BlueCarp

Covering sports is a lot like covering middle school.

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Sun, 12 May 2013 18:33:00 +0000

Right now, ESPN.com has these two headlines on its front page:

(1) "Sergio Garcia chides Tiger Woods," where Sergio says "He's not my favorite guy to play with. He's not the nicest guy on tour.'' And

(2) "Joba scolds Mo: Never 'shush' me," where this exchange is recorded:

Joba Chamberlain told Mariano Rivera in front of reporters: "Don't ever shush me." Chamberlain then reiterated his message, saying he was serious about it.

We are waiting word on who is sitting next to whom at the lunch table.

BlueCarp official policy on answering "yes" or "no" questions.

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:00:00 +0000

There is nothing inherently wrong with asking a question that calls for a "yes" or "no" answer. For example, "Are you hungry?" is not an invitation to a long winded answer. Nor is "Did you get an invite to the party?"

However, some less-than-intellectually honest inquisitors will insist on a "yes" or "no" answer when it is entirely inappropriate. For those inquisitors, I invoke the following rule:

I will answer one "yes" or "no" question for everyone of mine you likewise answer.

My first question will then be a variation of "Do you still molest collies?"

The problem is obvious. The question assumes a fact that is itself in doubt. The person to whom I ask my question may or may not have ever molested a collie. My question assumes the did, and by answering "yes" or "no" he admits he molested collies at some point. The trap is set: he can not answer my question either "yes" or "no" honestly. Unless, of course, he has at some point molested a collie.

Feel free to adopt this policy at your leisure.

:-)

What vision of America do you prefer?

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 19:00:00 +0000

One where natural rights are incorporated in the Constitution and those accused by the government, including Chechens accused of blowing up innocent people, have those rights defended to the fullest by lawyers?

Or do you prefer an America where such an accused is given a perfunctory show trial without rights and then summarily executed, because terrorists don't have any rights?

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who prefers that second vision should take down their Gadsden flags and Molon Labe stickers because they don't understand what they mean.

And, then, when your flag is folded and put away, and your stickers are peeled off, may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

Turn out the lights. The Grand Old Party is over.

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:07:00 +0000

What do George H. W. Bush, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, John McCain and Mitt Romney all have in common? Since 1988, they are the nominees for president of the two major parties. And they all love big government. And they all love federal authority over state sovereignty. Only half of them are Democrats.

As Bill Parcells noted, "you are what your record says you are." The GOP record? Medicare Part D. No Child Left Behind. Bank bailouts. Socialized medicine in Massachusetts. Referendum C and Healthcare Excanges in Colorado. I could continue, and have in other posts, but you get the point.

"But Dave!" you exclaim, "those are some bad big government programs, but they aren't the ONLY things the GOP has done!" Indeed not. But no party based on the principle of limited government would back any of those things. Therefore, the GOP principle, to the extent it has one other than getting elected, is something other than limited government. Don't tell me what the GOP says, look at what it does.

The only legitimate defense of the GOP made by honest Republicans? "Well, at least we aren't the Democrats." Now that's a rallying cry! It ain't quite "Remember the Alamo!", but it is all they have got.

So, what is the Grand Old Party to do? Like any party, at some point you have to turn out the lights, put up the chairs and call it a night. It is time.

Just recently, the Durango Herald asked "Where does GOP go from here?"

Like much of Colorado,

"La Plata County voters are registered as about one-third Republicans, one-third Democrats and one-third unaffiliated and other parties. But on Nov. 6, the county went Democratic all the way."

Why?

“A lot of candidates barely lost,” said Brad Blake, chairman of the La Plata County Republican Central Committee. “I personally feel it was due to the marijuana issue on the ballot. It brought a lot of Democrats and independent voters out.”

That explanation is more right than Mr. Blake realizes.

So, more voters came out to vote because they were interested in ending a wasteful government program - the War on Weed. Yet, somehow, the one major party that pretends to be in favor of efficient, cost-effective government, is able to blame people showing up for that very reason for its massive losses.

The disconnect is obvious.

For additional disconnection, let's go to the former Chairman of the Colorado GOP:

"I think you have to go on the assumption that the majority of Libertarian votes would go to a Republican candidate if the Libertarian candidate was not on the ballot," said Dick Wadhams, a political strategist and former state GOP chairman. "I think history would dictate that.

See "Libertarian influences outcome of Senate race."

Let us walk through Mr. Wadhams' thought process: A candidate from a minor party that believes in limited government takes votes away from the major party that believes in limited government. How could that possibly be true, unless the major party didn't actually believe in limited government? ("But Dave," you continue to repeat ad nauseam, "at least he's not a Democrat!" We've been over that already. I've heard it. You can keep repeating the mantra into the dustbin of history if it makes you feel any better.)

The fallacy is clearer than domestic light beer. The GOP doesn't believe in limited government. The ruse is over.

Yes, there are a few Republicans that get it: Rand Paul and Justin Amash to name just two on a national level. But their effectiveness is severely limited as long as they are in the party of Lindsay Graham and John McCain. It's hard to run with a millstone around one's neck. Cut the chain. Amash and Rand will do better without it. Mitch McConnell fought against Rand in his primary. John Boehner punished Amash for standing up to limited government principles. Any success they have had is in spite of the GOP, not because of it.

People are starting to see through fraud - the GOP cares about limited government like Jack the Ripper cared about London prostitutes.

The charade is over. The GOP is dead: Not because it believes in limited government, but because it does NOT. We already have a big-government party that is honest about its intentions. There is no need for another one that lies about it.

Keeping it alive at this point is just cruel - like trying to ride a lame horse. There is only one humane solution.

================
Epilogue:

Allow me to save everyone the time and effort of the brilliant and well thought-out responses I know are forthcoming (because they always do) by summarizing them: "HA HA HA. YOU ARE HILARIOUS. LIBERTARIANS ARE LOSERS!!!! YOU SUCK!!!! THE GOP RULES!!!!!"

You have the right to remain silent. Exercise it. Every time.

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:32:00 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20 (2001) (internal punctuation and citations omitted), said:

"...we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions … is to protect innocent men … who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. .. we [have] recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth."

Never, ever, EVER, be ashamed or embarrassed to exercise your God given right to remain silent. EVER.

You are an American, be PROUD to assert your rights. A good cop will not hassle you about it. A bad cop, well, is a bad cop. You certainly don't want to talk to him.

Never consent.

Tyranny, guns and the statist alternative.

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:04:00 +0000

The Second Amendment is not about hunting or protecting your house from burglars. It is about fighting tyranny.

Until recently, even big-time Democrats like Hubert H. Humphrey accepted this truth: "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

According to modern intellectual Mark Nuckols at The Atlantic, however,

"It is easy to ridicule such rhetoric as just overindulgence in Red Dawn fantasies about resourceful and brave citizens resisting a modern army with nothing more than small arms and their wits. Even individual Americans armed with military-style assault rifles could hardly pose any serious resistance to any future tyrannical central government supported by overwhelmingly powerful military capabilities."

In other words, we are just ignorant rubes with a Rambo-complex.

In World War II, the Japanese had overwhelmingly powerful military capabilities Certainly they could beat a bunch of rubes with rifles, right? Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto didn't think so: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass(1)."

And those goat herders in Afghanistan held off a nuclear powered Soviet Union until the Communists went home with their hammer and sickle between their legs.

More recently, a bunch of students and radicals have overthrown governments with powerful military capabilities in Lybia, Egypt and are holding their own in Syria.

Even if the anti-gun thesis that an armed citizen is useless against tyranny, what is the alternative? Is it better to rollover, defenseless; or fight with whatever weapon you might have? The anti-gunners would have you rollover. After all, according to them, it is futile to fight with your little rifle.

Just comply, they say. Do what you are told by the people with the guns. Don't fight. You might hurt yourself. It is better to live under tyranny than to die fighting for your freedom, they say.

They can kiss my ass.

(1) Even though that quotation is almost certainly misattributed and the Japanese Admiral didn't actually ever say that, I'm borrowing from Dan Rather - it may not be true, but it is accurate.

Abortion is neither a "progressive" nor a "conservative" issue.

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 23:29:00 +0000

Abortion is not strictly a "progressive" issue. Plenty of Republicans are pro-choice. and some Dems (particularly in the South) are not. If one wants the state out of the woman's life, they are pro-choice. If on one wants the state to protect the unborn, one is not pro-choice. It is simply a matter of how one applies the non-aggression principle: to the mother or to the unborn. I do not have the answer to that dilemma.

Having said that, I always side with the individual over the state. I always side with voluntary action over state force. Both Republicans and Democrats have issues where they want the state to force individuals to behave a certain way. Ergo, neither understands the non-aggression principle. Ergo, neither understands freedom. Ergo, neither understands the proper role of the state.

Why athletes inspire.

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 21:35:00 +0000

I just watched the ESPN documentary on Bo Jackson. I almost forgot how incredible he was.

Incredible athletes like Bo remind us (well, me, anyway) that exceptional humans exist in all walks of life and that greatness is attainable.

For instance, when Bo Jackson threw out Harold Reynolds at the plate from the warning track with a throw that never hit the ground - you can't believe what you just saw. It was impossible.

But it wasn't. It just happened. A human being just did something impossible. That's inspiring.

Accept Holmes' plea and lock him up forever.

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:00:00 +0000

If it is true that James Holmes, the man accused of killing 12 and wounding 58 others in an Aurora theatre, is willing to plead guilty in exchange for life imprisonment without parole, District Attorney George Brauchler should jump on that opportunity. Right now. Without hesitation.

A guilty plea saves the surviving victims and the families of all the victims years of trials and appeals. It saves them the anguish of reliving the trauma imposed by Holmes.It gives them closure. It assures them, and all of us, that Holmes will never see another sunrise as a free man.

And excuse me for being tacky, but it saves all of us the millions and millions of dollars that otherwise will be spent on prosecuting and defending the man for the next decade or so.

End it now. Accept the guilty plea. Lock him up and bury him under the jail.

The only reason NOT to accept the plea is to pursue the death penalty. But in exchange for that pursuit, Holmes fights the case canine and cuticle. He may even be found insane and eventually freed. No one knows what might happen in the next decade if the case is not closed right now. The door can be slammed on Holmes immediately - forever.

It should be.

Not tryin' to be a smartass...

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:39:00 +0000

So, I understand that if you show any sign of concern that Islam might contain violent elements, then you are clearly a racist with an irrational fear of brown people just because they dress differently and have a different culture and religion.

OK then. Let's accept that premise for the sake of discussion.

If it is true, where is the irrational fear of Hindus?

What does a poor person need most?

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:17:00 +0000

What do poor people in the United States need more than anything else?

A government check? No.

Free healthcare? No.

The ability to sue someone if they have been discriminated against? No.

So what do poor people in the United States need more than anything else?

A job.

Unfortunately, every government check, every "free" government service, every new cause of action created by the government makes it harder for the poor to get what they need more than anything else:

A job.

Everyone of these feel-good government policies ostensibly designed to help the poor do the opposite. Even if one gives the proponents of these policies the benefit of the doubt and assumes they are completely and honestly well-intentioned, we know what paves the road to Hell.

That road has never been better maintained.

The GOP is Dead

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:10:00 +0000

The GOP is dead.

Too much of it talks about freedom, but doesn't want homosexuals to marry.

Too much of it talks about freedom, but doesn't want you to smoke marijuana.

Too much of it talks about fiscal responsibility, but champions debt.

Too much of it talks about the Constitution, but kowtows to the feds when it exercises usurped powers reserved to the states.

Too much if it talks about the Constitution, then pushes for legislation the Congress has no authority to enact.

Too much of it talks about reigning in Executive power, then looks the other way when the President unilaterally starts wars.

Too much of it talks about free markets, then fights for farm subsidies.

Too much of it equates a fertilized egg with a human, and spends resources on doomed legislation when it could be using that energy effectively spreading the gospel of Jesus.

The GOP is dead, collapsing under the weight of its own inconsistency. Putting it out of its misery is the humane thing to do. Don't let it flail about in death throes for another decade. Trying to save it is wasted energy.

Fighting for freedom is where the effort should be. Using the GOP as a means to that end is futile. You might as well try to put a square peg into a round rock.

Nullification is not a radical idea. It is a legitimate tool against oppresion.

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 19:34:00 +0000

Play along with me here...

Suppose the federal government declares an emergency and decided it needed to put some soldiers up in private residences for a short time. Some owners of such private residences are not happy with this. They refuse to comply.

The federal Order requiring this housing of soldiers in private residences against the wishes of the property owners is a pretty clear violation of the Third Amendment. I think we could all agree on that. (The Third Amendment says, in pertinent part: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner..." .)

Do you believe the Owner of the property has a right to disobey the federal Order and refuse to quarter soldiers in his home? Do you believe the local should Sheriff assist the home owner?

If so, you believe in nullification. Imagine that.

Before slavery ended, the federal government passed a law that said any alleged runaway slave had to be returned to the person claiming ownership without any due process for the alleged slave. What if a state refused to hand over such a person to federal agents, in clear violation of the federal law? Would that state be in the right?

If you think so, you believe in nullification. Imagine that.

During World War II, the federal government ordered Japanese Americans - including citizens - rounded up and put in camps. What if the Governor of a State refused to comply with that order. Would that Governor be correct?

If you think so, you believe in nullification. Imagine that.

The first example has not happened. Yet. The second did. So did the third. There are many other real life examples for those that wish to find them.

Nullification is not a crazy, radical idea. It is merely a tool against oppression.

Perhaps we could take a cue from Cuba...

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 01:18:00 +0000

"Cuba introducing free-market reform"

------Headline, Denver Post, page 41A, today.

The United States should try that. Instead, we are reforming the other way.

No time for a party

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:15:00 +0000

You are on a long trip, driving alone. It is night and you are on a two lane rural highway. You are getting close, but have another hour or so before arrival.

... you hear a horn and suddenly wake up. Headlights are coming right for you. You slam on your brakes, jerk the wheel back into your lane, travel off the road into a ditch and come to rest when you slam into a tree.

You wake up some time later. Groggy, you take inventory: no blood, no broken bones. You are alive.

Even with this realization, you aren't exactly in the mood for confetti and champagne.

... and if Mitt wins, you shouldn't be either. For the same reasons.

Free and Independent States?

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:08:00 +0000

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, ... do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States....

From The Declaration of Independence, signed July 4, 1776, Philadephia, PA

"Free and Independent States?" What? It says that?

Indeed it does.

We, as Americans, celebrate the Declaration of Independence on July 4 every year. Most Americans know that the document declared that the thirteen colonies would no longer recognize the authority of the British Crown. We were, henceforth, independent of King George III and his monarchy.

"We," however, were not the United States of America. "We" were thirteen free and independent states. Somehow, this part of the Declaration is not appreciated.

It should be.

Welcome Westword readers!

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 02:09:00 +0000

Thanks to Westword for linking here in their post on my campaign for RTD Board of Directors in District E.

While you are here, be sure to check out my official campaign site, Dave4RTD, and the official Dave4RTD Facebook page.

You can also follow me on Twitter @BlueCarp and on Facebook.

In short, I believe one of our major political issues today is a corrupt corporatist two-party duopoly that is only concerned with maintaining power & enriching their cronies via government power & your tax money.

Help me fight crony-capitalism & for your needs as a tax paying citizen. Everyone (not just 47%) in the Regional Transportation District pays sales tax to RTD. You should benefit, not developers & other corporatists.

Drop me a line at dave@dkwilliams.net or call me at 303-588-2731

And remember, Dave Williams is last on your ballot, but first in your heart!

I got a personal email from Beyonce!

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 03:56:00 +0000

And she's invited me to meet her and Jay! (His friends just call him Jay.) Here it is:

From: Beyonce Knowles

Subject: I don't usually email you

David --

I usually don't email you -- but I have an amazing invitation I have to share.

Jay and I will be meeting up with President Obama for an evening in NYC sometime soon. And we want you to be there!

Until midnight tonight, if you pitch in $5 or whatever you can, you'll be automatically entered to be flown out to join us.

I've had the honor of meeting President Obama and the First Lady a few times -- and believe me -- it's an opportunity you don't want to miss.

Don't worry about the airfare and hotel, it's taken care of. And you can bring a guest.
But the countdown is on -- this opportunity ends at midnight:
https://my.democrats.org/Meet-Me-in-New-York

Can't wait to meet you!

Love,

Beyoncé

She said "Love!" She can't wait to meet me!

I wonder if Jay will be Big Pimpin'?

Companies that directly benefit from mass transit should contribute

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:24:00 +0000

I was at Elitch Gardens yesterday with my daughter and friends. There is a light rail station that serves Pepsi Center and Elitch Gardens. There is no reason to stop at this station unless one is going to either Pepsi Center or Elitch's. There is also a passenger bridge that does nothing but serve Elitch Gardens.

I will find out how much Elitch Gardens contributed for that bridge. Did Kroenke Enterprises (owner of Pepsi Center, the Nuggets and Avalanche) chip in?

I bet not. They should have.

Vote Dave Williams, RTD Board of Directors, District E.

Last on your ballot, first in your heart!

Why I will vote for Gary Johnson - a quick note on why it doesn't matter if he can win or not.

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 01:44:00 +0000

The chances of Johnson winning are infinitesimal. But that's not the point. Changing the country's destructive path is the point. Complying with the corrupt corporatist two party duopoly is to continue down that path.

How does he even have an infinitesimal chance? If Gary Johnson were allowed in the debates, he would have a chance at winning a state, perhaps New Mexico, perhaps Wyoming, perhaps New Hampshire. If he won even a few electoral votes, the election could go to the House. This happened with Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson. At that point, all bets are off. Johnson could be a compromise solution.

But that isn't even the point. If he were to get exposure in the debates, actual constitutionally limited government views would be heard. They currently are not. If people heard these ideas, they would gain momentum. With momentum, things have a chance of changing.

Those in control, however, love the status quo. They love getting government protection.They love buying influence in. DC. There is no way they, the corporatists, will allow Johnson in the debates. He is a threat, even if tiny. They can not have that. Corporatists, by the way, have no party. Both the Ds and Rs do their bidding. For example, why does Goldman Sachs donate to both Obama and Mitt? Because, like Rick Hendrick when it comes to Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson, they don't care who wins. Either way, they get paid.

Plurality voting is one of the ways the corporatists maintain power. Plurality voting makes no sense on any objective level. Please read Gaming the Vote by William Poundstone for more on this. http://www.amazon.com/Gaming-Vote-Elections-Arent-About/dp/0809048930

"Spoiling" the vote for one of the major parties (most recently, Nader "spoiled" Florida for Gore - this is not a partisan subject) demonstrates vividly the ignorance of plurality voting. By demonstrating its ignorance, perhaps it can change.

Hoping that the current system will result in any different outcome, after 150 years, is ... well.... uh... belied by history. (Quick aside: I could have said something like "fucking stupid" instead of "belied by history," but I do my best not to be a douche. I know, I know, I often fail. But at least I'm aware of the problem).

I'm not voting for Johnson because he can win. I'm voting against giving my consent to corrupt corporatism. Kinda like Ayn Rand wrote about the "sanction of the victim.' Voting for Romney is sanctioning your own theft. Maybe to a lesser degree, but so what? Think about this: Do you think Dagny Taggart would vote for Mitt?

If she voted at all, she wouldn't. Same for Hank Rearden, John Galt, Francisco D'Anconia, etc. They would never sanction their own victimhood. Not at the end of the book, anyway.

Principal, my friend, matters. Beating the other guy is not a principal. Freedom is a principal. Our founding fathers were willing to kill and die for it. I"m just trying to change a demonstrably failed process by not supporting it. One day, I hope you will, too.
=====

Read Etienne de la Boettie's Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. http://mises.org/document/1218/

Read Lysander Spooner's No Treason http://jim.com/treason.htm

I do not agree with all of either one, but they both challenge our thinking. And that is a good thing.

"We celebrate success." Absolutely! But.....

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:56:00 +0000

Last night Mitt Romney said, "In America, we celebrate success, we don't apologize for success."

I'm down with that. It is absolutely true.

However, the problem arises when "success" is achieved via corporate welfare, corporatist protectionism and political favors to the politically connected.

That's not real success. That is theft.

That is what, I think, the Occupy people are pointing out. They fail, however, when they concluded that EVERYBODY should get government favors. The answer, of course, is that the government should stay the hell out of the favor granting business.

Stop eminent domain abuse by RTD. Vote Dave Williams, District E

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:03:00 +0000

Eminent domain abuse by RTD is one of my major concerns as a candidate for Board of Directors in District E.

RTD has used the process to condemn land not just for rail expansion, but for developers to build near light rail stops.

While legal, it is immoral to force a property owner to give up his land so the government can sell it to someone else for development.

Vote Dave Williams for RTD Board of Directors District E.

(This is a nonpartisan election and will be on the same ballot as all the big races, like President and Congress, etc.)

"Last on the ballot, first in your heart!"

Find your RTD District here:

http://www.rtd-denver.com/BoardDirectors.shtml

A serious problem within the "liberty movement"

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 03:59:00 +0000

What does it mean to be in the "liberty movement?" Well, I guess, it means you want to move society toward liberty. So what is liberty?

I suggest there is no better authority than Thomas Jefferson. He said that "no man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

There ya go. Can anyone who owns a Gadsden flag disagree with Mr. Jefferson? I think not.

So, according to the father of the American liberty movement, liberty means man should be free to do anything that does not infringe upon the natural rights of another.

Once we start making exceptions to this rule, we have forfeited all moral highground. Once we say, "well, doing X doesn't infringe upon the rights of another, but it is still such a bad idea, the law ought to restrain people from doing it," we have opened the entire debate to what justifies exceptions to Jefferson's definition.

Who would argue such a thing? Well, we all know professed believers in liberty who say they absolutely believe in Jefferson's vision, but marijuana is an exception because smoking weed is too important an issue to leave up to individuals. The state must take control. That is why they oppose Colorado's proposed Amendment 64.

These people no longer have any moral ground upon which to claim liberty as a reason to keep the state out of healthcare. The "progressive" merely has to point out he believes in liberty, too, but that health care is just too important to leave it up to individuals. The state must take control. That is why they favor Obamacare.

So, how can one distinguish between the person in the liberty movement and the person in the progressive movement in such an instance?

One can not.

This, my friends, is why freedom is dangerous. Live dangerously. Don't be scared of it. Embrace it. Without exception. Can you imagine a truly free society? How great it would be? If achieving that goal means we - GASP! - have to let people smoke marijuana, is that really that high a cost? I say it is a pittance.

Another very basic example of "progressive" ignorance

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:53:00 +0000

Cynthia Tucker perfectly demonstrates why "progressives" base their entire philosophy on an incorrect premise.

They equate "charity" with "government."

In her article "Ayn Rand is curious choice for conservative veneration," she writes

[Paul] Ryan's indifference to the plight of weaker members of society shows how the modern conservative movement has tortured and refashioned traditional Christian beliefs. There is very little of the teachings of Jesus -- who told a rich man to sell all he had and give the proceeds to the poor -- in a right-wing religious nationalism that holds the poor in contempt.

Ms. Tucker, and "progressives" in general, fail to see the distinction between (a) the rich man giving the proceeds to the poor and (b) having the state take the proceeds from the rich man. Ms. Tucker, and those that share her world view, see these two things as equivalent.

It is abjectly absurd.

There are many other things Ms. Tucker gets wrong, but they all spring from this basic error.

An incredibly thinly veiled parable about the two party system and third party minorities.

noreply@blogger.com (DK Williams) — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:48:00 +0000

A group gathered around a burning building. Some said, "This is awesome! Let's add some gasoline!" A second group said, "No, that's crazy! We need to put this fire out! Let's add a bunch of dry straw and twigs!"

A tiny, third, group said, "Wait a minute. We agree with the second group that we need to put out this fire, but straw and twigs won't do it. No, it's not as bad as putting gasoline on it, but it's still going to make the fire bigger. Let's put water on it, instead."

Leaders of the first two groups yelled at the third group, "Shut up! You have TWO choices! You can either help us put gasoline on the fire or you can help put straw and twigs on the fire! We are having a vote. What do you vote for?"

"Neither. We want to put OUT the fire. We vote for water."

"Well, if you want to put out the fire, you better vote for straw and twigs. Otherwise, you are just supporting the gasoline guys. You will be helping the group that wants the fire to get bigger. You will be working AGAINST what you want, don't you see that? Are you stupid?"

"No, actually, we aren't stupid. That's why we vote for water. Even if only 1% of us vote for water, we still believe that is the best - indeed, the only - solution. We will not vote for straw and twigs just because it is not as bad as gasoline. Even if you don't agree with us, can you at least see our reasoning?"

"NO! You are helping the gasoline people! You are stupid!"

... and so the discussion ended and the vote was held.