Libertarian Party: Shall we spend $30k for “Republican Wall of Shame” ad?

Via email and LP blog:

Dear Friend of Liberty,
wall of shame
We have an incredible opportunity thanks to a generous $10,000 gift from an angry donor.

He’s so mad about the people listed on our "Republican Wall of Shame" that he gave us $10,000 if we would run an ad with the Republican Wall of Shame in the Washington Post.

He wants everyone to know what lying hypocrites those Republican politicians are.

We’ve already received his $10,000 check.

The problem is, Washington Post ads are really expensive. A full-page color ad in the main news section costs $92,000, a half-page costs $50,773, and a quarter-page costs $29,835. (We’re not going to run anything smaller than a quarter-page ad in the print version.)

I’m hoping you will donate a few hundred dollars, or $1,000, and perhaps another very generous donor will contribute $10,000 to get us close to the $30,000 we need to run the print ad.

In the unfortunate event we cannot even raise $30,000, we did find a good $15,000 package that involves advertising in the Washington Post online. With online ads, we can link directly to our website, where we can provide more details, encourage people to join the Libertarian Party, and ask them to donate so we can run the ad in more places.

I hope we’ll be able to afford a print ad, but an online ad would be worthwhile too.

Can you at least help us raise $5,000 so we can run the online ad? Normally with a donor offering $10,000, we would hope to quickly match his donation with another $10,000. But I’m asking you to at least help us raise $5,000 — that way, we can at least run an online ad.

Please go to our website here and make a generous donation to help expose the hypocrisy of these prominent Republicans.

Type "wall of shame ad" in the comments section at the bottom.

Please note that Congressman Ron Paul did NOT qualify for our Republican Wall of Shame. That’s because Congressman Paul, who was our 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for President, adheres to the Constitution and votes against bailouts, tax increases, and wars.

We may tweak the ad to fit the space, and of course we’ll add text encouraging people to join the LP, but basically the content will be what you see here. We won’t add any other people to this Republican Wall of Shame ad, even though many others deserve to be on it.

We displayed a big 4-by-6-foot version of the "Republican Wall of Shame" at our CPAC booth recently and it was a big hit, attracting lots of attention. It was specifically designed to separate small-government libertarians from the Republican Party, and attract them to the Libertarian Party.

There’s a catch.

I told our $10,000 donor that I thought we could raise at least $5,000 more. If we can’t raise at least $5,000 more for this ad, I’ll call the donor and ask him if he wants us to return his check — and if we do, we’ll also give that opportunity to every other donor for this ad. My deadline for raising $5,000 is this Friday, March 4 at 11:59 p.m. I will keep you posted about the progress at LP.org.

Do you think this ad is a bad idea? You’ve got the opportunity to tell us that below in our poll.

I can’t promise you what effect this ad will have. Sometimes you just want to stand up and speak truth to power, point your finger directly at the politicians, and expose them for the liars and hypocrites they are. This ad will definitely let you do that, focused right here in the Washington, DC area.

Also, spending money on ads in a major newspaper shows the press and public how serious we are. I want the press to see we’re hitting hard at the Republican hypocrites who have track records of growing government.

If you’re mad as hell and don’t want to take it anymore, you can take action here.

If you donate at least $500, we’ll list your name in the ad if you ask us to. Tell us in the comments section when you donate.

If we raise $5,000-$19,000, we’ll run the online ads. If we raise $20,000, we’ll go for a quarter-page print ad. If we raise $82,000, we’ll go for the full-page ad. (Note, the maximum you can donate in a calendar year is $30,800.)

Please donate now, and type "wall of shame ad" in the comments section. Also please forward this note to your friends and ask them to donate.

And please tell us what you think about this plan by responding to our poll.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

116 thoughts on “Libertarian Party: Shall we spend $30k for “Republican Wall of Shame” ad?

  1. paulie Post author

    @1 I voted yes in the poll, it does seem like the nos are leading at the moment; hopefully that will change or that they will run the ad anyway provided they raise enough money.

  2. Jerry S.

    I would fall in the other.

    Why? -Because I wouldn’t give the money to the Washington Post which is one of the major mouthpieces of the “Establishment” and their warmongering ways!

    Whynot?-Use the money in several papers in Iowa and NH to hopefully help stop any of these jokers from getting the ’12 nomination!

  3. Porn Again Christian

    That would be a “no, don’t run the ad” vote. The $10 k donor wants an ad in the Post.

    Members of congress, staff, lobbyists and national news correspondents read the post, so it could lead to other media opportunities. Also, maybe that’s the donor’s hometown paper.

    They do also consider the idea of 15k to run the ad online.

  4. Tom Blanton

    Oh me, oh my. How will it look if the LP criticizes the GOP? It could offend Republicans and where would that leave the LP? People might conclude that libertarians aren’t “true conservatives” and dismiss the LP as a radical group outside the mainstream of moderate American life.

    My goodness, the whole thing just makes me so nervous. What if all the knee-jerk conservatives stop claiming to be libertarians? What if all the LP members that are right-wing reactionaries get mad and quit?

    I think everyone should stop and ask themselves, “What would Wayne do?”

  5. paulie Post author

    Whatever Wayne would do, it would probably reach quite a few ears and eyeballs. I’d love to say the same about others in the party and/or movement that I tend to agree with more often than I do with Wayne. If I wasn’t broke, I’d donate.

  6. paulie Post author

    Another thing Wayne would do is if he considered the project worthwhile, he would donate to it. So, for those of you who think it is worthwhile and can afford to donate, are you donating?

  7. Jill Pyeatt

    This is a wonderful idea! I’ll work our budget to see what we can come up with, as far as a donation.

  8. J. W. Evans

    I’m all for the LP stating loud and proud it’s not the GOP-lite, but I personally feel like the money could be invested towards better outreach campaigns.

    But assuming they do go and run the ad anyway, please please pleeease do something about the picture. It’s a bit.. 5 minutes in MS Paint-ish

  9. Fun K. Chicken

    Seems like a pretty on point, effective ad to me. From what I heard, it worked pretty well at CPAC in terms of outreach.

  10. Matt Cholko

    I like the idea very much.

    Jerry S – An ad in the Washington Post, with proper PR, is likely to get some attention. If we’re lucky, and it runs on an otherwise slow news day, it may get some talk on national news programs. Putting it in a few obscure newspapers won’t have the same effect.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Congressman Paul, who was our 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for President, adheres to the Constitution”

    Except, of course, when he doesn’t like what it says or finds it too restrictive on the powers he wants government to exercise. Then the Constitution goes right out the fucking window.

  12. Robert Capozzi

    I continue to maintain that attacking Gingrich for his views on Global Warming (Climate Change) is poor positioning for the LP. The LP takes no position on the matter that I’m aware of. Some Ls believe that man-made climate change is a real phenomenon, and this will also likely alienate L-leaners who are also green-leaners. (Full Disclosure: I’m neutral on the theory of global climate change and am definitely green-leaning.) Gingrich has many other issues to challenge; this is a poor choice for one, IMO.

    The choice of Paul Ryan seems off to me, too. In the pantheon of Rs, there are many others I’d ID as “shameful” before Ryan. I’ll live with “shame” as an appropriate label for political rivals, but I prefer a less personal, non-condemning approach. Leave that to the Limbaughs and Maddows of the world.

    As a fundraising device, this might be a worthwhile effort. Advertising in the Post seems a poor recruiting device to me, though.

  13. AroundtheblockAFT

    A full page ad in “The Hill” would probably be cheaper and create more buzz. Plus ask the LP group in each of the Shameful’s districts to write a letter to the editors in the major papers in the district. The object of the exercise is to get people talking about their conduct, not to line the pockets of the WaPo today and line someone’s birdcage tomorrow.

  14. paulie Post author

    I continue to maintain that attacking Gingrich for his views on Global Warming (Climate Change) is poor positioning for the LP. The LP takes no position on the matter that I’m aware of.

    We take the position that a massive government program is not the solution. Gingrich’s quote, I believe, indicates that he holds the opposite view. When an establishment politician like Gingrich uses the word “we,” he means the government.

  15. George Phillies

    The reasonable interpretation of the Gingrich quote, especially among conservative morons, but I repeat myself, is that Gingrich is bad because he believes in global warming.

    Global warming denial is like evolution denial.

  16. George Phillies

    @16 That’s an interesting idea.

    People should recall that in 2001 we did another of these, attack the chief funder of foreigners shooting at their governments, namely the Federal Drug Tsar.

  17. George Phillies

    Pray tell, why is my second comment, to someone else, awaiting moderation. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, but the policy might be better announced.

  18. paulie Post author

    @20 There’s no policy. It’s an automated system. We get hundreds of spam comments every day, and no one would have the time to sit here and delete them after the fact.

    See crazyforliberty.com comments to see what it looks like without spam moderation.

    Every once in a while, the automated system screws up, for reasons I don’t know.

    Sometimes it approves an obvious spam comment. That happens rarely enough that it is not a problem.

    Sometimes it holds up a legitimate comment. I have no idea why, but it happens. Sometimes it’s for reasons I understand, such as too many links included. But at other times I have no idea why.

    The easiest thing to do is to email contact.ipr@gmail.com when that happens and let us know. However, at those times when I’m not around much, the other people at IPR may or may not help you with that.

    The only other way around this problem is to sign you up as an IPR writer, and then when it happens you can fish out your comments yourself.

    I have to fish out my own comments from time to time.

  19. paulie Post author

    The reasonable interpretation of the Gingrich quote, especially among conservative morons, but I repeat myself, is that Gingrich is bad because he believes in global warming.

    Sure. However, it’s not a reasonable interpretation to believe that he envisions any kind of private, voluntary, non-coercive, or small government solution.

  20. paulie Post author

    It appears that they will not be going for the Washington Post ad, but the online ad.

    Not sure whether I should make this a separate article at IPR, but it’s a separate blog post at LP blog:

    http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/wall-of-shame-ad-update

    (updated 3/3/11, 11:00 a.m. ET)

    So far donors have contributed or pledged about $3,900 toward our proposed "Republican Wall of Shame" ad. If we reach $5,000 by 11:59 p.m. on March 4, we plan to proceed with the ad project.

    Click here to contribute toward the ad. (Type "wall of shame" in the comments section.)

    Click here to see yesterday’s announcement.

  21. paulie Post author

    5k would make it 15k, which is the threshold for the online ad:

    “If we raise $5,000-$19,000, we’ll run the online ads. If we raise $20,000, we’ll go for a quarter-page print ad.”

    So, it seems they have raised (1)3.9 k so far and need another $1,100 for the online ads, and that the “birdcage lining” extra 15k appears to be out of reach.

  22. Jerry S.

    In their own words…

    “The threat of environmental crisis is the ‘international disaster key’ to unlock the New World Order.” – Mikhail Gorbachev

    “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports

    “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

    “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” – Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

    “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

    “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

    Think about it, kinda scary what they are up to ain’t it ?

  23. JT

    Robert: “As a fundraising device, this might be a worthwhile effort. Advertising in the Post seems a poor recruiting device to me, though.”

    I think Capozzi does have a point here. The Washington Post and its readers are predominantly economic liberals. Why would they be upset this kind of hypocrisy? The vast majority of them approve of those things (save corporate bailouts) and don’t support Republican politicians anyway (hence the fact that Republican candidates almost never win elections in the D.C. metro area).

  24. paulie Post author

    JT, there are lots of non-“liberal” readers of the Post, especially its online edition. They feel all the more disenfranchised because of where they live, if they are among those who live in the DC area, although the online edition especially is read by many outside the DC area.

    Furthermore, some of the Post’s readers, many of who may well be so-called liberals, are national correspondents. It could become national news if it is in the Post, with stories in other media outlets.

  25. JT

    George: “The reasonable interpretation of the Gingrich quote, especially among conservative morons, but I repeat myself, is that Gingrich is bad because he believes in global warming.”

    I don’t think that’s true. Gingrich doesn’t just say “there’s sufficient evidence that the Earth is getting warmer” and therefore he’s bad; he refers to taking steps to reduce “carbon loading in the atmosphere.” The logical implication of this is that human beings are putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, this is the cause of any warming the Earth has undergone, and the government should do something about it. There’s a big difference there.

  26. paulie Post author

    and the government should do something about it.

    That’s the real issue with Gingrich’s quote, although he doesn’t directly say it, that is what he means by “we.”

  27. JT

    Paulie: “JT, there are lots of non-”liberal” readers of the Post, especially its online edition. They feel all the more disenfranchised because of where they live, if they are among those who live in the DC area, although the online edition especially is read by many outside the DC area.”

    I said “predominantly.” The D.C. area is also served by the Washington Times, the conservative alternative. I don’t think most readers of the Washington Post would have a beef with almost all of the economic hypocrisy pointed out in that ad. I don’t know about the online edition, although I seriously doubt that most readers of that aren’t liberals either. To me, it’s like pointing out Democratic hypocrisy on social issues in a Right-leaning publication.

    Paulie: “Furthermore, some of the Post’s readers, many of who may well be so-called liberals, are national correspondents. It could become national news if it is in the Post, with stories in other media outlets.”

    Maybe.

  28. paulie Post author

    A full page ad in “The Hill” would probably be cheaper and create more buzz. Plus ask the LP group in each of the Shameful’s districts to write a letter to the editors in the major papers in the district.

    I’m not sure about the ad rate or reach comparisons. You may want to discuss that directly with the LP office. I’ve been told that they read comments here sometimes, but I doubt they sit around all day following every single thing that is posted here in the comments…at least, I should hope not.

    At this time, it seems they are going for the online edition. I’m not sure how that affects your analysis.

    As for districts, of the people listed, most don’t have districts (or don’t have them anymore).

    Romney, Huckabee, Bush, Gingrich and Schwarzenegger are all currently out of office. The mystery Republican president (Reagan) is dead.
    Only McCain and Ryan are current office holders.

  29. JT

    Paulie: “That’s the real issue with Gingrich’s quote, although he doesn’t directly say it, that is what he means by “we.””

    I think the real issue is that and the rest of my sentence.

  30. paulie Post author

    I’ll live with “shame” as an appropriate label for political rivals, but I prefer a less personal, non-condemning approach. Leave that to the Limbaughs and Maddows of the world.

    I think shame is called for, given the level of dysfunction involved.

    As a fundraising device, this might be a worthwhile effort. Advertising in the Post seems a poor recruiting device to me, though.

    I think it works pretty well as a presentation to the general public. Granted, it won’t reach everyone, or even most people, but it has teh potential to increase Libertarian ranks greatly if we get this message to be more widely heard.

  31. paulie Post author

    I think the real issue is that and the rest of my sentence.

    Whether the earth is warming, or whether that is caused by humans, and any opinion on that, is not what is shameful in Gingrich’s position.

    It’s not shameful to believe that there is global warming caused by humans. It’s not shameful to believe that we are entering a new ice age caused by solar activity levels (or whatever).

    What’s shameful is his view that “we (i.e. the regime) should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere.”

  32. JT

    Paulie: “Whether the earth is warming, or whether that is caused by humans, and any opinion on that, is not what is shameful in Gingrich’s position.”

    I didn’t say anything about “shameful.” I said it’s a real issue–as real as what Gingrich implies should be done about it. The reason is because if people believe that human emissions of CO2 are the cause of global warming that’s dangerous to everyone, they’re more likely to support some kind of government action, as opposed to viewing it as a generally natural phenomenon that isn’t catastrophic.

  33. paulie Post author

    JT,

    Opinions can legitimately vary as to whet the extent of climate change is, and to what extent humans are responsible for it or not, even among libertarians. There’s only one place where we should speak up as a political party on this question, and that is against monopoly government solutions.

    Likewise, you could say that people would be less likely to look for government solutions if we work to minimize the extent to which other problems which are used as excuses for government intervention – terrorism, poverty, drug abuse, and so on – are seen as dire threats. But I think that’s the wrong approach to take. There are in fact many serious problems in our world; our job should be more along the lines of spreading the idea that if a given problem is serious, that does not necessarily mean more government is the way to solve it. Anything else just A) shifts the argument to the wrong area for libertarians to focus on – i.e., defining what the problems are, rather than what should (or more to the point, shouldn’t) be done about them, and B) doesn’t do anything to address that same mindset being applied to the next crisis, whether real or not.

  34. paulie Post author

    Another update. As I understand it this means they have 14.5k towards the 15k for the online ad, and need another $500 by midnight tomorrow.


    So far donors have contributed or pledged the amounts below toward our proposed "Republican Wall of Shame" ad. If we reach $5,000 by 11:59 p.m. on March 4, we plan to proceed with the ad project.

    Please note, the total below is in addition to the original $10,000 donation we received for this purpose.

    (approximate total)
    3/3 11:00 a.m. ET: $3,900
    3/3 1:15 p.m. ET: $4,500

    Click here to contribute toward the ad. (Type "wall of shame" in the comments section.)

    Click here to see the March 2 announcement.

  35. Andy

    The only problem with this Republican Wall of Shame is that it is not nearly big enough. A complete Republican Wall of Shame could fill the Great Wall of China.

  36. Robert Capozzi

    Here, thanks. This: “You can be right or you can be happy.” sez it all! Shaming others appears to be a desperate attempt to be “right,” and it shows.

    Happiness and peace need to be increased, not cut off with sanctimony.

    Or, we can go the Limbaugh route….

  37. paulie Post author

    From what I heard it went over well at CPAC. Addicts are often ashamed of their addiction, and some do respond to being shamed, when nothing else has been getting through to them.

  38. Porn Again Christian

    “3/3 1:15 p.m. ET: $4,500” That’s on top of the 10k, so they had 14.5 of 15k at that point, and they have until midnight tonight..sounds to me like it will happen.

  39. paulie Post author

    Brand development 52k
    Outreach/PR/Marketing 9k

    However, as far as I know that budget has not been approved, so I think they are working off last year’s budget, or something like that,.

  40. George Phillies

    There is disagreement within the LNC as to whether or not the budget covers the expense. The 9K for marketing does not cover 15k for an ad. Brand development had itemization behind it.

  41. JT

    Paulie: “Likewise, you could say that people would be less likely to look for government solutions if we work to minimize the extent to which other problems which are used as excuses for government intervention – terrorism, poverty, drug abuse, and so on – are seen as dire threats.”

    That’s true, but terrorism, poverty, and drug abuse obviously do exist. They’re facts of reality that are undeniable, though Libertarians should, as you say, explain why government isn’t the way to deal with them.

    On the other hand:
    http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

    Paulie: ” Anything else just A) shifts the argument to the wrong area for libertarians to focus on – i.e., defining what the problems are, rather than what should (or more to the point, shouldn’t) be done about them, and B) doesn’t do anything to address that same mindset being applied to the next crisis, whether real or not.”

    I think Libertarians should address issues in whatever way we can to move people away away from supporting government action. If people believed that the Earth was going to explode soon like Superman’s planet Krypton, I don’t see anything wrong with Libertarians saying the evidence for that is weak to nonexistent.

    The late, great Harry Browne had some great lines on this issue (and virtually every issue):

    “And there was the New Ice Age that was predicted in the 1960s. When that didn’t come to pass, the alarmists decided that Global Warming made more sense. What’s next — dangerously moderate temperatures?”

    “A great deal of what you hear about the future of Planet Earth isn’t science, it’s politics. Notice that with every alarm — about global warming, the ozone layer, air pollution, dwindling resources, endangered species, or anything else — the preferred solution is always the same: more government.”

    “The supposed struggle to save the planet is really a struggle for power — power over your life. So politicians and environmental extremists never wait for their claims to be proven before demanding to turn your life upside down.”

    He attacks the validity of claims made by those with political ties as well as the idea that government can solve problems in general.
    You can read more at http://harrybrowne.org/GLO/Environment.htm
    (for those particularly interested in global warming, that’s addressed toward the bottom of the page).

    In any event, my initial post on this particular topic was as response to George, who said, “The reasonable interpretation of the Gingrich quote, especially among conservative morons, but I repeat myself, is that Gingrich is bad because he believes in global warming.” I said I don’t think that’s the reason because Gingrich didn’t just say that he thinks global warming is a problem; he refers to “carbon-loading into the atmosphere.” That implies something negative about human usage of a lot of fuel that emits CO2, which factors into any “reasonable interpretation” of that quote.

  42. paulie Post author

    Aren’t we still working off the previous year’s budget until the new budget is approved, or how does this work?

  43. paulie Post author

    49 was @ 47.

    I have run out of patience for discussing @ 48 on this thread for now, although others can if they wish; I stand by my previous statements on the subject and leave it at that.

  44. paulie Post author

    And no, that does not mean I am backing down; I just thing that my previous points said all that needs to be said on the matter.

  45. Robert Capozzi

    p43, “went over well” gives me little information. If the wall of “shame” led to X new members, I can work with that.

    Whether addicts respond to being shamed works is an interesting question. My understanding that wake-up calls can work to begin the healing addictions, condemning them is entirely a different matter.

    It appears this is a case of a special-purpose funding situation. Those with more intimate details of HQ SOP may know whether this is verboten or not. As a general matter, it seems appropriate to me, although specifically in this case, even if I were in a position to support the effort, I would not, as I find the tactic of shaming condemnation to be not aligned with my values, even when it seems to work. Peace works better.

    I believe Peter Breggin once psychologically profiled the three major ideologies, saying that liberals are motivated by guilt, conservatives by shame, libertarians by anxiety. Seems about right to me, generally. So, it’s no surprise that CPACers would respond to shame!

  46. Robert Capozzi

    jt48: If people believed that the Earth was going to explode soon like Superman’s planet Krypton, I don’t see anything wrong with Libertarians saying the evidence for that is weak to nonexistent.

    me: If there was good evidence that the Earth was going to explode, I would support government action to avert it, if possible. It’s true that a narrow reading of the NAP might say otherwise, but if everyone’s dead, I don’t see the point of the NAP. Silly me!

  47. paulie Post author

    “went over well” gives me little information. If the wall of “shame” led to X new members, I can work with that.

    I don’t have metrics handy. The reports I heard was that the LP booth was swamped and they got tons of positive comments and new contacts and inquiries.

    I believe Peter Breggin once psychologically profiled the three major ideologies, saying that liberals are motivated by guilt, conservatives by shame, libertarians by anxiety. Seems about right to me, generally. So, it’s no surprise that CPACers would respond to shame!

    So, it sounds like this campaign is the most effective way to go. Thanks!

    Unfortunately, as Dr. Phillies reports, some LNC members’ anxiety may squash a worthy project that other party members are willing to fund with their own money. If that happens, I predict the LP will have a harder time raising money for future projects.

  48. George Phillies

    “And there was the New Ice Age that was predicted in the 1960s. When that didn’t come to pass, the alarmists decided that Global Warming made more sense. What’s next — dangerously moderate temperatures?”

    In fact, if you read the actual scientific literature of the period you find that the substantial majority of the research agreed that we would have global warming. Of the papers on the other side, many were ‘here is a detailed analysis of one tree, not of the entire forest’.

  49. Robert Capozzi

    54, hmm, guilt, shame and anxiety are dysfunctions. Yes, if you’re in a shame-oriented crowd, one could attempt to manipulate them with shame-oriented themes.

    I’d like to think we’re better than that!

  50. paulie Post author

    I’d like to think we will eventually stop tying ourselves in knots and do more of what works. This approach seems to work on the test audience. Libertarians seem to want to give their own money to spread it wider. But, as usual, we’re getting ourselves tied in knots with second-guessing, so we can’t get off the ground.

    And that’s the real shame.

  51. Pingback: “Republican Wall of Shame” ad updates | Independent Political Report

  52. JT

    Robert: “If there was good evidence that the Earth was going to explode, I would support government action to avert it, if possible. It’s true that a narrow reading of the NAP might say otherwise, but if everyone’s dead, I don’t see the point of the NAP. Silly me!”

    Here’s what I actually said, Capozzi:

    “I think Libertarians should address issues in whatever way we can to move people away away from supporting government action. If people believed that the Earth was going to explode soon like Superman’s planet Krypton, I don’t see anything wrong with Libertarians saying the evidence for that is weak to nonexistent. ”

    Obviously I was talking about if people believed NOW that the Earth was going to explode SOON. Is there “good evidence” that’s going to happen? No.

    Of course, you bring it back to the NAP–which you like to read into everything, whether it’s there or not–and then make a sarcastic comment. Are you ever going to stop doing that where it’s unwarranted, or are you just going to keep hammering away in response to something you want to believe is a nail but clearly isn’t?

  53. Fun K. Chicken

    Re: Budget discussion @ 45, 46, 47, 49 and 58:

    This sounds like the budget is being used as a straightjacket. Does the budget disallow money being raised for unforeseen special projects that come up within the course of the year, if people are willing to donate money to those specific projects but not to the general fund?

    Also, is the LP working off the proposed 2011 budget already? Was it passed by an email vote?

    If the party really can’t do anything at all outside the budget, that would make it pretty hard to take advantage of opportunities quickly.

    Suppose there was some legal way for someone to donate 500k or a million$ to the LP for a specific purpose, and that none of that money was available for any other purpose. If that purpose was generally acceptable to the LP, would the budget prevent the LP from accepting the money?

  54. JT

    George: “In fact, if you read the actual scientific literature of the period you find that the substantial majority of the research agreed that we would have global warming. Of the papers on the other side, many were ‘here is a detailed analysis of one tree, not of the entire forest’.”

    Yes. Most of the major media outlets that addressed climate change talked about a New Ice Age though.

  55. paulie Post author

    Budget straight jacket in more ways than one…if that’s really how they are doing things, it’s truly insane. IMO, of course.

  56. Robert Capozzi

    jt60: I think Libertarians should address issues in whatever way we can to move people away away from supporting government action.

    me: And I don’t. Especially not in “whatever way.” I do agree that Ls should advocate in a way that helps to REDUCE government action overall, but there may be cases where more government action in one area enables overall government burdens to decline. Certainly IF one believes that global climate change is a real risk to life as we know it, I believe it’s possible that increased government action to remedy global climate change could be the optimal course forward, all things considered.

    Reducing military spending is a good idea, but cutting military spending may or may not reduce carbon emissions. Conceivably, it might not, since removal of the deadweight loss of military spending could spur (or remove obstacles to) private economic behavior that is associated with carbon emissions. The root challenge of using the sky as a gigantic unowned garbage dump is that anyone can spew with reckless abandon.

    Near as I can tell, NAP-solutism rests on universal property rights. That theory doesn’t take into account that the air is unowned. A shared, ubiquitous threat, then, needs some sort of collective response.

  57. Interesting question

    So why the poll asking an opinion on doing the newspaper ad with Wall of Shame? Looks like more people say “don’t do it” and yet it will run anyway? Strange. Why bother with poll ahead of the advertising running, if it is a forgone conclusion that it is going to run? Seems disconnected.

  58. paulie Post author

    So why the poll asking an opinion on doing the newspaper ad with Wall of Shame?

    At least in part, it helps bring additional attention to the project as well as the website as a whole.

    Looks like more people say “don’t do it”

    It’s running about even:

    Great idea! Run the Wall of Shame ad.
    38%
    Great idea! I will donate to help fund the ad.
    5%
    I’m a Libertarian, and you should not run this ad. Return the donor’s $10,000.
    40%
    I’m not a Libertarian, and you should not run this ad. Return the donor’s $10,000.
    4%
    Other
    13%

    I don’t know what “other means,” so 38+5=43 while 40+4=44.

    and yet it will run anyway?

    I don’t know about that. Seems like there may be a budget straightjacket dick move involved; see above.

    More to the point, how many of the people saying “don’t do it” are contributing $15,000 towards a different project?

    That, I would love to know.

    How about throwing up several projects for people to consider and see which ones bring in the most money….or would that get budget straightjacketed too?

  59. JT

    Robert: “Especially not in “whatever way.””

    I meant there are different arguments one can make to support the same view. That may not have been clear.

    Robert: “I do agree that Ls should advocate in a way that helps to REDUCE government action overall, but there may be cases where more government action in one area enables overall government burdens to decline.”

    And I don’t agree. The more government intervenes in civil society beyond protection of person and property, the more overall dislocation it causes and the greater the aggregate cost. This may not be readily apparent in some cases, but it’s true. See Mises or Hazlitt.

    Robert: “Reducing military spending is a good idea, but cutting military spending may or may not reduce carbon emissions. Conceivably, it might not, since removal of the deadweight loss of military spending could spur (or remove obstacles to) private economic behavior that is associated with carbon emissions. The root challenge of using the sky as a gigantic unowned garbage dump is that anyone can spew with reckless abandon.”

    This assumes the very premise I’m denying about the need to reduce carbon emissions.

    Robert: “Certainly IF one believes that global climate change is a real risk to life as we know it, I believe it’s possible that increased government action to remedy global climate change could be the optimal course forward, all things considered.”

    And IF people believe that aliens will invade Earth tomorrow and try to enslave humanity, it’s possible that increased government action could be the optimal course forward. No good evidence for that though.

  60. Fun K. Chicken

    I propose we suggest 15k could instead be raised for a “Libertarian Wall of Anxiety.”

    The Libertarian Wall of Anxiety would only be shown to current Libertarian Party members, and its purpose would be to get us to worry more about which potential outreach projects would alienate potential Libertarians.

    I don’t know if I should actually suggest to LPHQ that they should put up a poll to raise the 15k for it though. I’m filled with anxiety that they might laugh at me.

  61. Andy

    “I’m a Libertarian, and you should not run this ad. Return the donor’s $10,000.
    40%”

    What in the hell is wrong with these people? It sounds to me like they are Losertarians or Republitarians, not Libertarians.

  62. paulie Post author

    Another followup from LPHQ

    Dear Friend of Liberty,

    I hope you’ll contribute $100 or $500 or whatever you can to help us reach the $15,000 minimum total for our plan to run an ad in the Washington Post.

    View the original message.

    As of yesterday, we’ve raised about $14,500 total (including the original $10,000 donation), but we’re having to follow up with some donors to clarify the intended use of their donations. Therefore, we need to raise about $1,500 more to be very confident that we’ve reached our minimum target.

    Additionally, since we’re now aiming for $15,000, we plan to run these ads in the online version of the Washington Post, instead of the print version.

    Please keep in mind that only funds donated specifically for this purpose will be spent on the ad.

    Also, we received some complaints about the quality of the graphics. I agree they could use improvement. We didn’t want to spend too much time upgrading the graphics unless we found enough financial support out there to make it happen.

    Donors have responded. So, if we get at least $500 over our $15,000 threshold, we’ll pay for more professional graphics.

    We’ve already identified a designer who can add improved animated Flash graphics to our ad.

    Please donate now, and type "wall of shame ad" in the comments section. Please remember to type "wall of shame ad" so we don’t have to take the time to follow up and make sure that’s what you wanted.

    Also please forward this note to your friends and ask them to donate.

    Sincerely,

    Wes Benedict
    Executive Director
    Libertarian National Committee

  63. JT

    Paulie: “I have run out of patience for discussing @ 48 on this thread for now, although others can if they wish; I stand by my previous statements on the subject and leave it at that.”

    “Run out of patience?” You could just say you don’t really want to discuss that more and return to something else. Sorry if I’m not seeing things your way.

  64. paulie Post author

    Don’t worry about it. I just meant that I don’t want to talk about it any more, but I still stand by what I said earlier. In other words, further answers on my part would only consist of repeating what I had already said, which was to explain why that tangent was IMO the wrong path to head down. Sorry if that was unclear.

  65. Here is a radical idea

    The ad is going to run, no matter if 1/2 the people don’t want it. The LP is for sale just like any other political party. Somebody comes up with the money and the are going to use it as instructed. If someone doesn’t like the ad campaign, then pledge $10K to NO run it. Darn, how would that work. What about the people that aleady pledged to run the campaign? Would they get their money returned. Sounds like an accounting nightmare. What a pickle.

  66. paulie Post author

    If someone doesn’t like the ad campaign, then pledge $10K to NO run it. Darn, how would that work. What about the people that aleady pledged to run the campaign? Would they get their money returned. Sounds like an accounting nightmare. What a pickle.

    I think you misunderstood.

    The budget straightjacket thing sounds like a mess, if it is how Phillies described it @45-7. If that is correct, it sounds like a formula for not being able to do much of anything quickly at all.

    The serious part of my original message: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/cb/paircoil2/?pdf=cover-letter-example-finance clomid for oligo ovulation treatment http://www.conn29th.org/university/how-to-put-a-paper-in-mla-format.htm how to write personal essay for college https://goodsamatlanta.org/patients/cialis-paypal-accepted/01/ go to link accounting homework help source link nmr lab report enter site coursework marking essay cheap https://www.nationalautismcenter.org/letter/social-media-marketing-research-paper/26/ nodal analysis solved problemsВ difference between content writing and creative writing how to get help writing a research paper go to link how to write a book report for a biography http://www.nationalnewstoday.com/medical/can-you-buy-viagra-in-tesco/2/ https://creativephl.org/pills/buy-synthroid-no-prescription/33/ watch how to write a rhetorical essay https://ds-drupal.haverford.edu/dcc/analytics/?mg=propranolol-blue-pill cialis vs viagra diabetes cialis professional generic click here https://tasteofredding.org/8177-viagra-profesional/ https://geneseelandlordassoc.org/category/colleges-that-require-supplemental-essays/44/ online homework help live resume sales director telecom https://www.upaya.org/teaching/assignment-template-for-teachers/21/ source link “How about throwing up several projects for people to consider and see which ones bring in the most money”

    I don’t know if there is a way to do this, but hopefully there is.

    For example:

    Say put up two (or however many) projects and let them “race” to which one reaches the benchmark for being fully funded first. Provide some benchmarks along the way to let people know how the race is going. Only bill them if they select the winning entry once the threshold is reached.

    Or, perhaps if one entry is getting close, ask the people who support the other(s) if they would donate to that one instead. Otherwise, the runner up entry goes into the next contest.

    Something along those lines.

  67. paulie Post author

    MHW @76, George Phillies said @ 47 “Brand development had itemization behind it. ” I haven’t seen those numbers and don’t know where I could see them.

    More fundamentally, I still don’t know if those numbers are in effect. Has that budget been approved, if so, when?

  68. George Phillies

    It would be perfectly possible for the LNC to approve a budget that included advertising.

    It chose not to do so.

    The problem is not the bylaws, but the National Committee.

    The National Committee has not yet adopted a budget, so it is operating under its old budget and Bylaws Article 1 Section 10.

    Mind you, not adopting a budget months into the year is closing in on Congress. One consequence of this is that the January standard financial report to the LNC (which for accounting reasons does not match the FEC report) shows well under $100,000 income for the month, which the latest membership report continuing falling membership.

    The closest item in last year’s budget was for promotional items “door hangers, flyers, and t-shirts as promotional items to be sold.” which does not cover the proposed expenditure.

    In the LNC debate, Hinkle is trying the “I am the chair” line do this to try to get away with it. Benedict and Root are busy saying unkind things to each other.

  69. paulie Post author

    The National Committee has not yet adopted a budget

    So where are the numbers for the budget it is in fact operating under?

    Mind you, not adopting a budget months into the year is closing in on Congress.

    How long has it been since they received a budget to consider adopting?

  70. George Phillies

    The LNC is operating under its 201o budget, and a bylaw

    LP BYLAWS – ARTICLE 10: FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING:
    “1. The fiscal term of the Party shall begin on January 1 of each year. From January 1 until the National Committee has approved a budget, the Treasurer may authorize expenditures for any item incorporated in the previous year’s budget as long as the level of expenditure is consistent with that budget.”

    We have on the LNC something like two dozen people, including alternates who can do leg work for their regional representatives. There is nothing to keep any of them from submitting a budget, even a budget that proposes doing politics. Instead, they have left the 2010 budget in place.

  71. paulie Post author

    Dunno. Probably, I would think. You usually have a good handle on that sort of thing, so I thought you would know. I have some other things to do, so hopefully someone else will fill us in if you don’t.

  72. paulie Post author

    I propose we suggest 15k could instead be raised for a “Libertarian Wall of Anxiety.”

    The Libertarian Wall of Anxiety would only be shown to current Libertarian Party members, and its purpose would be to get us to worry more about which potential outreach projects would alienate potential Libertarians.

    I don’t know if I should actually suggest to LPHQ that they should put up a poll to raise the 15k for it though. I’m filled with anxiety that they might laugh at me.

    It sounds like the LNC is already hard at work, anxiously considering whether this idea will work.

  73. paulie Post author

    @ 84 Thanks! I found a more direct link at https://www.lp.org/files/LNC%202009-12-05%20Nashville.pdf

    Not sure if this has to do with my settings, but here it starts on page 16.

    I would suggest that in the meantime, items like this be considered under convention and events. There’s no convention this year, so special “events” could include a lot of things that are unforeseen in the budget.

    Could that work?

  74. Robert Capozzi

    jt67: And IF people believe that aliens will invade Earth tomorrow and try to enslave humanity, it’s possible that increased government action could be the optimal course forward. No good evidence for that though.

    me: Yes, agreed. I’m currently neutral on man-made global climate change theory. L Scientists that respect that have no skin in that game tell me the threat is real. Others say otherwise. Unlike verifiable “proof” that the aliens be a comin’ vs. no way they be a comin’, the optimal course would be clear. In the case of global climate change, my view is that — at the moment — it’s murky as to what to do, if anything.

    What I’m pretty sure of is that no one owns the air, and a lot of externalities are put there without a check. The air is ubiquitous, and carbon emissions are spewed along with other gunk, some of which is carcinogenic.

    Unless and until someone can come up with a way to curb spewing pollution in the air, I’m OK with universal measures to curb said pollution, which will also have the side benefit of curbing potentially climate-changing carbon emissions.

    Pollution is IMO aggression. No one has the “right” to spew. I know of no property rights means to curb pollution. Therefore, I advocate pollution taxes to fund government, killing 2 birds with one stone…pollution and the risk that global climate change is a real threat. As a L, I also advocate sharp cuts in other taxes (and spending). I believe this can be done, making it a more defensible and advocate-able position.

  75. paulie Post author

    @78-86

    I would suggest that in the meantime, items like this be considered under convention and events. There’s no convention this year, so special “events” could include a lot of things that are unforeseen in the budget.

    The word

    Event

    Has more than one meaning 🙂

    Hope this helps…

  76. Robert Capozzi

    fun 68: I propose we suggest 15k could instead be raised for a “Libertarian Wall of Anxiety.”

    me: Or perhaps the Wall of Worry…it illiterates, and is used by Wall St. types.;-)

  77. paulie Post author

    RC

    I know of no property rights means to curb pollution.

    I’m pretty sure we have discussed some in the past.

  78. paulie Post author

    Latest update, in the poll the numbers have pulled even:

    Great idea! Run the Wall of Shame ad.
    39%
    Great idea! I will donate to help fund the ad.
    4%
    I’m a Libertarian, and you should not run this ad. Return the donor’s $10,000.
    39%
    I’m not a Libertarian, and you should not run this ad. Return the donor’s $10,000.
    4%
    Other
    13%
    Total votes: 504

  79. paulie Post author

    I posted this on the more recent update, https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/03/republican-wall-of-shame-ad-updates/

    but since most people are still reading this one…


    http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/wall-of-shame-ad-update

    So far donors have contributed or pledged the amounts below toward our proposed "Republican Wall of Shame" ad. If we reach $5,000 by 11:59 p.m. on March 4, we plan to proceed with the ad project.

    Please note, the total below is in addition to the original $10,000 donation we received for this purpose.

    (approximate total)
    3/3 11:00 a.m. ET: $3,900
    3/3 1:15 p.m. ET: $4,500
    3/4 4:30 p.m. ET: $5,500

    Click here to contribute toward the ad. (Type "wall of shame" in the comments section.)

    Click here to see the March 2 announcement.

  80. Bryan

    Return the 10k, keep the fifty-five, to pay the rent…cause…The Rent Is Too Damn High!

  81. paulie Post author

    I think if 10k had to be returned the rest of the money raised for the project would have to be returned as well, and the LP would hurt its ability to raise money for anything else in the future.

  82. Here is a radical idea

    The online LP poll should have been run first and then tailor the advertising from the input. OR, run the ad and then ask for opinion. Or do not ask for any opinion and just run it. The way it is being done now (simultaneous) is disjointed.

  83. paulie Post author

    It’s just a way to draw attention…I would really not read too much into the poll. See @75 for a way the whole poll thing could possibly evolve. I’d be interested in discussing the idea if you feel like giving me a call about it, 415-690-6352.

  84. JT

    Robert: “I’m currently neutral on man-made global climate change theory. L Scientists that respect that have no skin in that game tell me the threat is real.”

    Libertarian scientists say man-made CO2 emissions are causing an abnormal rise in the Earth’s temperature that’s leading to a global life-threatening catastrophe? Who are a few of them?

    Normal global warming is real. The rest of it isn’t. As Harry Browne said, this is about political control, not scientific knowledge. You can check out http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/
    for a good, very brief summary of the science and then follow up with other links on the page if you wish.

    Robert: “In the case of global climate change, my view is that — at the moment — it’s murky as to what to do, if anything.”

    My view is to do nothing. There should be actual evidence of a problem before anything should be done about it.

  85. paulie Post author

    @97 Getting a bit late for that tonight, but the phone lines will be open during the daytime all weekend.

  86. Robert Capozzi

    Jt98: Libertarian scientists say man-made CO2 emissions are causing an abnormal rise in the Earth’s temperature that’s leading to a global life-threatening catastrophe? Who are a few of them?

    Me: Milsted and Phillies. Milsted, if I recall correctly, says the “myths” are themselves mis-characterized. It’s not that the OVERALL Earth’s temp is rising, but that the poles temps are rising. And your “myths” cited mis-characterize in other way…for ex., I’ve not seen anyone say “CO2 is a ‘pollutant’.” Most climate change theorists I’m familiar call them “gases.” That’s a straw man of a myth, near as I can tell!

    But, let’s assume they are incorrect. I have my doubts, mostly because extrapolating with computer models sounds like it’s prone to all sorts of errors, just as economic computer models are.

    But you sidestep my point. I favor taxing pollution, since there is no other way to stop it, other than regulating it. In that process, to the extent global climate change and artificially high CO2 would be abated as a side benefit.

    Absolutists likely want a neat, tidy position on this (and all!) matters. Yet, the world is not so neat and tidy. Square pegs, round holes, you do the math!

  87. JT

    Robert: “Milsted, if I recall correctly, says the “myths” are themselves mis-characterized. It’s not that the OVERALL Earth’s temp is rising, but that the poles temps are rising.”

    So what? Does he say that he knows POLAR temperatures rising is caused by man-made CO2 emissions and driving us to a cataclysmic event? I even don’t know if Phillies says that either. He might, but all I’ve seen him say is that global warming is real. It is.

    Robert: “And your “myths” cited mis-characterize in other way…for ex., I’ve not seen anyone say “CO2 is a ‘pollutant’.”

    Why is this relevant to the point? Some people may say it’s a pollutant, so it addresses that. If others don’t, then it doesn’t apply to them. The other points are directly relevant to the question though.

    Robert: “I have my doubts, mostly because extrapolating with computer models sounds like it’s prone to all sorts of errors, just as economic computer models are.”

    Right. The site says “Computer models can be made to “verify” anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used. They do not “prove” anything.”

    Robert: “But you sidestep my point. I favor taxing pollution, since there is no other way to stop it, other than regulating it. In that process, to the extent global climate change and artificially high CO2 would be abated as a side benefit.”

    I didn’t sidestep it–how to deal with air pollution just wasn’t the topic I was posting about. I can say that you continue to smuggle in the premise that man-made CO2 emissions are a problem for life on Earth and thus there’s a “side benefit.” There’s still no evidence for your assumption though.

  88. Jerry S.

    @88 “I would suggest that in the meantime, items like this be considered under convention and events. There’s no convention this year, so special “events” could include a lot of things that are unforeseen in the budget.
    The word Event
    Has more than one meaning
    Hope this helps…”
    “The word Event Has more than one meaning ”

    This sounds a little like the Ds & Rs in their dealings with constitutional issues, some words and clauses have more meanings. To our detriment sadly!

    Not that this fundraiser is detrimental, I guess the verdict is still out on that one. They should be active raising funds fighting the “good” fight.

    @100 I would certainly hope so. Equal time and all that…

    @ 101 earlier you say no one owns the air we breathe, yet you wish to “give” it to the gov’t to TAX all (wo)mankind. Com’ON lad I was agreeing with a lot of your stuff UNTIL now !

    You can go ahead and give “them” what you think you OWE them in a — USER FEE. Please allow me to continue to enjoy one of the last free items in life, the FRESH air I breathe! Yes FRESH air, get away from the cities sometimes and you city folk will realize there is a big BIG world out here doing just fine!

    @98 “Normal global warming is real. The rest of it isn’t. As Harry Browne said, this is about political control, not scientific knowledge. You can check out http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/
    for a good, very brief summary of the science and then follow up with other links on the page if you wish.”

    “ABOUT POLITICAL CONTROL not scientific knowledge”

    Scientists are looking for handouts (gov’t grants-which is money forced from taxpayers). Don’t anyone forget that one point in the discussion. Also please see quotes above to see that they are not above lying to get those grants.

    Thank you JT, the late Harry and the group who put the ten points together, to help put some extra TRUTH into this conversation…

  89. paulie Post author

    This sounds a little like the Ds & Rs in their dealings with constitutional issues, some words and clauses have more meanings. To our detriment sadly!

    Not that this fundraiser is detrimental, I guess the verdict is still out on that one. They should be active raising funds fighting the “good” fight.

    What’s actually more detrimental is the idea that the budget, and/or lack thereof, will prevent not just this project, but any advertising project, even if members are willing to donate money to such projects that they are not willing to donate to the general fund.

    In fact, that’s not just detrimental. If that attitude prevails, it cuts us off at the knees.

    It so happens to be true that the word event has several meanings; you can look that up with any dictionary – there are several online, and you may even still have an old fashioned one at home.

    For some of the meanings, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event

  90. JT

    Jerry: “Thank you JT, the late Harry and the group who put the ten points together, to help put some extra TRUTH into this conversation…”

    You’re welcome, Jerry. I’m glad you appreciate it.

  91. paulie Post author

    The budget straightjacket thing sounds like a mess, if it is how Phillies described it @45-7. If that is correct, it sounds like a formula for not being able to do much of anything quickly at all.

    The serious part of my original message: “How about throwing up several projects for people to consider and see which ones bring in the most money”

    I don’t know if there is a way to do this, but hopefully there is.

    For example:

    Say put up two (or however many) projects and let them “race” to which one reaches the benchmark for being fully funded first. Provide some benchmarks along the way to let people know how the race is going. Only bill them if they select the winning entry once the threshold is reached.

    Or, perhaps if one entry is getting close, ask the people who support the other(s) if they would donate to that one instead. Otherwise, the runner up entry goes into the next contest.

    Something along those lines.

    A more concrete example.

    Say we take three proposals:

    A) Republican Wall of Shame
    B) Democratic Wall of Guilt
    C) Libertarian Wall of Worry
    I suppose D) General Fund could always be a default option? Maybe, maybe not.

    Say each project needs 15k to get off the ground.

    National can put out a call through its email list, facebook page, and LP blog. The first project that reaches 10k in conditional pledges (I’ve seen conditional pledges done, so this should be doable), the supporters of the other two are asked whether they would support the winning project, keep their money (or donate to general fund).

    Conceivably, the losing projects could stay in the mix for the next round of contest.

    Could something like this be done?

  92. George Phillies

    The reasonable resolution is to have passed a rational budget, such as the one that New Path proposed last year, on time. A rational budget would also have specifically allowed for opportunistic activities for particular purposes.

    Instead, the current LNC and its staff are busy arguing about bylaws and staging furballs.

  93. Robert Capozzi

    jt102: So what? Does he say that he knows POLAR temperatures rising is caused by man-made CO2 emissions and driving us to a cataclysmic event?

    me: Yes, that’s my recollection.

    jt: Why is this relevant to the point? Some people may say it’s a pollutant, so it addresses that.

    me: OK, I don’t know of any SERIOUS man-made global climate change adherent that sez it’s “pollution,” only “gases,” gases that will trigger climate change.

    jt: I can say that you continue to smuggle in the premise that man-made CO2 emissions are a problem for life on Earth and thus there’s a “side benefit.” There’s still no evidence for your assumption though.

    me: Smuggle? I spose. If you think there’s “no evidence,” then that’s your view. I find that one of many epistemic differences you and I have. There are many serious folks — inc. Ls — who believe in the theory, so that to me sounds like plenty of evidence. The evidence may not be CONCLUSIVE…there we agree.

    jerry s103: @ 101 earlier you say no one owns the air we breathe, yet you wish to “give” it to the gov’t to TAX all (wo)mankind. Com’ON lad I was agreeing with a lot of your stuff UNTIL now ! You can go ahead and give “them” what you think you OWE them in a — USER FEE. Please allow me to continue to enjoy one of the last free items in life, the FRESH air I breathe! Yes FRESH air, get away from the cities sometimes and you city folk will realize there is a big BIG world out here doing just fine!

    me: Kind of a fair point. But I would not “give” the State the air. I would say the air is un-ownable. I would say that because the free market cannot develop, I’m OK with the State policing what goes into the air. Yes, kind of like a user fee, in this case, a dumping fee. Since our social order is based in large measure on ubiquitous, universal air dumps, I would phase in pollution taxes to allow all us dumpers to a chance to minimize our dumping over time.

    At the same time, I’d lower taxes on work, saving and investing. Net revenues would decline…them’s my terms!

  94. JT

    Robert: “OK, I don’t know of any SERIOUS man-made global climate change adherent that sez it’s “pollution,” only “gases,” gases that will trigger climate change.”

    Whether CO2 is actually called a “pollutant” or just a “gas” is hardly the main question when it comes to global warming. But if you insist, here’s one reason for including it on that list:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/science/earth/18endanger.html
    I think that’s a pretty good reason.

    Robert: “If you think there’s “no evidence,” then that’s your view. I find that one of many epistemic differences you and I have. There are many serious folks — inc. Ls — who believe in the theory, so that to me sounds like plenty of evidence.”

    Well there we definitely do agree, Robert. There are many serious people who believe more government spending is good for the economy, many serious people who believe more aggressive wars make America safer, many serious people who think “freedom” is merely a synonym for “democracy.” I don’t just look to what other people believe as a basis for my own beliefs.

  95. Porn Again Christian

    There’s room for Libertarians to disagree on whether anthropogenic global warming exists, and whether it’s a bad thing if it does exist. However, there’s no room for advocating a massive government solution, even for those who believe the problem is real.

  96. Robert Capozzi

    jt111: I don’t just look to what other people believe as a basis for my own beliefs.

    me: Nor do I, but I do take it into consideration. I’m not a scientist, or economic, or lawyer, or a psychologist. I’d like to think I have some knowledge about all these subjects, but I also a humble enough to know that I am not a master of any of those subjects.

    It’s also the case that I pay attention as best I can, and by doing so, it’s clear to me that experts are hardly perfect. They may have more knowledge, but their ability to synthesize knowledge and apply it puts the “experts” back in the soup with us “laymen” quite often. I’m a skeptic when it comes to expert pronouncements.

    So, if you are comfortable with your opinion, JT, that global warming is a hoax, that’s on you. Perhaps you have spent the time necessary to satisfy yourself that that is the 100%, unassailably true view. Is is POSSIBLE, though, that your preconceived notions about science and government and environment are highly biased, and you have sought out “denial” materials to validate your pre-disposition?

    I do not support the EPA gas capture schemes. I’ve not read and deeply considered the Kyoto Treaty, either, but it seems poorly conceived to me.

  97. Pingback: Republican Wall of Shame is up | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *