Press "Enter" to skip to content

Mary Ruwart endorses Scotty Boman for U.S. Senate

A media release from Michigan Libertarian for U.S. Senate Scotty Boman says he’s proud to announce he’s been officially endorsed by “libertarian icon” Mary Ruwart.

“It is a great honor to be endorsed by a person of Dr. Ruwart’s caliber; she is a superb writer, philosopher, and Michigan native,” says Scotty, who was the chairman of the Libertarian Party of Michigan’s successful ballot-access drive in 1994. Dr. Ruwart was supportive of that effort, donating copies of her critically acclaimed and best-selling book, Healing Our World, which were sold and the proceeds used to pay petitioners.

“Mary is unique among high profile libertarians in that she has a capacity to be both uncompromising in her positions and patient with those who disagree,” says Scotty. “This quality has made her a unifying force in the libertarian movement, always sticking to principal, while showing compassion to the less enlightened. Mary Ruwart put the ‘love’ in revolution, before the idea was a catchy logo.”

Disclosure: IPR’s editor-in-chief is a consultant for Boman08.


  1. Scotty Boman Scotty Boman January 6, 2009

    I went to this article out of a sense of hubris and nostalgia, only to find this debate (for lack of a better word).

    Frankly I think this ship keeps sinking because the deck hands are too busy debating whether or not to hit the ice burg slow and sideways, or steer away from it.

    The debate is punctuated by remarks about the captain and engineer’s sex lives. Both of whom could save the ship if they were consulted.

    Meanwhile the ice burg tears the hull.

    One may be right and the other wrong, but they end up at the bottom of the sea of tyranny.

  2. karl karl July 24, 2008

    Scarey as it may sound–Milnes is correct—Mary Ruwart does put the “loser” in “losertarian.” Mary Ruwart is a home wrecker. And that makes her a loser in most books.

  3. Mike Theodore Mike Theodore July 24, 2008

    Robert, I’d love to go searching for a chart of the area, but that’s irrelevant.
    If the boat went forward at any speed, the water would have came in faster. The water went over the watertight doors into the halls of the front/mid sections. Even before the water went over the deck.
    One of the first things I figured out when I started fishing in my wee little brain was that if the front or back of the ship was down, pushing the throttle full speed ahead would throw the boat in the water full speed ahead. The water would continue coming in through the hole (at a faster speed, mind you). The doors were shut, but the water would continue to flow over them (at a faster speed, mind you). The pumps would still fail (at a faster speed, mind you).
    The only difference is, under Captain Milnes, the ship would have sunk faster, and less people would have had the chance to get off. Under your confidence, you probably wouldn’t have called for help. More in the deep.

    So what now? Reverse all the way to England. The ship would still sink, but now everyone would be all “Why the hell did the fool go in reverse instead of evacuating?!”

    BTW, some kind chap actually put the entire movie on Youtube! A busy night ahead for me!

  4. Robert Milnes Robert Milnes July 24, 2008

    Mike, I think your assessment of the Titanic is quite pessimistic. The nearest large land mass seems to be Hewfoundland. It is located about 375 miles SE of St Johns. But there may be small oslands closer. & the continental shelf goes out there so there may be shallows. I’d have to study a more detailed navigation chart. The lifeboats didn’t go far. They just waited for rescue. It took about 3 hours to sink but that was just sitting in the water. If it went full steam, the pumps etc would have kept going. Maximum speed about 25mph. Now, it would have been challenged to not hit another iceberg. 11 hours. So, could it have stayed afloat 8 more hours if run at full steam? Is there a closer destination?

  5. Mike Theodore Mike Theodore July 24, 2008

    Robert, you’ve sent me into mass Titanic research mode. It turns out they did have bilge pumps, I believe they were manual. A good amount of men stayed in the boiler rooms to man them before the bulkheads gave in. They were essentially as useless as a bucket brigade as water stormed the ship.

  6. Mike Theodore Mike Theodore July 24, 2008

    Robert, do you question my shipwreck historical information?
    There was no land anywhere near where the iceberg hit. That’s why none of the lifeboats landed anywhere. It was also very, very deep water. No shallow shoals anywhere near. That’s why it took so long to find the damned ship.
    Here’s where my memory fails me. It’s been a while since I researched the Titanic. I believe the first 3 compartments were filled with water immediately after the collision. The hole in the hull (hehe) stretched that far, I think. Almost immediately after that, two more compartments filled up before they were locked down.
    No bucket brigades could have even opened up one of those 2 compartments without the water spraying out at them.
    At this point, no bilge pumps could save them (if they had any).
    As you mention the orchestra, I assume your basing off the movie (even though reports say that the orchestra did exist, and they did play while the ship sank). Well, if you remember the scene after a few minutes, the front of the ship was sinking deep into the water, almost reaching the deck. Full steam ahead, that water would be pushed back onto the ship, and it would have sunk in a little less than an hour.
    The ship was fully submerged two and a half hours after hitting the iceberg. Nothing could have been done. There was nowhere to go, and no pump or “bucket brigade” could have saved them.

    Now, can we get back to the concept of you acting like a political genius and everyone laughing at you?

  7. Robert Milnes Robert Milnes July 24, 2008

    Mike Theodore, here’s one for you. What would’ve happened if, instead of stopping dead in the water, the captain of the Titanic had ordered his navigator to locate the closest land (beached) or shallow shoals (run aground)& full steam in that direction? The bilge pumps could have been operated at full. Repair crews set in motion. Passengers could have formed bucket brigades (every little bit helps). But no. They stopped, radioed SOS & fired flares & the orchestra played in the freezing cold.

  8. Mike Theodore Mike Theodore July 24, 2008

    The great wisdom of the convention masses laugh in the face of Milnes! The LP will lose, and will lose many times ahead. With or without you, Robert. You just, for some reason, want to be the crazy captain manning the sinking ship.

  9. Robert Milnes Robert Milnes July 24, 2008

    Libertarians in their wisdom didn’t support me. I lost. But the LP will lose too. So I guess that makes me just another loser.

  10. inDglass inDglass July 24, 2008

    You can’t lose if you don’t compete. 😛

  11. Mike Gillis Mike Gillis July 23, 2008

    Mary Ruwart is a “loser”, Milnes?

    When she actually had supporters for her candidacy and you didn’t have a one….

    …what does that make you?

  12. Jonathan Hawks Jonathan Hawks July 23, 2008

    Mary Ruwart puts the “libertarian” in the Libertarian Party.

  13. Robert Milnes Robert Milnes July 23, 2008

    Skizzzz. Which Mike Theodore are you? Supporter or detractor?

  14. Mike Theodore Mike Theodore July 23, 2008

    Robert Milnes puts the “psycho” in permanent mental psychosis.

  15. Robert Milnes Robert Milnes July 23, 2008

    Mary Ruwart helps put the “loser” in losertarian.

Comments are closed.