanners, Homeland Security's Transportation Security Administration initially promised to conduct such an analysis, but then backtracked, prompting criticism last fall from Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican.
The dispute about radiation during border scans generally parallels the one about airport X-ray scanners, with Homeland Security saying they're safe, and researchers raising concerns that no independent testing has been done. A letter (PDF) that UCSF's Sedat and others sent the Department of Health and Human Services last year says that independent tests have not "been adequately performed for X-ray scanners, leaving us in a situation where a major untested technology is being used on a large segment of our population, and where any damage may not be apparent immediately, or recognized to be caused by the extra radiation exposure--an unprecedented state of affairs."
And the privacy concerns, too, are similar. Homeland Security's TSA says it "takes all measures to ensure passenger privacy" at airports. Its new "advanced imaging" millimeter wave machines at airports, which don't use ionizing radiation, do not display body outlines.
"They're potentially the same kind of images as people in airports," Ginger McCall, director of EPIC's open government program, says of the border scanners. They're also "capturing images of people essentially naked," she says.
The origin of the scanners can be traced back to a not-so-obvious source: President Obama's signature American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the stimulus bill. That awarded a $27.3 million contract to American Science and Engineering, or AS&E, to build 35 scanners, according to a description at Recovery.gov. Soon afterward, X-ray scanners appeared at the San Ysidro, Calif., checkpoint, sometimes called the world's busiest land crossing; other locations listed in the specification include El Paso, Texas, Columbus, N.M., and Nogales, Ariz.
Now Homeland Security wants more. The U.S. government convened a "pre-solicitation conference" in Washington, D.C., on November 29, 2011, according to a public procurement document. Another document says "Customs and Border Protection is very appreciative of all the responses received" and plans to publish a formal request for proposals for the next purchase on February 1.
AS&E, a publicly-traded company based in Billerica, Mass., boasts on its Web site that its Z Portal vehicle screening system can conduct "imaging from three sides simultaneously," and that "one scan is equivalent to flying one minute at altitude on an airplane."
Sedat, the biophysicist, says that the estimates of X-ray radiation dosage from AS&E and CBP are likely to be in error by several orders of magnitude because of the equipment they're using. He says: "If you have a laser pointer that you use for slides, it's a very bright beam. It's very hard to measure because it overwhelms a normal detector. You'll saturate the detector and you'll get the wrong answer. It could well come up with zero, or close to zero. And that's not right. It's not designed for handling that. The same is true for the ionization chambers they're using (as detectors)."
Rez, the physics professor, says the problem with X-ray scanners is that as the resolution increases, the corresponding dose leaps upward as well--and that AS&E's resolution has increased to approximately 5 millimeters. Another problem, he says, is failures: because the scan is conducted by having the vehicle move, if it stops in mid-scan, the radiation concentrated on one place would be above acceptable limits. "The energies are about three times the average energy in CT," he says, meaning an X-ray computed tomography scan.
A paper that (PDF) Rez and two-co-authors published in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry concludes that "serious consideration should be given to the possibility of unintended and unnecessary doses to passengers due to malfunctioning equipment.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)