Good evening again, Douglas! Douglas Friedman wrote in response to Frank Reichert's message responding to Robert Goodman...
> Frank Reichert originally wrote to Robert Goodman: > >I suspect that I am used to 'lying' coming from both the GOP and Democratic > >Party candidates. I've virtually, *I THINK*, seen it all, or I suspect > >I've seen the most of it anyway. The thing that I have long admired by > >real Libertarian Party candidates, is that they usually tell it like it is, > >and in large measure, really mean what they say. Although sometimes I > >might disagree with some of them, particularly on right to life issues, and > >probably security on our borders. I've been pretty outspoken on both > >issues on this forum for a long time, so no one should be surprised. > >However, overall, LP candidates seem to have a rather clear message, and > >might tend to go in such a direction of elected. To which message, you replied: > Well, the Red Sox and White Sox have both won World Series, and once again > in consecutive years, so maybe in another 85 years, the LP candidates will > win and we can test this hypothesis. Well, let's hope that it doesn't honestly take that long, at least not the next 85 years anyway. Robert Goodman wrote: > >>I have no problem working in the Conservative Party, and have gotten into > >>poisitions of considerable responsibility thereby, although everyone > >>recognizes philosophic differences I have with others therein. You can > >>always find points of common interest with practically any political > >>party, > >>sufficient to make yourself welcome there. In which, I replied to Robert Goodman as follows: > >Well. Good luck. I do know several candidates and proponents of the > >Constitution Party, at least here in Idaho. Insofar as the Conservative > >Party is concerned, I haven't followed that a great deal, and know probably > >very little insofar as how that Party stacks up on major issues with the > >Libertarian Party. You, Douglas Friedman, replied, as follows: > One thing I find interesting is that the rank and file of the Republican > party is far more libertarian than the leadership. When I've raised the > issue of drug legalization, I am astonished at how high support for it is > among people who would generally be considered conservatives. Support for > medical marijuana is over 80%, over 70% among conservatives according to > surveys - and I think those understate the support. For recreational > marijuana, the last survey I saw was 36%, but I think the actual level is > higher, based on recent votes. I believe you have certainly idenfied statistical and demographical information right here that the national media neglects to make clear in their usual sound bites usually idenfied as "Nightly News". Practically speaking, I honestly don't know how we can get around all of this however. The GOP candidates in Idaho, as they obviously are throughout the nation at large, are largely bought and paid for, by large scale corporate interests who have an agenda that largely support their own parochial causes, honestly. This seems to be a fact of life for any political candidate that might dare to oppose this reality. If you happen to be running under a Third Party label, then your chances of being considered a 'viable' candidate commensurately decreases as an easy target to deflect any criticism over the status quo. This, by the way, is the truth! You continued: > I think the rank and file of Dems is about the same as the leaders, though > on the drug issue, the leaders are basically spineless - or unwilling to > reduce govt. power by even a drop. This is most certainly the case. Meanwhile, both Idaho and Washinton state both deplore spending more money on building yet more prisons for the sake of keeping sex offenders under bars, due largely to the plain fact that most of prison inmates, the majority to be sure, are there for non-violent drug-related convictions that affected no innocent victims at all! And, so. I wrote last time: > >I honestly don't know what the answer is anymore, as I am stuck with the > >fascists and socialists who want to control each and everything we want to > >do individually, and even with the context of voluntary associations. > > > >We have honestly, become a sick society of becoming comfortable with sound > >bites, rather than principle and reasonable alternatives to the sordid mess > >we find ourselves in today. And, right now tonight, I don't have a single > >clue on how to change much of that. > > > >Maybe I've become too much of an ideologue to make a difference anymore in > >the scope of things. Who knows? To which, you wisely wrote: > Well, I'll tell you what I do. In the course of discussing ethics in my > marketing classes, I always bring up the issue of drug legalization or > "underage" drinking. I allow all sides to present their views, but I > certainly make my views clear - many of my students are astonished that a > professor would have such views; they are used to professors being in favor > of more govt. control over everything, certainly not in favor of drug > legalization or removing the drinking age. And, of course, when I bring my > own medical history into the equation, it's even harder for students to say, > well, even cancer patients having a bad reaction to chemo and not getting > relief from anti-nausea medicines should be told by the govt. what they can > do. You have to know, Doug, that I really applaud you on this. Just maybe, there might be light at the end of the tunnel at least, that some of our more educated newly-emerging citizens might see some insanity in the way society chooses its priorities, at least in terms of the swelling and growing prison populations and its' so-called dangers to 'society' (I term I have been more accustomed to hate over the years!). Unfortunately, the mainstream media isn't likely going to be of much help in this, at least based upon what I have seen and heard in the present discourse. And, you wrote: > Most of my students are politically apathetic, but I plant the seeds for > when they aren't. Nothing out of line; just explaining how antitrust laws > work and how policies are decided (all part of the marketing environment > session) is enough to make students distrustful of expanded govt. You are doing just great. This also reflects tremendous disadvantage of our time, that is, in going what the mainline media seems to be intent upon, honestly. When you listen carefully to the objectives surrounding much of which we hear on the mainline circuit, we are carefully 'reminded' that the government isn't doing enough to satisfy all of these social problems. The answer is usually more 'jail time' for those who refuse to make socially approved choices! You may, of course, disagree with my conclusions here, at least to some degree anyway, maybe not, I don't honestly know. However, I believe we are largely becoming a 'societal' packaged PRODUCT. We are, as a society anyway, being indoctrinated into accepting a police-state mentality in America today that somehow has all of the pre-disposed answers to all of our society's. This doesn't differ very much honestly, with fascist mind control over a general population. I know, I am stretching somewhat what you just originally wrote, and I apoligize if I have extrapolated this out too far, or much further, than what you originally intended. Nevertheless, I've just watched tonight several documentaries from Public Television, including the news on this media, and most of this suggests at least, that we have a real crisis concerning just 'who' is a patriotic American these days, and who becomes the traitor, that is, not accepting the approved agenda! The message, as of today at least, seems to be 'OUR' President suggesting that if we don't support our troops, or the reason for being in Iraq, is tantamont to a re-write of history itself?!? Doug, please do get back with me on this one! I don't like the idea that I might somehow be supporting the 'terrorists' (whoever they are, freedom fighters, by some accounts, depending largely upon the slant of subjectivist orientation as such, etc.), but nevertheless critical of the current American regime's penchion for exporting violence in an already fully-charged and hostile world. I don't believe that America was ever designed to be an imperial empire, or moral caretaker over the planet we live upon today. I seem to have a tremendous problem envisioning just how we arrived as such a moral mandate to rule the world in such self-righteousness! Just how that might have been possible still bewilders me a great deal. If George W. Bush is are standard, then God help us! I might say mostly the same thing in describing the Shrubs' opponents at least as this silly debade goes on today in public view. Kindest regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
