Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Government, Baseball and Steroids

With the Barry Bonds trial over and done with, the questhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifion has to be asked; Why should the government be involved in Major League Baseball's internal affairs?

Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of steroids, HGH and other performance enhancing drugs in baseball or any of the major leagues for that matter. What upsets me is that government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. Some may say that with the drug war (which is nothing but a waste of tax payer money) still being waged that this gives the government a loophole to get it's foot in the door. The government's involvement with the Mitchell Report and the various testimonies in front of congress were nothing different than MLB doing the same things themselves by setting up independent panels. Bonds' trial resolved nothing but just to give a feel good feeling to people who hate Barry Bonds. I don't like Bonds myself but he shouldn't have gone to trial. It was just a waste of tax payer money.

Their is a reason that MLB is ranked third among the four major sports leagues. If MBL is actually serious about cleaning up it's image they have to get extremely tough on cheaters. They can't continue to deliver slaps on the wrist for players who test positive, they need to hand out tough suspensions and punishments and stick by it. A big star player should face the same tough punishment as a backup player it should be no different. One positive trend that I see personally is that writers are taking stands against the juicers and refusing to vote them into the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY. However this can be taken in two different ways;

1. Writers actually making a stand
2. Writers just looking to make names for themselves

With number one, others in the sports media regard this is as the so-called "old guard" refusing to change. I fully support excluding juicers from Cooperstown, Cooperstown is reserved for the Best of the Best not those who cheat. It's a slap in the face to the legends who got their on their own merit.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Libertarians for Trump?

I don't know if anyone who considers themselves a libertarian would consider Donald Trump for president but I discovered this video from Politico regarding his statement that he can get OPEC to http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giflower oil prices.

His statement that we have so much power should be a clear indicator that he seems to have no problem with using the military to "lower" prices. This comes only years later when he publicly said that the Iraq War was a complete mistake and may have gotten libertarian support at the time.

If that wasn't enough, back in 2000 he stated that he supports abortion while at the same time supports the partial abortion ban. I personally see no difference, a child is still getting murdered all that is different between the two is the time frame.

Third Outside the Beltway reports that Trump is a supporter of Canadian style Health Care.

So he supports murder both domestically and abroad, and supports government health care. So whats appealing about this guy again?

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Is it Time to Question the Libertarian Party?

This letter from Karen Kwiatkowski who writes for Libertarian websites like LewRockwell.com. She questions the LP's commitment to Libertarian principals.

Open Letter to Mark Hinkle, Libertarian Party National Chair

Dear Mark,

Your email to me on March 30, 2011 expressed concern that in a speech I gave a few days ago, I criticized the Libertarian Party for becoming associated with pro-war rhetoric, and not sticking to libertarian principles. You asked, “…why level a critique against the Libertarian Party for the pro-war support of a minority within the Party?” and wanted me to name names.

Because the LP has taken a very public stand that it is a party founded and based on principle, not popularity, it makes itself vulnerable to criticism for appearing unprincipled. The 2008 LP presidential nomination of well-known conservative Bob Barr, and the promotion to Chair of the LP National Congressional Committee of the rabidly pro-war Wayne Allyn Root caused people of all political stripes to look at the LP and wonder whether the principle of the party was peaceful libertarianism, or just political experimentation and number-crunching.

These less principled Libertarian figures may have represented the minority view of the party, but their names are strongly associated with the LP, hence my criticism. In fact, even before the Barr and Root elevations within the party, in 2005, the LP published an “Iraq Exit Strategy” which called for troops leaving gradually, not coming home but instead being redistributed throughout the Middle East, and pouring in direct aid to Iraq’s nascent state-building efforts. This proposal was not at all libertarian. Shockingly, it was as interventionist and imperial as anything put forth by either a Left-Progressive or Right-Conservative think tank.

Wayne Root, in particular, is allowed by the LP to speak for the party, and honest libertarians throughout the American population and within the LP are turned off. You suggest that my criticism of these anti-liberty, pro-state LP voices are the same as criticizing the GOP for being pro-life because some minority members of the GOP are pro-life. But when the GOP fields candidates and spokespersons, particularly at the national level, they toe the party line, and they don’t suggest that there is “room” at the philosophical table. Our own LP table is already small. Embracing statists and nationalists quietly within the party is one thing; making them front and center as a leading voice of recruitment and policy means that these types of unprincipled non-libertarian perspectives become the LP in the minds of everyone.

Why haven’t we, as a party, asked Wayne to simply join one of the war parties?

I have a suggestion for the LP HQ strategists. The focus on vote-getting at the national level has led the LP into precisely the situation that you are noting today (a criticism of the party within liberty circles). I would love to see the party concentrate on supporting local elections of libertarians (which it does nicely), and in DC, to serve primarily as a rating and clearance site for Congressmen and Senators. Take your issues (http://www.lp.org/issues) and create a liberty friendliness rating on each issue for each congressman, much like the John Birch Society does on conservatism. (See http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=2151 ) or as the Heritage Foundation does for economic freedom in countries around the world. This type of approach would make our positions politically applicable and measurable, and a “Liberty “rating will be something many Congressmen will welcome and seek (or angrily react to). It would also allow many of us in the field to jump on it, further making the LP relevant. This way we remain a “party of principle,” with the added benefit of being a party that is listened to, and donated to, because it is loud, proud, and principled.

I also think, that beyond the fleas the LP gets from lying down with characters like Root, and promoting him, we should be careful about our other bedfellows in DC. The Cato Institute does fine work, but it is not as effective in gaining Libertarian friendly legislation and votes as is Jim Babka’s interactive and aggressive DownsizeDC, and nothing Cato has produced on constitutional foreign or domestic policy comes even close to what is done daily over at the Bumper Hornberger’s Future of Freedom Foundation in Reston, VA.

Mark, my fundamental sense of betrayal and anger at the LP for its 2008 shenanigans and for its lack of creativity in the fight for freedom at home is far deeper than anyone would imagine from my limited criticism of the party, mentioned briefly in a long talk. May I take your note as an opening for real change within the LP Central Committee and a real commitment to win the battle for hearts and minds across the country?

Karen Kwiatkowski

Her criticism is warranted, the Libertarian Party cannot bill itself as the only liberty alternative to Republicans and Democrats with warmonger Wayne Allyn Root as it's main spokesman. The party is supposed to be the party of principals, not the party of lies and death, we already have two of those. Granted Libertarian candidates still have much more credibility than conservatives and liberals but they can't go down to their level in order to beat them.