mushinnoshin

Hee! I’m mentioned in Wikipedia!

(For that same Shai Hulud remix of course that lead to Ego Boost #1)

OK, well they misspelled my name, so I’m going to fix that. Still a fun thing to find.

Now we’re seeing reports (which basically serve to acknowledge the obviously likely) that Gravel joined the LP specifically to seek its presidential nomination. And though I haven’t found an authoritative source, several posts have mentioned that he intends to also seek the Green nomination, to run a fusion campaign.

Maybe he got the idea reading me? ;)

Sadly I think the chances of him actually getting the LP nomination are something less than slim. Sure he’s not really much farther to the left of the libertarian plum line than Ron Paul is to the right of it — but with them it seems to be perfectly OK to flop around on civil liberties issues, but don’t you dare deviate from their take on economics. It’s OK to want government to keep gay immigrants from having abortions, but wanting to help poor people get health care? Well now, that’s unforgivable.

But maybe they’ll surprise me.

Ha. I mostly kid, but it does seem that Mike Gravel has joined the Libertarian Party — and predictably, the comments section is already lit with cries of “Oh noes! He’s no libertarian!”.

Well if Ron Paul and Bob Barr are libertarians, then I’d tend to agree. Gravel is too good for them.

But then, perhaps having him around might help correct the course?

UPDATE: the presser. Oh jeez. Somehow these idiots turned a press release about Gravel into yet another fellation of Barr. It’s like they’re practically screaming “don’t worry, we had to let the Senator in, but we’re still right wingers!!!”

I tickles me (to borrow a phrase from our dear Aunt B) that in my anally alphabetized CD collection, the newly acquired See You In Hell by Grim Reaper sits right next the Best of Hall & Oates.

In related news, as I searched for links, tipsy typing revealed to me the awesomeness that would be the band name:

Hall and Opiates

Someone PLEASE use it. I think the fate of the free world depends upon it.

Interesting. I don’t know how much credence to give it, but this isn’t the first place I’ve read theories that Eliot Spitzer was taken down to keep him from standing in the way of the subprime bailout scam.

Related: I’m sure I’m not the first to make the connection, but it just occurred to me, isn’t it interesting (if, by interesting, you mean “sad, disgusting, and we should have seen it coming”) that once again the Bush family is involved in a scam to funnel our funds to failing bankers?

UPDATE: Asia Times: Why Spitzer was Bushwhacked

During the last year, I have shared with you my vision and hopes for this nation as we look to repair the damage of the last seven years. And you have shared your support, your ideas and your encouragement to my campaign. We have been through a lot together and that is why I wanted to tell you that, after careful and thoughtful deliberation, I have made a decision to endorse Barack Obama for President.

We are blessed to have two great American leaders and great Democrats running for President. My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall. The 1990′s were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward. Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.

Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants–specifically Hispanics– by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences–and place blame on others not like them . We all know the real culprit — the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.

His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And, after nearly eight years of George W. Bush, we desperately need such a leader.

To reverse the disastrous policies of the last seven years, rebuild our economy, address the housing and mortgage crisis, bring our troops home from Iraq and restore America’s international standing, we need a President who can bring us together as a nation so we can confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad.

During the past year, I got to know Senator Obama as we campaigned against each other for the Presidency, and I felt a kinship with him because we both grew up between words, in a sense, living both abroad and here in America. In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation’s special responsibilities in the world.

So, once again, thank you for all you have done for me and my campaign. I wanted to make sure you understood my reasons for my endorsement of Senator Obama. I know that you, no matter what your choice, will do so with the best interests of this nation, in your heart.

Sincerely,

Bill Richardson

I have to admit I’m a tad surprised. I mean I figured he favored Obama, and given his history with the Clintons I took his silence as an implied Obama endorsement, but I figured he felt enough loyalty to the Clintons (or at least enough desire to remain a potential veep pick) that he would stay silent. I suppose the race speech and issues gave him the push and excuse he needed.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think Richardson will be Obama’s VP choice, there will be too much pressure to choose a white southern male with conservative and military credentials, but do still think he would make an excellent Secretary of State.

But by all means, lets keep talking about whose pastor said what.

Even while agreeing that better teacher pay is most likely also in order, I must respectfully disagree with S-Town Mike’s reactionary recoil against a community land trust for low income workers in St. Tammany.

Land trusts are imperfect, and certainly may be misconceived or mishandled, but done properly they can be a transitional step towards diminishing the farce that is allodial land ownership and reclaiming our common rights to use of the earth. They key of course is “what happens to the rent”?

In a geolibertarian society, the rent forms the basis of a Citizen’s Dividend. In our imperfect society, generically regarding plans such as the one proposed here, the rent in effect is still distributed to the people. This is done by reducing the burden on the residents of the land itself, and on the taxpayers who might otherwise have to subsidize the costs of “purchasing” that same land in order to facilitate low-income housing (essentially funneling tax dollars directly into the coffers of landlords and their bankers). So long as the rent is not profiting a landlord, it is not a form of feudalism, as Mike implies.

With regard to this particular plan, it is described as “a nonprofit group owning land that it leases to homeowners for a nominal fee”. Whether this plan qualifies as a good step towards a reclamation of the commons, or as just another scheme to profit landlords, is well informed by the accepted definition of “nonprofit”, but still depends significantly on the definition of “nominal”.

I’m perhaps a bit late to the party, but I finally got to see The Speech.

Just, Damn. Brilliant in its honesty, fantastic for its integrity, unbelievable in its authenticity. I think, as he often does, Jon Stewart said it best — “and so, on a Tuesday at 11 a.m., a Presidential candidate actually spoke to Americans about race as though we were adults.”

A bold tactic, to be sure. Will it work?

I actually think it will. Of course I file this whole issue about his pastor in the “Dumbest. Controversies. Ever.” file, so clearly I don’t grok Joe Dirt’s mind — and Americans have disappointed me time and time again — so who knows.

Via Mark Mays, I see words from Andrew Sullivan that capture it pretty well:

it was the right speech, with the right nuance and brave. If America cannot embrace such complexity, then that says more about our current polity than it does about Obama.

Of course, as the ever thoughtful Roger Abramson notes, the usual suspects *are* already saying by example those sad things about our polity.

But perhaps the whole point of this election is that it’s time to shift those voices into the minority, so that the rest of us can finally come together to solve the real problems that plague us. And I suppose we can’t expect them *not* to squeal like the pigs they are as it happens.

After some weeks of rumours and speculation, it seems that libertarian author and activist Mary J. Ruwart is officially in the running for the LP presidential nod. Ruwart is most well known as the author of Healing Our World, considered by many to be among the best primers on libertarian thought written for a broader audience.

Until and unless Bob Barr jumps in, Ruwart’s long history, deep relationships, and nearly universal positives within the party make her almost immediately the presumed front runner.

I have mixed feelings. Though Ruwart, like the LP itself, remains far to my right on many economic issues, I personally like her very much, and think that — generally speaking — she would make an excellent candidate, especially as one who can communicate and find common ground with the left.

BUT — I don’t think this is the year. Well, if Hillary manages to steal the Democratic nomination, then maybe. But the LP has zero chance of gaining any traction on the left against the Obama movement. To be certain, there are issues like the war, and the war on drugs, where she can take a principled purist stand against Obama’s pragmatic positioning — but those lefties radical enough to stick to their hardcore positions will have little reason to pick Ruwart over the Greens.

No, as much as I despise the idea and wouldn’t support it myself, this is the year that the LP needs to exploit the gaping fault lines still open on the right. Ideally with Ron Paul, but since he doesn’t seem interested, his surrogate Bob Barr is probably the ticket. Again I wouldn’t support that campaign, but it does seem to be the right strategy for them this year. And if it helps Obama win, all the better. (Now whether this is a good strategy for the long term health of the LP and its principles is another debate, but I’m going to leave that discussion off the table for now.)

Though again a Hillary upset would dramatically change the equation. I certainly would support Ruwart over Hillary, and disenfranchised Obama supporters, especially among the independent left, would be prime territory for a Ruwart campaign to mine. Now, can we put Kubby in as veep?

UPDATE: Ruwart for President (campaign site)