Very Irritated With The Koch Brothers

Ah, the Koch Brothers. Whereas the right beats up on money guy George Soros for funding causes on the left he believes in, the left beat up on the Koch Brothers for causes they believe in.

I don't beat up on people for funding causes, but I do get irritated if they do something that looks counterproductive the causes they ostensibly try to advance- if they happen to be causes I believe in.

In this case, I am a big fan of the Cato Institute. Cato is a libertarian think tank that has produced many valuable papers and publications, and has had some small (too small, in my opinion) impact on public policy. I especially love the Cato Daily Podcast, which has been hosted by Caleb Brown for the past several years. Brown does a wonderful job of interviewing Cato scholars on topics of immediate daily interest.

The Koch Brothers co-founded the Cato Institute with Ed Krane and the late Ed Niskanen. The Kochs have poured money into the Cato Institute over the years. So far, so good. But, as the Washington Post reports:

The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch filed a lawsuit Wednesday for control of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington.

The lawsuit exposes a power struggle for one of Washington’s premiere policy centers, which has been funded by millions in contributions from the Koch brothers’ foundations since its founding in 1974.

Cato was divided between four shareholders: the two Koch brothers, Cato president Ed Crane, and former Cato chairman William Niskanen, according to the lawsuit filed Thursday in a court in Johnson County, Kansas.

At the heart of the dispute is the fate of the shares owned by Niskanen, who died in October at age 78 of complications from a stroke. The Koch brothers believe that they have the option to buy Niskanen’s shares, while Cato officials believe that the shares belong to Niskanen’s widow, Kathryn Washburn, according to the complaint.

Why a lawsuit? Is it so important that the Kochs get additional shares? Cato has been absolutely fantastic, just as-is.

Crane released this written statement:

“Charles G. Koch has filed a lawsuit as part of an effort to gain control of the Cato Institute, which he co-founded with me in 1977. While Mr. Koch and entities controlled by him have supported the Cato Institute financially since that time, Mr. Koch and his affiliates have exercised no significant influence over the direction or management of the Cato Institute, or the work done here.

“Mr. Koch’s actions in Kansas court yesterday represent an effort by him to transform Cato from an independent, nonpartisan research organization into a political entity that might better support his partisan agenda. We view Mr. Koch’s actions as an attempt at a hostile takeover, and intend to fight it vehemently in order to continue as an independent research organization, advocating for Individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace.”

I'll reserve judgment as to the intentions of Charles Koch for the moment. However, at a time when interest in libertarian ideas is at an all-time high, and acceptance of them is growing, the last thing we need for the liberty movement is divisiveness within the premier libertarian think tank. It's counter-productive, at the very least.

Will The Real Republican Party Please Stand Up?

Most readers know me as a political partisan, a 'capital L' Libertarian. While I love the Libertarian Party, I love liberty more, and really couldn't care less which party gets the job of moving policy in a liberty direction done.

I've found it interesting over the years, that liberals and conservatives alike tend to try to push me to the Republican party. Why liberals concede that the Democratic Party is not the home for one who loves liberty is beyond me. But, another topic for another day.

Today is the day of the Iowa caucuses for the Republican Party. Today is the day we find out if, in Iowa, the Republican Party will embrace liberty in the form of Ron Paul, or if it will embrace one of the various authoritarian strains of Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney.

Many leaders in the Indiana Republican Party, at various levels, have tried to get me into their tent. My belief is that they really just want to plow me under, to disappear me within their organization- as they have done over the years with several former Libertarians. Can't name a one elected to anything as a Liberty Caucus Republican in Indiana.

The rationale, I'm endlessly told, is that more can be done by working within the Republican Party. Bigger stage, better chance of electability, etc. But I've never seen proof that liberty has been embraced by Indiana Republicans. Lip service? Oh, yes. Acts? No sir or ma'am.

There is truth to the rationale, though. Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988, and barely made a noise on the national level. Running in 2008, he won over a dedicated national following, and here in 2012, he is on the cusp of actually winning Iowa today. If he does win, this causes me to take serious notice- for the implications for his campaign, and for the place of liberty in the Republican Party, as well as the place of the Libertarian Party.

As I said, I don't really care which party carries the pro-liberty candidates. I will back them. If Ron Paul is winning caucuses and the primary elections, I have to be with him as far as he runs. The longer he is viable, the longer the message of liberty is in the media and on people's minds, and if he wins the GOP nomination, he could become president of the United States. I can't ignore that.

So, my first glance will be towards the vote totals. My second will be to the reaction of the Republican leadership in Iowa and nationally. They already hinted that they would ignore Iowa's results if Ron Paul wins.

Now, my Republican friends. If I'm supposed to seriously consider a move to the Republican Party, you just have to show me better faith than that. Ron Paul has been treated like garbage by GOP leadership for roughly the last 5 years. Is this any way to lure people to your party?

So, I'm watching to see what the real Republican Party looks like. Go, Ron Paul!

I Am Channelled

I don't know how Steve Chapman got inside my brain and wrote the words that were in my mind, but he's pulled it off. Here is my November of Discontent:

This year's Republican National Convention had a different theme for each day. Monday was "Serving a Cause Greater than Self." Tuesday was "Service," Wednesday was "Reform," and Thursday was "Peace."

So what was missing? Only what used to be held up as the central ideal of the party. The heirs of Goldwater couldn't spare a day for freedom.

Neither could the Democrats. Their daily topics this year were "One Nation," "Renewing America's Promise," and "Securing America's Future." The party proclaimed "an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights." Expanding and upholding individual liberty? Not so much.

It's an excellent opinion. Read the whole thing here.

Extend the Evacuation

(Broadview Heights, OH)- Since the disaster of Hurricane Katrina some three years ago, the failures have been pinned squarely on government, generally upon two targets: FEMA, and the President. The has always struck me as odd, since New Orleans has a municipal government, and Louisiana a state government, and somehow they went relatively blameless. The argument usually goes that a disaster on that scale requires federal response. OK, so, should the National Guard have been sent to contain New Orleans' looters? Or, should the fleeing New Orleans police have borne some responsibility?

But, I digress into particulars.

In very few quarters were calls for personal responsibility tolerated. The poor people of New Orleans were just innocents facing the wrath of Mother Nature.

I once always thought that people should be permitted to live anywhere they want. If they choose to live below sea level, they can accept the responsibility of their choice.

No more. Americans have spoken. They do not believe in self-responsibility. They do not believe that they should accept the consequences of their choices.

Very well. If I, as a resident of Indiana, have to constantly see my tax dollars going towards the rebuilding of infrastructure for people who make incredibly dumb choices, such as living in an area that's going to be pounded by hurricanes every three years or so, as Gustave now illustrates, it's time to become practical and to adjust.

It's time for the federal government to ban all occupancy below sea level.

It just doesn't make any sense to be an idealist on the issue any longer. I'm all for liberty in tandem with self-responsibility. But liberty in tandem with collectivism is dangerous. We all have to pay for bad choices? What kind of stupidity is that? No, let's reduce the stupidity. Let's extend the evacuation of New Orleans through forever. No more living below sea level, or in flood plains- unless and until those who live in such places bear 100% full responsibility for such a choice.

Excited For Good News

I am looking forward to a phone call tomorrow that could have me very busy again with work in Illinois, as I was at this time last year.

It would be a blessing. As the work pace has gradually been slowing, I find myself getting embroiled more in things political, and it's all bad news. It takes time that seems productive but isn't. It raises the blood pressure. On the other hand, last year I barely blogged, and I rarely visited political sites, news sites, or other blogs. It was really good. Ignorance can be bliss.

I'd spent years of my life promoting liberty, and just don't feel it matters. Spent the time developing radio programs that weren't noticed until they stopped airing. Spent time running for office where the public didn't care about the office being sought. Stood up in defense of people who wouldn't show up for me in my time of need. Try to engage people in a variety of forums, and mainly take slings and arrows? For what? Some imaginary notion that it might make a difference, if I only believe fervently that the seed becomes a tree, maybe a big one years after I die? Call me shallow, but I need some gratification. Now. It isn't pity I'm after. No, I want to see results. If politics can't deliver because there isn't, gulp, a market for liberty, then give me business.

I spent last year trying fully to make money, and I did, and it was damn satisfying. Really made me feel like the volunteer boosterism for liberty was the act of wasting a lot of time. Work hard in business- get the results in Net 30 Days. I really like that. Producing for people who are delighted with my work? That gets me up at 5:30 and to bed at Midnight, grinding furiously in between. Happily. Excitedly.

So, it will be good to immerse in a heavy workload again. Soon. I cannot wait to take the call.

More Unsolicited Advice For Ron Paul

Keep apologizing. Please- do everything you can to renounce the racist and homophobic views put forward on your old (circa 1992) newsletters.

The attacks on you have been numerous. They probably hurt you in New Hampshire. If you don't make strong statements, they are going to continue to hurt you within the offended groups.

I am glad you made this statement, which was published by CNN:

"Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea."

That's important to me, because nationally visible libertarians are few. When Ron Paul, most-visible libertarian is seen as a racist or homophobe, then libertarianism is liable to be seen as racist or homophobic.

So, keep distancing yourself from these writings. You would do even better if you identified who wrote them. There is fair criticism about not identifying the writer, if not you. Check out what Alex Blaze had to say, on Bilerico.com, a top gay issues website:

But still, laziness isn't a good quality in a president. If he didn't have time to edit a newsletter with his name in huge letters across the top, or at least read it before it went out and make sure that the "Ron Paul column" was something he'd agree with, then he should have stopped publishing.

Until the writer is identified by you, those who were hurt by the comments on your newsletter are going to continue to sling arrows and mud your way. It distracts from your very worthy message of liberty, and worse- makes people equate liberty with racism or homophobia, which of course is patently wrong. It's a huge disservice to liberty and the libertarian movement, but if the primary evidence they have are these news items about the 'racist and homophobic writings of Ron Paul', then what else are they to think?

The Short Romance Is Over

It wasn't so long ago (June '06) that popular leftward blogger Daily Kos was courting libertarians. I took note of it, and thought then that it was merely a cynical ploy to grab a small constituency, but one sizeable enough to swing an election.

Consider the cynicism well justified. The onslaught of Ron Paul bashing by the top left blogs is begetting a slurry of ugly comments from the True Blue Left. From a recent Kos post calling Paul a racist:

If he has "moral responsibility" for his comments, then why not apologize or retract those statements? Why not express outrage that his good name was misappropriated with scurrilously racist sentiments and demand an honest admission and retraction in his newsletter?

Why? Because he agreed with the sentiments. That's why. And it's precisely writings like those, and his refusal to disavow them, that have made him a favorite of the Stormfront/Neo Nazi crowd.

Of course, Paul's supporters will take this post, along with any other criticism of their demigod, as evidence that he is "feared" or other such nonsense. Hardly. When he cracks single digits in the polls in any state we can start worrying. Until then, he doesn't even reach "Ross Perot-like nut" status. I worry about McCain. I worry about Huckabee. I used to worry about Giuliani. But Paul? Nah. He is what he is -- fringe.

But it's also clear that some of his supporters would benefit from a full airing and education about what Paul stands for and has stood for in his years in the public limelight. If people still want to support him despite his bigotry, then that actually says more about his supporters than about Ron Paul himself.

Let's break this down. What are the racist comments? Kos has highlighted some:

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers. (emphasis as in original Kos post.)

I have to say, I don't like Paul's generalizations in that first paragraph. 95%? That's nonsense. Paul's off-base here, and should apologize for his generalizations. I wish he would do that right away.

As for the second paragraph, I do have my own experiences. I have been mugged exactly twice, both times by black men. I have had my house burglarlized exactly once, by a black man. I caught him tearing the aluminum off the house. Given my experience, I still don't generalize all or most black males as criminals or semi-criminals. Generalizing the whole on the basis of the subset is incorrect and absurd. But, would it be rational for me to conclude that should I be mugged, the likelihood is higher that a white man will mug me? Am I a racist is, based on my own experience, if I conclude the likelihood is greater that a black man might? Moreover, factually speaking, do "black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and bulglaries all out of proportion to their numbers"? If so, why would an apology be warranted? For the crime of saying something that is a source of sensitivity to the racial group in question? It isn't the same as racism, that's for sure.

I would like Paul to revisit his statements with regard to race, use some care to examine them, and to apologize for and retract the ones that are bunk. (I suspect, though, that the ones that are not bunk, and are actual fact, and that might not be retracted, would still be a source of complaint and "ah ha, gotcha!" by Kos and so many others on the left.)

So, is this any kind of dilemma for me? Not especially. I've never found a perfect candidate, one that I agreed with on everything- besides myself. If I had to eliminate all candidates from the possibility of my support or vote on the basis of a single objection, I could never vote in good conscience. I kind of think that this is what Kos is after- creating cognitive dissonance in the minds of Paul backers, such that they just stay away from the process until after the 2008 election. For me, the kind of law policy Paul would actually put forth is what is important, and I'm betting that even if he is the most venomous closeted racist the world has ever known, he still wouldn't be advancing racist policy. So, is Kos' work what we call a red herring?

At any rate, I find it very interesting that Kos chose to discuss the angle of moral responsibility for the comments made available on a publication with his name on it. Kos must believe that is what is right and correct. Very well. Let's look at some of the comments that follow Kos' latest anti-Paul article:

"Libertarianism (or his style, anyway) is effectively racist itself. I mean, the guy wants to do away with the FDA, I can't imagine HUD, civil rights departments or similar are going to fare much better."

"Poisoning pooties and children is a rational business decision to the libertarians"

"Ron Paul fanboys are better known as Paultards."

Kos' apostles do exactly what Kos criticizes of Ron Paul: generalizing libertarians in the extreme and in the negative. Then there's the word, 'Paultards'. Well now that's intelligent. I guess from this we can infer that Kos believes it's okay to use a derivative of "retard" as a pejoritive, because he permits the use of it as such on his site. Kos could argue that Paul is running for president, and thus open to such scrutiny. It's also a way of saying that few Kos readers could qualify themselves. I see the word "Paultard" all over the comments on the Kos site, but no rebuke from other users, and certainly not from the man himself. The same is true at Wonkette and a host of other left sites.

Looks like Kos is the man in the glass house, but without any mirror. If Kos believes his own words, he should be striking about a third of the comments. Exorcist, heal thyself! Alas.

And if Paul was the sort of non-threat Kos makes him out to be, would he even be worth a post on his site? Right. Perhaps this was just Kos' announcement that henceforth, Daily Kos is merely an exercise in the trivial, unimportant, and miniscule. Yeah- saw through you on that, big guy.

But, reading the comments was truly depressing. It showed me what the left thinks of me, in essense. Libertarianism isn't perfect. Nothing is. But I am just astounded at the impression the left has of liberty. Astonished. Disappointed.

I guess the courtship is over.