Whackjobery

Since we're all in the political minority here, perhaps some of you have felt the same way: I find it interesting how often politicians and PACs will run smear ads that have the exact opposite of the desired impact on me because of my libertarian views. I know they're targeting the undecided voter and don't care how I vote, but it still makes me chuckle from time to time.

Every time I've checked my fantasy football team or my spam Yahoo e-mail account tonight, there has been an ad that asks, "Why didn't Norm Coleman help stop meth in Minnesota?" If you click on the ad, you wind up here, and you'll see the following:

In January 2003, Coleman joined fellow Republicans in voting to kill an amendment proposed by Senator Tom Harkin. The Harkin amendment would have provided $634.7 million in Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations to rural law enforcement agencies for antidrug programs. According to floor statements from the Senate record, the funding helped law enforcement pursue meth producers. The motion to kill the amendment was agreed to in a vote of 52-46. [Congressional Quarterly, 1/17/03; HJ Res 2, Vote #6, 1/17/03]

Coleman's vote denied $8.5 million in anti-drug law enforcement funding for rural Minnesota. Coleman voted to table the amendment, which proposed restoring funding levels to FY02 levels, or $8,456,474 for Minnesota. [HJ Res 2, Vote #6, 1/17/03]

My thoughts were, wow, a Republican not blowing money on the useless, dangerous, ineffective and pointless war on drugs? And this from the party of Just Say No? I don't care for either Coleman or Franken, but this attack on Coleman actually scores him some minor points in my eyes.

Changing to an unrelated topic, one issue I've been disappointed with the American Left on this election season is their support for the The Employee Free Choice Act. We're the folks that favor the free market over democracy. They're supposed to be the folks that stand up for democracy as an end in itself. And now they're backing a bill that removes anonymous voting? These folks were pissed about the disenfranchising nature of butterfly ballots a few years ago. For as much as the American Left likes to sneer self righteously, it's clearly pragmatism over principle now that they want to do away with secret balloting in the instances it hurts their agenda.

Share this

How about this one

Only three?

He has thirteen vehicles and ten are American made? There are few people who own more American-made cars than John McCain. As a group, American automakers have few better customers than McCain. As for his "lie", that's debatable. The statement can mean different things. For example, I've worn socks literally all my life and I'm proud. That does not mean that I haven't also worn shoes, pants, shirts, and so on. And it doesn't mean I've spent every second of my life wearing socks, either.

(And that's aside from the point that as for me, I don't care how many or how few American-made cars McCain owns.)

Have American-made cars stopped being junk, by the way? I don't trust them but maybe I'm living in the past. Of course, there's a good chance that my Toyota was made in America, so I should really ask, do the familiar American automakers make cars that are competitive with Toyotas, Hondas, and so on. When they did that automaker research on McCain, did they look into where the factories were located? (Not that, as a libertarian, I much care.)

Agreed

Or, as another example, I've drunk Coca-Cola literally all my life. I've also had Pepsi, grape Nehi, water, coffee, beer, ginger ale, single malt scotch, and countless other drinks.

How odd that a commercial tries to show McCain as a liar, when it actually demonstrates that he's telling the truth.

Sadly it says a lot about

Sadly it says a lot about Michigan voters.

I left that comment...

virtually word for word on the YouTube page. Unsurprisingly, it wasn't approved for posting.

Sweet

He's against subsidies for big business? Well, not really, but in this one case, woot?

Money is not being blown on the drug war

The drug war is part of mechanism for transferring assets from the working class to our owners. Anyone who thinks the politicians are not empire building through the drug war is kidding themselves. The drug war has created hundreds of thousands of civil service jobs whose holders vote to keep the system going. Confiscating property of drug users has replaced speed traps as revenue for your local police department.

Bureaucracy is not that

Bureaucracy is not that organized and efficient. If it were purely a matter of revenue, they'd simply tax drugs heavily. I think it started as a way to court puritans, and is now part of the cult of the state. It is merely kept because the state cannot admit being wrong.

You claim the drug war is used as a pretext to pay more civil servants, but what's limiting the state isn't really reasons to tax, it's the tax base, so it's not a particularly useful tool. Having legal but tax drugs would genuinely increase the pie to tax from. No conspiracy here.

That is where "crony

That is where "crony capitalism" comes into play. Big Pharma, Big Tobacco and the Alcohol lobby have paid to keep those drugs illegal while promoting their own.

No conspiracy, but certainly profits to be had from many facets of this revenue stream. The invisible taxes, etc.