Libertarians Comment on Obama's Nobel Prize

I've been getting these press releases for awhile for some reason - I honestly don't know where they came up with my name. But this one is a classic (see my commentary at end, if you wish):

Libertarians suggest Nobel announcements should be moved to April Fool's Day

WASHINGTON - The Libertarian Party today suggested that, in the future, the announcement date every year for Nobel Prizes be moved to April 1.

"Unlike the gullible people who listened to The War of the Worlds radio broadcast in 1938 and thought Martians really were attacking the United States, when I heard this morning that Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, I changed the channel in disbelief. But, the same thing was being said in multiple places," Libertarian National Committee Chairman William Redpath said.

"The gravity of the Nobel awards has not been augmented by some of their recent selections, including today's announcement, last year's award of the Economics prize to Paul Krugman, or the 2007 Peace Prize to Al Gore, whose global warming theories he will not defend in open debate. Maybe an early Springtime announcement date would be more appropriate."

Redpath continued, "I didn't know that it was the role of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to be handicapping the future performance of individuals and organizations. Nonetheless, we congratulate President Obama on his award and hope that three-and-a-quarter or seven-and-a-quarter years from now the Nobel Peace Prize Committee will be seen as prescient.

"President Obama will best fulfill the promise of peace that the Nobel Committee apparently sees in him by not trying to cure all the ills of the world, but by working to make the United States an example for the other nations of the world through implementation of a Libertarian foreign policy--military non-interventionism combined with free trade policies in fact, and not just in rhetoric. With those guiding principles, the world will be a freer, safer and more prosperous planet at the conclusion of the Obama Administration."

End Press Release

So, I was kind of glad to hear someone blast this selection, because now I don't feel so bad about knocking it. Perhaps I'm just another rapidly-becoming-disillusioned Obama-ite, but what exactly has the guy done to promote peace? I mean, we're still fighting in Iraq, aren't we? And all I hear about Afghanistan is that it's his war and that we're considering a troop increase. I don't understand. Does the fact that he hasn't started any new wars qualify Obama for this?

Anyhow, I know he has a lot of work to do, and he can't solve everything overnight, and I don't expect him to. However, someone apparently deemed it appropriate to give Obama this award. For what? Maybe I should read the selection details but on the surface, I just don't get it.

Best

Ralph

So

High Class Scams

Does anyone cover a high-class scam as well as Vanity Fair? This (or is it next) month's issue features Tina Fey on the cover - more droll Hollywood stuff - but buried on page 100 is this wonderful story of how this German immigrant cut a swath through the country posing as a high-class blueblood. His final scam, which he rode for several years and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars (plus he got a daughter of it) was posing as Clark Rockefeller, a relation to one of America's weathiest and most well-known families. Unforutnately for him, he is now in jail, but man, he really pulled it off for awhile. Vanity Fair should win some sort of award for its journalism on these types of stories. It really gets the dirt on the guy, but at the same time manages to glamorize him somewhat and lay fault on the people that willingly fell for his ruse... Plus, the last line (in the rather lengthy story) is really a zinger.

Cheers.

Ralph

O'Reilly's "Liberal" Rantings

This was originally posted as a comment by "Shimp" under my "Super Tuesday" post, but of course, is way overqualified to be left as that....

I did something tonight that I'm ashamed of.And although I'd rather just forget about it, I think in the spirit of AA I should come clean and own up to what I am: someone who still cannot resist the occasional temptation of peeking in on those crazy conservatives.

Okay, so what I'm specifically admitting to, of course (and you know that you're sometimes guilty too), is having actually sat through an episode of The O'Reilly Factor. And I'm glad I did it, because it reminded me just how played out and predictable his whole shtick is.

It was like tuning in to a soap opera you haven't seen in maybe two years. You realize that certain small things have changed -- maybe something with the set seems different, or some major character now has cancer (they never die... unless the actors REALLY die) -- but for the most part you can still follow it. It's like you never went away...

And I truly did tune in just out of curiosity -- just to see what the hell the guy's talking about these days. On my cable, O'Reilly (which is to say FOX) is way down in this dead zone of the dial, sandwiched between crap like Lifetime Movie Network and that ridiculous bald headed guy who's always screaming about stocks, or whatever it is that's got him so worked up.

So I was literally out of my depths. Next thing I know, I'm tuning in.

And since I'd decided to just go with it, I thought I might as well try to predict Bill's major topics for the night. I tried to think of what's going on right now that could possibly be stoking his anger. I guessed maybe something about the Presidential Primaries. And although that did get about five minutes of coverage during the "roundup," or whatever it's called, actual politics had to take a back seat to the creative dredging up of outrage over the sort of stuff that gets headlines only on blatant gossip shows like Access Hollywood.

So, despite the ample availability of high-quality political fodder from the current Presidential campaign, Bill elects to focus his ire on basically three "big" stories:
1) Jane Fonda apparently uttering the C Word on the Today show this morning
2) Amy Winehouse winning multiple Grammy awards earlier this week
3) Some I-can't-imagine-there-being-a-more-marginal "news event" taking place in Massachusetts in which (and I do not exaggerate) what looked like about five inmates (including one known and registered sex offender) from a local mental hospital being permitted to take a supervised visit to the circus.

I'll summarize Bill's rants on each of these issues in a moment. But what I want to bring out now is the unmistakable overarching theme which carried through each of O'Reilly's expositions. Although he devotes more time each episode to attempting to highlight what he sees as the fundamental differences between conservative and liberal orthodoxy than anything else, if you look closely you'll actually see that O'Reilly himself is quite liberal, or at least not so much conservative.Let me just say now that I bristle at the mere suggestion that O'Reilly and his ilk represent anything having to do with what I see as traditional conservative ideology. These people are, as I see them, far more protectionist and pro-govt involvement in every aspect of our lives than anyone I know on the left.

Okay, so let's look at O'Reilly's Big Three issues for Feb. 4th, 2008.
Issue 1
The problem: Jane Fonda used the C Word on the live, not taped, Today show this morning.
O'Reilly's solution: The FCC should have its enforcement authority increased so that it may prevent incidents like this (by the way, this was LIVE TV, which means that it couldn't have been thwarted in any case) from happening again.
Issue 2
The problem: Amy Winehouse won multiple Grammys.Further to the problem: She, being a known drug abuser (possibly even an addict), should, from O'Reilly's perspective, not qualify to receive a Grammy. Instead, because of her notorious addiction problem, should be punished as not meeting the minimum standard for a Grammy recipient. O'Reilly clearly believes that there should be a behavioral component to the voting for Artist of the Year. I say that has NOTHING to do with the award. It's not about who sets the best example of how to live one's life. It's about the music. Period.O'Reilly's solution: Ban her from receiving any award/recognition because of her dispicable behavior.
Issue 3
The problem and O'Reilly's solution: (It's tempting to just ignore this one, but... ) The actual problem this situation presented was, according to O'Reilly, that these people (especially the known sex offender) should, assuming they were found guilty in a court of law, NEVER be left to roam outside the building they are incarcerated in for the rest of their lives. Being found guilty means that they willingly forfeit all rights available to the unincarcerated (e.g., you and I). Even permitting these people out for two hours of heavily supervised "fun" (if the circus can be described that way) is more than they deserve, and is in fact a danger to our children.

All of the above contribute to my impression that what has come to be known as the current conservative orthodoxy actually has a fairly liberal view of how societal problems should be handled, which is to say through increased govt interference in people's daily lives. I would expect them to be more promoting of personal responsibility and suffering the folly of one's own freely made choices in life, but no...

Instead their prescription is to expand government's reach into our personal lives, to make government more responsible for protecting us from bad decisions we might make along the way.

So, this is what the O'Reilly Factor has become... An organ for the disenfranchised and those who don't want to take responsibility for their own decisions in life.

Shimp

Rush is right

Well, we knew that, not always from a knowledge standpoint of course, but in his political views at least. However, as much as we lefties like to dismiss Rush as a cheerleader, he does bring some intelligent insights to the table every now and then. Actually, based on my latest experience, it's probably even more than now and then (deference to righties here), as I have only heard him talk for about 10 minutes in the past couple years, but the comment he made in those 10 minutes has proven to be spot on.

To clarify what I'm talking about, it's probably helpful to refer to Friday's editorial page in the Erie Times-News. There are two articles on it that slam the Clintons pretty god. One (which I can't seem to find online) pretty much says the sleezeball factor is finally catching up with the Clintons. One thing I've found interesting is how once Hillary started struggling, Bill's precense strated amping up. In my opinion, this is bad news. I don't think anybody wants eight more years of Bill.

The second article, by Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, hits more directly on the Limbaugh comments I heard last week. I was driving around looking for something stimulating on the airwaves, and Rush happened to be the best I could fine. He started going on about how Hillary was tanking South Carolina so the Clintons could play the race card on Obama. Rush said something like this, "Now, the Clintons won't come out and say it themselves, but somebody in the Democratic party will. You'll hear the whispers. They'll go something like, 'He won because of the black vote.' In fact, they want Obama to win South Carolina, just so they can scare voters."

His point is that the Clintons want white voters to be scared of Obama as someone who is going to lead some sort of black uprising. This seemed a preposterous to me when Rush said it, but Limbaugh delivers his message with such casual authority, he makes you think...

Then, low and behold, less than a week later, according to Robinson's column, you get Bill Clinton himself making this comment in the wake of Obama's win in South Carolina: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

So, here's good ole' boy Bill trying to dismiss Obama as another "Jesse Jackson." Robinson, who is black, rightfully went nuts over this.

I think this proves, as the first article I mentioned, the Clintons are played out. Whatever energy and new-style politics Bill brought to the table in '92 has clearly disappated now, and they are falling back on tried-and-true good 'ole boy Southern-fried politrix. And because Hillary isn't a boy, she's relying on Bill to prop her up. It's really ugly.

Long live Obama!.

Cheers.

Ralph

Vanity Fair-Transylvania Heist

I keep trying to let my subscription to Vanity Fair run out, but they keep sending it, which is fine, because, it really contains some entertaining (and sometimes even informative) stories when you have time to read it. I got the December issue last week and found this wonderful article on a theft of some rare books by these pot-smoking college freshman/sophomores. Unfortunately, the article is not available online, Here it is - but there is a fairly decent summary posted on a Kentucky newsite. The heist took place in Lexington, Kentucky.

These guys almost pulled off this $10 million theft of some rare books stored at the University of Transylvania library. Now, they did mug a librarian, and this sort of theivery is by no means an honorable thing, but I was quite impressed by their ambition and that fact that they really almost succeeded. It took some serious planning and major cajones.

Basically, these three or four late-teens were sitting around getting high, going to college, and getting involved with petty crime. Then, they came up with this idea for this major heist and actually followed through with it. Personally, I've been through the first three things, and we may have fantasized about major crime back in the day, but we never had the ambition or wherewithal to actually go for it. I have to applaud these guys for their initiative.

It turns out, however, that there was one hole in their otherwise very smart plan. I blame too much marajuana for the fact they didn't recognize this hole ahead of time. The article makes a reference that one of the guys kept thinking the heist would be called off when they hit a major snag in the planning, but then describes how they were able to seemingly circumvent every snag. However, as I was reading the article, I could tell that their idea for getting an appraisal at Christie's was a bad one. This indeed is where the plan fell apart.

I guess the coup de grace about this whole thing is that these guys don't feel bad about what they've done. From my standpoint, it serves kind of like a brilliant college project for them - almost something you'd be proud to put on your resume. So, they're all serving seven years in the federal pen right now. The conclusion is that they're young, they'll be out in a few years, and that the whole thing was a great experience and gives them a great story to tell.

If you taking it from the mythological standpoint, the experience seems to have helped them cross the threshold into adulthood. Prior to the event, you get the feeling they felt they were suburban youths whose manhood was being suffocated. Now, they have established their own identity was would-be big time thieves.

Cheers.

X

War Casualties

I know the Iraq War is bad and we've lost something like 4,000 soliders, not to mention many times more Iraqis, but I must admit I am absolutley astounded at the death toll numbers from WWII. I've watched a few episodes of that Ken Burns documentary on PBS, and there are several times we lost thousands of soldiers in a single battle. Overall, it appears that in about the same amount of time we've been in Iraq, the U.S. lost 100 times as many solidies in WWII - something like 400,000. I guess with better medical care we get more wounded survivors now, but sill... and we won WWII. The countries that lost, lost many times more solidiers. I guess the world and warfare has changed a lot in a relatively short period of time.

Any perspectives on this?

Ralph

U.S. Becoming Third World

Interesting story about the Argentinian former first lady who was elected president yesterday. Sound familiar? Was listening to an NPR report on the story this morning and someone from Argentina was quoted as saying how in Latin America power seems to consolidate in the hands of a few and how this made them nervous. Then, I remember reading somewhere a couple weeks ago how the election of Hillary, who seems to be the front-runner, would cement over 20 years of rule by the Bush-Clinton dynasty. And, you wonder why we can't/won't catch Osama bin Laden.

Cheers.

Ralph