pageok
pageok
pageok
Henry Manne on the Coming Dark Age For Freedom:

I had thought David would post this, but I don't think he did. Henry Manne isn't too optimistic about the prospects for liberty in the U.S.:

The political direction of the country is now determined for a long time to come, and it is inevitably leftward. Politicians would never resist a popular but massive demand for more government regulation (even the few with enough brainpower to recognize what is going on). The business community has never been a strong supporter of free market capitalism, and it certainly cannot be counted on to change its stance this time around. The media, the various leftist trend-setting elites and university faculties have been waiting a long time for an opportunity just like this, and we can be sure that they won't squander it. The shrillness of their attacks on free markets will reach new heights of righteous indignation and assumed moral and intellectual superiority.

No policy issue based on private property, low taxes, small government or free trade will escape the charge that any unregulated free market will lead to disastrous excesses just as happened with the great financial crisis of 2008. This will be true for such soon to be rebuffed ideas as tuition vouchers for private schools, private health care, lower estate taxes, deregulation in its many forms, reduced use of eminent domain, tort liability restraint and free trade.

We can anticipate a new reign of mercantilism, as the protectionists among us wield this strong new weapon against globalization and open markets. And all of this is true in large degree regardless of who wins the forthcoming election.

He's more optimistic about the long-run as the remnant in the modern age is stronger than the last go-around:

Still, there is a glimmer of hope left to those who detest this seemingly inexorable slide into socialism or its first cousin, the super-regulatory state. That glimmer comes from the ghosts of Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, who still haunt the halls of the left. And in spite of all the claims made that this debacle marks the demise of free market philosophy, it won't go away so easily.

This time around, unlike during the New Deal, there is a substantial intellectual establishment to ride herd on leftist proclivities. There are numerous free market blog sites, which, for instance, can be properly credited with forcing modification of the recent short-sale ban. There are countless free market think tanks in Washington and all around the country exerting considerable influence on government policies. Libertarians are a small but growing political factor, and there are even a few university economics departments and law schools where sanity prevails or is at least occasionally evident.

Like it or not, these few intellectual bastions of freedom philosophy will be about the only thing that keeps these ideals alive in the coming years. But we should never underestimate the power of good ideas. Like the bad ones we are about to witness in large numbers, they may just have to bide their time until a new crisis causes the fickle and uninformed public to demand a new direction.

If these ideas are maintained in the inventory of ultimate possibilities, then there is always the chance of their public rediscovery and rebirth. It has happened with liberty before. And one thing is absolutely certain: Sooner or later the new era will end in another crisis. Perhaps then the defenders of freedom will be able to claim the moral high ground.

DangerMouse:
Nothing about how Obama wants to use the government to throw people in jail for just asking questions?

His Department of Justice is going to be the Thought Police.
10.17.2008 8:14pm
byomtov (mail):
Manne thinks Obama "is perhaps the most liberal figure in American politics"???

Think maybe he's a bit overwrought?
10.17.2008 8:23pm
Obvious (mail):
This is, admittedly, a concern Danger Mouse. But I can't resist pointing out that under Bush, the Dept of Justice was the Thoughtless Police...
10.17.2008 8:23pm
Cornellian (mail):
Henry Manne isn't too optimistic about the prospects for liberty in the U.S.

When I read that I thought he was going to talk about the reckless spending, massive government expansion, disdain for the rule of law and, most recently, the nationalization of the financial sector that we have seen under the current administration. If that counts as conservative, and the opposite of conservative is liberal, then please by all means let's have a liberal administration in the White House.
10.17.2008 8:29pm
Andrew J. Lazarus (mail):
Echoing what Cornellian points out, I am starting to wonder if under all of the eloquence, "economic liberty" is being defined solely by the effective income tax rate on the top bracket. Is this analysis or sycophancy?
10.17.2008 8:32pm
astrangerwithcandy (mail):
cornellian, i am lost. i don't see anything in that article that exonerates or condemns bush. how is railing against bush's misguided policies relevant to this article?
10.17.2008 8:36pm
darelf:
Does every political post here devolve into "Obama is a terrorist" / "Bush is a Nazi"?
10.17.2008 8:42pm
SenatorX (mail):
I agree with the gist of what the guys says. At least the libertarians have truth on their side for those that care to look for it. It's not going to be easy though because of how this crisis is being cast. We can see from the comments above we are going pay for 8 years of Bush using the "free market" as a fig leaf while he practiced a form of Christian socialism. Still the truth is a hard thing to crush completely. It’s scary but we might be better off in the long run having a massive statist response and then get the reward of those that learn from the folly. Maybe.
10.17.2008 8:43pm
GMUSL '07 Alum (mail):
AJL, please identify the ways in which an Obama administration would be better for economic liberties.

Lowering/eliminating minimum wage? HA
Supporting property rights against environmental concerns? Unlikely
Working to free businesses from corrupt unions? Heard card check?
Advocating free trade? No, renegotiating NAFTA instead.
Commercial speech? No, he's a big campaign finance supporter (not that McCain or Bush is any better)
Windfall profits tax? Yup.

I'm sure I'm missing lots of things. But anybody else, please feel free to pick up.
10.17.2008 8:44pm
CB55 (mail):
America style fascism has already arrived. It came on the backs of national security, fear and shopping. Please remove your shoes and have your picture ID ready before posting.
10.17.2008 8:50pm
wm13:
Huh. None of the other self-proclaimed libertarian bloggers seem to share Prof. Zywicki's concerns. McArdle, Henley, Tabarrok, Drezner: they are all total Obamabots. What makes Zywicki right and all of them wrong?

Anyway, I would have thought that Zywicki would be an Obamabot too. I am sure Obama will try to do something to restrain CEO pay, which an analysis of Zywicki column inches shows to be a major cause of our current financial problems.
10.17.2008 8:51pm
Cornellian (mail):
The general causes of this economic maelstrom are now pretty well known: expansion of credit via low-interest rates by the Fed; subsidization and grotesque encouragement of inappropriate housing loans (courtesy primarily of Messrs. Dodd, Frank and Schumer and the FMs)

I especially like this point. Apparently, even when Republicans control the White House, Senate and House (as they did until 2006), the Dems are still to blame for "encouraging" people to do stuff. If the Republicans thought there was a serious issue that needed to be addressed, they had from 1994, or at least from 2001 to 2006 to do something. If Republicans aren't going to take responsibility, why should they get to make the decision in the first place?
10.17.2008 8:51pm
byomtov (mail):
Supporting property rights against environmental concerns?

Nice framing there. Environmental concerns are property rights. You might want to read Coase.

And do you recognize any class of liberties other than what you call "economic liberties?"
10.17.2008 8:53pm
Dr. T (mail) (www):
In response to byomtov:

The National Journal Group reported that in 2007, Barack Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Among politicians of stature and influence, Obama is the most liberal. There is nothing "overwrought" about Manne's statement (that he unnecessarily softened by using the word 'perhaps').
10.17.2008 8:58pm
commontheme (mail):
What disgusting twaddle this post is.

The past 8 years have seen the greatest constriction of freedom and individual rights at any time since World War II.

Our government has imprisoned and tortured American citizens for years at a time.

Our government has imprisoned and tortured citizens of our allies for years at a time.

Our government had conducted widespread, illegeal monitoring of citizens telephone calls in the United States.

Our governments has fabricated evidence to plunge our contry into war against a petty dictatorship that did not present any credible threat of harm to us.

Most recently we have heard how employees of NSA have monitored private telephone calls by military personnel, reporters, and AID workers. When our government would come across some salacious pillow talk, it would be excerpted and passed around for everyone's amusement.

Our government has purchased the world's largest insurance company and basically nationalized chunks of our banks.

All of this taking place under the Bush administration.

So anyone who thinks that the "left" is somehow to blame for loss of freedoms is just an idiot.
10.17.2008 9:23pm
Steve2:

private schools, private health care, lower estate taxes, deregulation in its many forms, reduced use of eminent domain, tort liability restraint and free trade.


Maybe I'm missing something, but what to estate taxes, eminent domain, and most especially tort liability restraint have to do with liberty? I'm not seeing where personal autonomy's implicated in them. For that matter, the private autonomy implicated in a lot of deregulation and free trade matters seems to be more corporate than personal.
10.17.2008 9:29pm
Constantin:
"Our government has imprisoned and tortured American citizens for years at a time."

Name one.

And if Steve2 doesn't see what estate taxes and eminent domain have to do with liberty, there's nothing anybody can do to explain it to him.
10.17.2008 9:33pm
Cornellian (mail):
The National Journal Group reported that in 2007, Barack Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Among politicians of stature and influence, Obama is the most liberal. There is nothing "overwrought" about Manne's statement

I've been around long enough to notice that Republicans immediately dub virtually any Democratic senator as "the most liberal" as soon as he gets close to the nomination, regardless of the fact that the last batch of "the most liberal" senators from past election races are still around. Labels aren't arguments.
10.17.2008 9:34pm
Cornellian (mail):
Henry Manne on the Coming Dark Age For Freedom:

There's a typo in the title.

Henry Manne on the Coming Dark Age For Freedom:

Fixed it.
10.17.2008 9:35pm
byomtov (mail):
The National Journal Group reported that in 2007, Barack Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Among politicians of stature and influence, Obama is the most liberal.

The National Journal routinely names the Democratic candidate for President the most liberal member of the Senate. Do you think he's more liberal than, say, Bernie Sanders, the socialist Senator from Vermont?

And even if he is, why does that make him the most liberal politician on the national scene? Is he more liberal than Dennis Kucinich, for example?

Manne is just being ridiculous.
10.17.2008 9:38pm
frankcross (mail):
The National Journal figures are unreliable, because they compare different votes for different Senators. On the generally accepted Poole-Rosenthal scores, Obama is about the 20th most liberal Senator, as I recall.

I still worry about free trade and other issues, but I have a hope Obama is personally not that liberal. Senate voting is partly related to constituencies and perhaps partly with an eye to the upcoming presidential primaries. He seems quite careful and cautious, as discussed in David Brooks column today. His economic advisers, such as Furman and Goolsbee, are anything but anti-free market. And I suspect he realizes that his reelection will not be helped by a leftwing agenda during his first term.
10.17.2008 9:44pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
Somebody should tell Manne, who appears to be visiting for the weekend from a distant planet, that we already have a big government.

And a big financial sector.

One of them is getting smaller.
10.17.2008 9:47pm
Steve2:
Constantin, it's an honest question. I can see a basis for policy arguments against them, but not liberty arguments.
10.17.2008 10:01pm
Nunzio:
If Obama is a practical guy, then he won't be too bad.

If he's drinking his own piss and thinks he can single-handedly inspire people not to be greedy and self-interested then he will be worse than W.

Obama's campaign promises on major issues are anti-free trade, a huge increase in federal spending (even on programs like Head Start that don't work and on public works programs that consist of giving more money to corrupt states like Illinois and cities like Chicago to dole out federal tax payer money to shitty contractors who "fix" the roads and bridges and kick back some of the money), increase taxes during a recession, and spend far more than the government takes in.

These are not "and I will move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem" promises.

I Hope that Obama will Change his mind once he's elected (or that he's just lying now), but we have nothing to go on here. He has no record.

McCain is nothing great, but at least we'll have divided government.
10.17.2008 10:07pm
GMUSL '07 Alum (mail):
Bernie Holiday, in case you didn't, you know, actually read my post, I was responding to this one a few above it.

Of course I recognize other sorts. They just weren't brought up by the person to whom I was responding.

And this is why you are my most favorite troll ever.
10.17.2008 10:15pm
Obvious (mail):
It is not always true that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In particular, today (and I think this is what Manne is saying) liberty has few friends, and many enemies. Just because the article spends most of its time focusing on the most significant enemy (because it is very likely that Obama would win), I see nothing Manne wrote that suggests he is complacent with the idea of a McCain Presidency.
10.17.2008 10:23pm
Christopher Hagar:
Steve2: It's a question easily answered by the definitions of the terms. You may disagree that seizing private property for various uses is immoral, but to be ignorant of its possible relation to liberty makes you look like a troll.
10.17.2008 10:50pm
byomtov (mail):
GMUSL,

So have you read Coase or not?

And why are you so afraid to use your name? You've graduated now, I gather, so no matter how silly your comments are you don't have to worry about your professors reading them.

And I really don't think I fit the definition of a "troll," not that you understand that any better than a lot of other things you talk about.
10.17.2008 10:54pm
johnbragg (mail):
Constantin asks:

"Our government has imprisoned and tortured American citizens for years at a time."

Name one.


Yasser Hamdi (Captured in Afghanistan--as far as I'm concerned, he can sit in Gitmo until the jihad is over)

Jose Padilla (Arrested in Chicago, transferred to military non-courts in defiance of Ex Parte Milligan)

I'm just saying, there are two clear cases of American citizens held for years without/before trials and, by many reasonable definitions, tortured.
10.17.2008 11:02pm
Floridan:
darelf: "Does every political post here devolve into "Obama is a terrorist" / "Bush is a Nazi"?"

Yes
10.17.2008 11:10pm
Steve2:

Steve2: It's a question easily answered by the definitions of the terms. You may disagree that seizing private property for various uses is immoral, but to be ignorant of its possible relation to liberty makes you look like a troll.

Liberty = personal autonomy, right? Basically, freedom of behavior - things like what the 1st Amendment protects, choice of a lover, the freedom of movement that comes of not being imprisoned and not having to have an internal passport. Now, what does possession of property have to do with behavior? I don't see the connection, and so I don't see what property has to do with liberty.
10.17.2008 11:17pm
Christopher Hagar:
The state that ejects me from my home to seize its land is forcibly moving me. If I refuse, the sheriff will physically move me.

(Note: Liberty is not the same as personal autonomy, and autonomy is self-government or self-willing.)
10.17.2008 11:36pm
David Warner:
Steve2,

"I don't see what property has to do with liberty."

I'm not nearly as glum as Manne, but to the extent I am, the prevalence of Steve's particular blindness is the source of my gloom.
10.17.2008 11:39pm
pireader (mail):
Professor Zywicki --

People have published over-wrought pieces making more-or-less the same charges against every Democratic presidential nominee for the past 50 years.

Several of those nominees won. Yet the republic survived, and grew into a much freer and more prosperous place than it was 50 years ago.

Cry wolf much?
10.17.2008 11:39pm
Christopher Hagar:
That is, the sheriff will grab me and drag me away, gun ready, if I refuse quietly. If I refuse forcefully, I will be imprisoned.

Property is generally the product of labor. If I work hard at a menial job, slaving away to get the house of my choice along the lake, or to give my children a better life, and then the state eminently transfers the land I chose to the blow-hard developer who beat me up in high school, or takes another large chunk of the product of my hard work because I died, that is an infringement of liberty.
10.17.2008 11:51pm
geokstr:
"I've been around long enough to notice that Republicans immediately dub virtually any Democratic senator as "the most liberal" as soon as he gets close to the nomination, regardless of the fact that the last batch of "the most liberal" senators from past election races are still around. Labels aren't arguments."

Here is an interesting, well documented article that makes the case that Obama has been literally immersed in Marxism and Black Liberation Theology his entire life:
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

In fact, he admits that in his years at Columbia, which he refuses to discuss in detail, that he sought out the radicals to associate with:
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."

Obama is an admitted disciple of Marxist Saul Alinsky, the inventor of "community organizing" which was a euphemism for revolution. Alinsky advocated lying, manipulation, coercion, intimidation and threats of violence to promote progressive agendas. Many of his tactics can even be found in detail in Obama's current campaign:
Saul Alinsky

That's a good start to understanding just how "liberal" this man is.

Based on his own writings, he felt very comfortable in all these alliances and associations for a number of decades. Either that or he was able to pull off the greatest acting job in history for a very long time and fool all those leftists into thinking he agreed with them.
10.18.2008 12:12am
TJIT (mail):
Cornellian and others complaining about bush's civil liberties record.

Past abuses of civil liberties should lead to an effort to restore the lost civil liberties, not take away different ones.

Your attitude seems to be having my thumb in this vice hurts. In order to make it feel better i'm going to hit it with this big hammer.

I would hope the democrats concerned about bush's civil liberties policies will remain just as concerned about these issues if obama is elected.

A good example of why you have to be vigilant whatever party is in the white house is the fact that big parts of the patriot act had been previously proposed by president bill clinton in the form of know your customer bank regulations.
10.18.2008 12:15am
geokstr:
Manne says:

There are numerous free market blog sites

Given that Pelosi and Reid are already on record as saying they will pass the Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine", which will strangle conservative talk radio, but not affect any of the mainstream media. They have already been moving on conservative blogs, with legal action, blocking and hacking their sites, and other forms of intimidation. With automated key-word search techniques, it is easy enough find any sites critical of Obama or his policies and go after them.

These are literally the only effective way that conservative and libertarian voices can communicate and organize on a mass scale. Once those are shut down, only Fox will remain as a center-right source of news. In the last debate, Obama made his first direct attack on Fox, implying that they were so unfair to him that he should be up 2-3 points more if not for them. I would think this is just the opening shot at them.

Of course, with just a reasonably objective mainstream media, he wouldn't even be the democrat candidate, Hillary would.
10.18.2008 12:28am
Bruce:
Apparently, when Henry Manne is bitter, he clings to free market ideology.
10.18.2008 12:37am
MarkField (mail):

I would hope the democrats concerned about bush's civil liberties policies will remain just as concerned about these issues if obama is elected.


I share that hope.
10.18.2008 12:42am
Josh644 (mail):
When I read that I thought he was going to talk about the reckless spending, massive government expansion, disdain for the rule of law and, most recently, the nationalization of the financial sector that we have seen under the current administration.

Erm. I thought that's exactly what he was referring to. It was pretty clear to me that the liberties Manne was concerned about were mainly economic in nature. What did you think he was talking about?
10.18.2008 12:50am
gab:
Manne strikes an almost poetic tone with his concern that "leftist trend-setting elites" will launch "attacks on free markets (that) will reach new heights of righteous indignation and assumed moral and intellectual superiority."

Is this from the Onion? I mean seriously, has Manne been asleep for the last few months? The Secretary of the Treasury called in the CEO's of the nine largest banks in the country and told them the US Gov't would be taking a stake in each of them, and how big a stake - and he's worried about "leftist trend-setting elites" attacks on free markets? That's not just free-market polemics, it's complete ignorance.
10.18.2008 1:35am
geokstr:
Gab:

Perhaps given that the so-called rightwing Bush Administration is doing some seriously un-free market stuff, Manne might just be thinking, geez, wait until the really heavy duty anti-capitalists get to take their shots.

Bush isn't really launching "attacks on free markets (that)...reach new heights of righteous indignation and assumed moral and intellectual superiority." The Paulson plan is more like, "Holy sh*t, what the hell do we do now? Maybe if we ask for a really big number, the markets will think we're serious. No? Well, maybe if we try this and that too..."

Soon the full force of government may be in the hands of those who really do want to replace capitalism and remake society. They'll have the opportunity to try out all those neato ideas about how to run an economy from the top down that they've been gleaning from Das Kapital all these years in the wilderness.

The results cannot be good.

The republicans have been disgraced by Bush (and themselves, frankly), but not in my opinion because he is the conservative that the media paint him as, but precisely because he is NOT. With the exception of a tax cut, a couple nifty justices of SCOTUS, and having the stones to take it to the jihadists, conservatives have hardly been his biggest fans.
10.18.2008 2:08am
David Warner:
Geokstr,

"Soon the full force of government may be in the hands of those who really do want to replace capitalism and remake society."

Those?
10.18.2008 2:45am
David Warner:
Sorry, mislink.

There here.
10.18.2008 2:46am
gab:
geokstr, it's apparent that you too have missed what has just occurred. Yeah, I realize it's "holy shit, what do we do now?" time. But read my post above for what they decided to do after the "holy shit" moment.

The US has taken stakes in the 9, count 'em, nine, biggest banks in the country. They had no choice in the matter. Paulsen brought them in and told them "here's the deal." You have time to consult with your boards, but sign the deal sheet before 6.30 tonight. And they did. AND, there's plenty more to follow. We're not talking eminent domain here - there was no right to appeal, no ability to say no.

If you, for a second, think that the next administration can seriously top what has just happened, well then, I've got a nice bridge right here to sell ya..
10.18.2008 2:49am
Andrew Janssen (mail):
Reading all the overwrought comments here and on various left-wing and right-wing blogs for the last two years makes me have to ask: doesn't anyone believe in the idea of the Golden Mean anymore? It just seems like during my life-time, America has careened wildly from arguably excessive regulation of various industries to an equally unfortunate under-regulation of those same industries.

The great error of Communism was the belief that you can change human nature; the great error of capitalism seems to be the belief that market actors can be trusted to regulate themselves.
10.18.2008 3:12am
geokstr:
Gab:

Oh I think that there is plenty more that someone with serious Leftist tendencies could do. Maxine Waters made a Freudian slip not long ago about nationalizing the oil companies. Obama's health care proposals are the first step to a single payer system, which is basically socialized medicine. I think it would be a lot easier to envision the government divesting itself in equity positions it forced the banks to give it than it would be to reverse a complete nationalization of huge chunks of the economy.

Once an entitlement, always an entitlement. Nearly all the New Deal and Great Society programs are still, like the Energizer bunny, going and going and going.

I'm not for an instant saying that what Paulson is doing is not outrageous. But the Congress, mostly the democrats, signed onto this with no deliberation whatsoever. The republicans had a potentially far superior and much less onerous proposal but Pelosi and Reid would not allow it to be considered.

And that's just on the economic side. See my earlier comment about what I think is the worst part of an Obama super-majority, the ability and the will to choke off sources of criticism and opposition. Without that, the ability for opponents to regain control will be severely compromised for a long time.
10.18.2008 3:38am
geokstr:
Andrew:

"The great error of Communism was the belief that you can change human nature..."

However, we have never had anything resembling the possibility of a president with a heavy Marxist background before:
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

If you'll note the history of communist experiments in the past, they have been a mite difficult to dislodge once they get in.
10.18.2008 3:45am
Joe Bingham (mail):
"Our government has imprisoned and tortured American citizens for years at a time."

When did this occur, commontheme? Was it about they time they rewrote the dictionary entry on "propaganda" for you? :)

Do you really think that the gov't's phone surveillance of some Americans (the only plausible substantive assault on Americans' freedoms you mentioned) is a greater net infringement on Americans' liberties than the litany of things addressed in the column Zwycki's quoting?
10.18.2008 4:15am
Ursus Maritimus:
" I would hope the democrats concerned about bush's civil liberties policies will remain just as concerned about these issues if obama is elected.



I share that hope."

ROFL

Expect chanting of "Perp walk! perp walk!" and "Bubbas wife! Bubbas wife!" the first time the new US attorneys go after bloggers for campaign finance or commercial speech violations.
10.18.2008 4:42am
Arkady:

That glimmer [of hope] comes from the ghosts of Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, who still haunt the halls of the left.


In about the same way the ghost of Jacob Marley hangs out around the front doors of the right.
10.18.2008 7:59am
Daniel San:
Steve2:

what to estate taxes, eminent domain, and most especially tort liability restraint have to do with liberty?


All of these involve the power of the state to take something away from one person and give it to another. Property is a tool that we use to give ourselves options and choices. Take away our property (or restrict the use of it) and you restrict the options that we have worked to develop.

Steve2:
the private autonomy implicated in a lot of deregulation and free trade matters seems to be more corporate than personal


Keep in mind that corporations are composed of individuals who willingly join together to do certain things (usually to make money) and most of the people who are affected by a corporations actions (e.g. shareholders, employees, customers) are in that position voluntarily. Limit the options of a corporation and you limit the autonomy of all of those individuals.

Yes, this is over-simplified and yes, there are spill-over costs to individuals who are not volunteers so laws are necessary and appropriate, but every law (whether good or bad) does restrict someone's personal autonomy. If you are really interested in these issues, I strongly recommend Hayek, The Road to Serfdom.
10.18.2008 9:45am
Steve2:

(Note: Liberty is not the same as personal autonomy, and autonomy is self-government or self-willing.)

Huh? If liberty isn't the same as personal autonomy, then what is it and why's it matter? Seriously, you're the first person who's ever said that to me, and... if I ever get my head around it, it's going to take me awhile.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I agree with Berman v. Parker about eminent domain. I don't disagree with you that the way eminent domain gets (ab)used so often is unfair and improper. I just don't understand what that unfairness has to do with the freedom to choose what you do - which is what I've always thought the definition of liberty is.

You say, "Property is generally the product of labor." Yes (assuming that the majority of property is held as the result of earned income like wages, salary, and commission), that does give a strong claim to that property. But, again, I've always understood liberty to be a matter of freedom to choose activity, and the disposition of the by-products of one sort of activity (labor) doesn't seem strongly related to whether or not you've got the freedom to do that activity, and seems totally unrelated to whether or not you've got the freedom to choose and do any other sort of activity (everything in life that isn't labor). Unless you're saying that lacking the ability to afford to do something means you aren't free to do it, and thus your liberty's been impinged, but I'm pretty sure that isn't what you mean.
10.18.2008 10:02am
MarkField (mail):

Do you really think that the gov't's phone surveillance of some Americans (the only plausible substantive assault on Americans' freedoms you mentioned) is a greater net infringement on Americans' liberties than the litany of things addressed in the column Zwycki's quoting?


Putting aside your characterization of the Bush Administration, I'll say that I certainly do think that the development of the National Surveillance State is a much greater threat to Americans' liberties than anything in Manne's fevered imagination. Even assuming they come true.
10.18.2008 11:35am
Litigator-London:
Funny how the word "liberal" seems to have pejorative connotations on this blog. Wikipedia defines thus:

"Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law."

So what are all these posters frightened of? Progress?
10.18.2008 11:56am
byomtov (mail):
So Manne thinks business, the media, the academic community, the "elites," are all chomping at the bit to move the country sharply leftward and destroy freedom, and the only countervailing force will be a handful of brave libertarian bloggers.

Somebody go by and make sure he's OK. Sounds like he's off his meds.
10.18.2008 12:29pm
M. Simon (mail) (www):
Litigator-London,

Are you trying to tell me that leftys aren't really liberal?

They just adopted the name to fool people?
10.18.2008 12:33pm
Lucius Cornelius:
If you want to read about emminent domain abuse, read THE POWER BROKER by Robert Caro, a biography of Robert Moses. In New York state, Moses perfected a method for seizing property for building roads or bridges, even if the owners got a TRO against Moses.

Moses was one of the men who led the reform of the civil service. He also refined the idea of the public authority as a mechanism for expanding government actions. As far as the press was concerned, Moses could do no wrong. Afterall, what reasonable person would object to the building of parks and roads? So Moses got a pass from the press and his actions became worse and worse as time went on.

If you want to read even more about political corruption, I recommend another book by Caro: MEANS OF ASCENT. Volume 2 of Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson.
10.18.2008 12:42pm
ChipD (mail):
Before anyone gets too excited about a "socialist" Obama administration, mayne they can explain to me exactly WHAT the GOP has done to advance the concept of "small Gov't" or fiscal responsibility over the past 20 years.

Not once has any GOP President, or Congress proposed a balance budget- not even proposed it!

Re: Terri Schiavo, the Orwellian Homeland Security apparatus, warrantless wiretapping, loss of habeas corpus, etc., the GOP has enthusiastically championed the concept that the gov't is entitled to unlimited power and control over our lives-

At this point, Barack seems like a mild mannered New Dealer, and the GOP are wild eyed fiscal lunatics
10.18.2008 1:21pm
Robert West (mail) (www):
Does every political post here devolve into "Obama is a terrorist" / "Bush is a Nazi"?

I daresay every political post anywhere in the US will descend into that until the election is over.
10.18.2008 1:37pm
Automatic Caution Door:
What disgusting twaddle this post is.

The past 8 years have seen the greatest constriction of freedom and individual rights at any time since World War II.

(etc. etc.)

All of this taking place under the Bush administration.

So anyone who thinks that the "left" is somehow to blame for loss of freedoms is just an idiot.

Actually, what's idiotic is describing Bush as being on the "right," especially after outlining the very stuff that demonstrates his propensity for big, intrusive government and disregard for individual liberty.

George W. Bush isn't a conservative, no matter how much you want to pretend he is for the purposes of partisan demonization.
10.18.2008 1:41pm
Automatic Caution Door:
Before anyone gets too excited about a "socialist" Obama administration, mayne they can explain to me exactly WHAT the GOP has done to advance the concept of "small Gov't" or fiscal responsibility over the past 20 years.


Nothing, of course.

The past eight years of screaming by the left about Bush's "right-wing" administration has been an exercise in goalpost-moving: framing a not-so-conservative figure as an ultra-conservative so as to shift all the labels rightward and the definitions leftward. Thus a genuine leftist becomes a "moderate" or "centrist," allowing someone such as Barack Obama to sit harmlessly in the "middle."

It's the same old semantic games that have been played by the left for time immemorial, coupled with the standard lack of historical perspective that makes real (and fruitful) debate very difficult.
10.18.2008 1:54pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
t:

Among politicians of stature and influence, Obama is the most liberal.


Several people have pointed out that this claim is wrong (although it's repeated incessantly). frankcross mentioned the Poole-Rosenthal scores. You can read about that here. Obama is roughly at the center of his party.
10.18.2008 2:46pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
geo:

Here is an interesting, well documented article


You are citing the ironically named American Thinker, which cites, in turn, 'sources' like Newsmax and NY Post. What makes you think that misinformation becomes more credible when it's laundered through several layers of intermediaries?

Speaking of the NY Post: so far, Obama has been endorsed by 10 large newspapers (circulation greater than 200,000). McCain has been endorsed by one. Guess which one.
10.18.2008 2:46pm
Corkie the Dog (www):
The author was arguing about the results of the current crisis, not the results of the upcoming election:


And all of this is true in large degree regardless of who wins the forthcoming election.


His main thesis is that free market capitalism is going to be beaten with a new stick -- the 2008 crash -- and that this is going to affect mindsets for a long time.

And I think he is right.

Sincerely,
Corkie the Dog
10.18.2008 3:18pm
Seerak (mail):
His main thesis is that free market capitalism is going to be beaten with a new stick -- the 2008 crash -- and that this is going to affect mindsets for a long time.

And I think he is right.


Well, of course -- given his apparent conviction that Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek are the pre-eminent defenders of capitalism.

No, there is another... a complete defender of capitalist freedom, whose magnum opus is looking more prescient that it ought, who has yet to get her chance.

And I hope she does, because the alternative won't be pretty.
10.18.2008 4:15pm
bad imitation (mail):
Last year in a large university library I heard one librarian ask another who he was going to vote for for President. The one with the gray ponytail answered, "whoever's the biggest government liberal."
10.18.2008 4:16pm
Steve P. (mail):
"community organizing" which was a euphemism for revolution

Every time I think I'm used to the comments here... That was particularly hilarious, and I'm not even sure why.
10.18.2008 4:19pm
byomtov (mail):
bad imitation,

Last year in a large university library I heard one librarian ask another who he was going to vote for for President. The one with the gray ponytail answered, "whoever's the biggest government liberal."

So?
10.18.2008 4:24pm
geokstr:
Jukeboxgrad:

You are citing the ironically named American Thinker, which cites, in turn, 'sources' like Newsmax and NY Post. What makes you think that misinformation becomes more credible when it's laundered through several layers of intermediaries?

You on the left have us at a large disadvantage. You see, it is difficult for us to cite as reliable sources the AP, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, CNN, NYT, LAT, WaPo, 90% of the rest of the newspapers, or any of the so-called "news" organizations like you can because they are all in the tank for the left. But they all have no problem citing HuffPo, DU, Kos and other leftist nutroots smears and innuendo as legitimate sources.

Until talk radio and the internet came along, conservatives had absolutely no sources of information except for that biased BS in the dying media. Now we do. I understand that one of your tactics is to smear and ridicule any source that happens to be on the right. This is standard Alinsky.

When the MSM disseminates distortions, falsehoods and rumors and get attacked for it, they then rally round, and cite each other to prove their integrity. Until that is, the hammering they are taking from the right, who are doing the real research they should have been doing, just gets too loud to ignore. Then they obfuscate, dissemble and excuse until they are forced to retract.

Ayers and Wright are wonderful cases in point. Conservative have been looking into these two radicals for a long time, while Obama has been forced to slowly open up about them only because he had no choice. And the media is still spinning madly to help him out. The relationship between these three, and many other Marxists and race-mongers is long and deep. Obama hasn't even got moderate friends and associates he can look to for endorsements because he has been more comfortable with radicals his entire life.

The difference between your propaganda mills and a number of conservative blogs that have developed a strong reputation for accuracy, is that in order to get the rep, they have to actually have done some research. They know they are going to get Borked, Palined, Thomased, and Joed by the full force of those slime throwers on the left.

Did you happen to read the damned article? No? I'm shocked. Most of the general framework in it has been common knowledge for a long time, but with some deeper digging into the inconvenient details and connecting the dots the media insist aren't there, a very different picture emerges of the Healer who will Save Our Planet and make the oceans recede.

A lot of the initial sources there came from Obama himself. His admiration for Alinsky, his claim of the wonders of "community organization" (which Alinsky used as a euphemism for revolution), who his spiritual mentors were, and his refusal to release transcripts and other records of his past pointed to other areas to research. From his own book we get the statement that he sought out radicals, Marxist professors and other nutjobs to surround himself with.

What, is Obama lying about himself too?


Speaking of the NY Post: so far, Obama has been endorsed by 10 large newspapers (circulation greater than 200,000). McCain has been endorsed by one. Guess which one.

See the above. I rest my case.
10.18.2008 4:36pm
trad and anon (mail):
Because conservatives don't ever try to impose expensive policies that reduce freedom?

Conservatives and liberals both have lots of anti-freedom policies they want to impose (if you conceive of freedom the way libertarians do). It depends on if you care more about freedom from economic regulation and higher marginal tax rates or freedom from government spying, regulation of your sex life, and arbitrary imprisonment of people the government claims are "enemy combatants."
10.18.2008 4:57pm
trad and anon (mail):
Actually, what's idiotic is describing Bush as being on the "right," especially after outlining the very stuff that demonstrates his propensity for big, intrusive government and disregard for individual liberty.

George W. Bush isn't a conservative, no matter how much you want to pretend he is for the purposes of partisan demonization.
Oh, that explains why conservatives supported him until he became an unpopular lame duck.
10.18.2008 5:00pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):
The socialist want to turn my dear country into a Communist USA? I won't let them. They will bring hell fire down on themselves from millions of Americans who will NOT stand for it. Safe to say, you can read between the lines.
10.18.2008 5:03pm
geokstr:
Steve P:

"community organizing" which was a euphemism for revolution

Every time I think I'm used to the comments here... That was particularly hilarious, and I'm not even sure why.

As bizarre or humorous as you think that is, do you know where it comes from? I thought not.

Saul Alinsky
"In 1946 Alinsky wrote Reveille for Radicals, his first major book about the principles and tactics of "community organizing," otherwise known as agitating for revolution."

You may wish to educate yourself on the writings of the Marxist Saul Alinsky, someone Obama admits to being an admirer of. Many of his tactics have been adopted by the Obama campaign, and ACORN is founded on the principles, tactics, and strategies Alinsky espoused.

Of course, you could just discount the source of this detailed, footnoted analysis of Alinsky's works as rightwing nutroots fantasy, like "jukeboxgrad" will reflexively do. But Wikipedia and other sources confirm much of it as well.

Alinsky's books are intellectually tortured and twisted rationalizations for the-progressive-ends-justify-virtually-any-means school of thought. That includes lying, smearing, intimidation, coercion, threats of violence and much more. Even covered are such tactics as indentifying a prominent opponent, say a "mayor or a president" and then portraying them as the personification of evil and "intellectually deficient". (Sound familiar yet?) His theories, when applied consistently over long periods of time, have obviously passed the test of being very effective.

I thought we'd gotten rid of the damn communists when the wall came down. However, the Marxist philosophy had already been estblished on the university faculties for many decades. The only difference is that now they don't take their marching orders from Moscow anymore, and the movement has a life of its own.

Unfortunately, by now the smear of "McCarthyism" is just as damning as "racism" in providing cover for those who do not have the best interest of this country at heart, so this will be dismissed an just another rightwing ranting.

I'm an atheist, but even I have to say - "God help us".
10.18.2008 5:17pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
geo:

a number of conservative blogs that have developed a strong reputation for accuracy


Please don't make me laugh. Proof of Power Line's dishonesty can be found here and here. Proof of NR's dishonesty can be found here and here. I could show you a very long list of similar examples. I know you didn't quote those sources, but I think you understand my general point.

And it took me about a minute to find an example of American Thinker posting misinformation. Here they say Wooten "drove drunk in his AST cruiser." Trouble is, that was not what the witnesses said. They said he took an open container into the car. Not the same thing. AT also said this:

got a pass by a fellow Trooper who stopped him for erratic driving a second time while in civvies


That was one of many allegations made by Palin which turned out to be unsubstantiated. Also, Wooten was off-duty and in civilian attire during the beer incident, so it's wrong for them to imply otherwise.

Places like AT "have developed a strong reputation for accuracy" only among people like you, who have a very strange notion of the word "accuracy."
10.18.2008 5:50pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
That was one of many allegations made by Palin which turned out to be unsubstantiated.
"Turned out to be unsubstantiated" does not mean "false," and it's "wrong for you to imply otherwise."
Also, Wooten was off-duty and in civilian attire during the beer incident, so it's wrong for them to imply otherwise.
They didn't imply otherwise, and why would that matter?
10.18.2008 6:17pm
Automatic Caution Door:
Oh, that explains why conservatives supported (Bush) until he became an unpopular lame duck.

No, conservatives supported him for a number of other reasons, including his religious convictions, his defense philosophy, the fact that he wasn't John Kerry or Al Gore, and perhaps even the fact that he called himself conservative.

But that doesn't mean he's actually conservative on the small-government/individual-liberty front, which was the topic of these comments. Insofar as conservatives supported him in that regard, it was only in the lesser-of-two-evils sense.
10.18.2008 6:29pm
Joe Bingham (mail):
Mark Field, you write

Putting aside your characterization of the Bush Administration,

... but I didn't characterize the Bush administration in the post you quoted. Are you confusing me with someone else?
10.18.2008 7:01pm
byomtov (mail):
"Turned out to be unsubstantiated" does not mean "false," and it's "wrong for you to imply otherwise."

Can we use our brains here? Palin makes an accusation against the guy her sister is divorcing and it turns out to be unsubstantiated. It may not logically follow that it's false, but it sure is likely. I mean, it's not like Palin has some sort of sterling reputation for truthfulness.
10.18.2008 7:59pm
geokstr:
jukeboxgrad:

Let's get real here. I can show just as many examples of every one of the major media that are in the tank for Obama making a lot bigger mistakes than those, in addition to spinning and smearing. As far as just Palin goes, they have been a huge source of false information.

No I am not going to go back and research them all to prove this with cites; frankly I'm sick of having to do hours of research to refute lefties who throw out unsupported assertions like rice at a wedding and then say "Prove me wrong".

My point was that simply because it is a rightwing blog does not mean it is inaccurate. But it is the left's tactics to find anything that they can claim might be wrong, or can be spun differently, and use that as a means to discredit everything the right says.

The way this debate seems to work these days is the left says anything they want and we have to prove them wrong. If the right says something, the left says we have to prove we're right. Because of this, the left is in the catbird's seat and we have the much more difficult task.

But remember, Ayers was "just a guy in the neighborhood" and you swallowed it hook line and sinker. Then it was I never knew about his past. Then it was I thought he was rehabilitated. Then it just a guy I served on some boards with.

ACORN is another one. He actually had outright lies denying that he was involved with them AT ALL on his website until just a few days ago, when we were finally able to prove that was bull, and the denials mysteriously disappeared. No comment from the media. Shouldn't proof that Obama's campaign was lying have been of some interest?

It's been the right that has had to peel each layer of the onion off to get at the truth, which is a long way from being revealed still. It's been like pulling teeth to pry open all the sources. The MSM has fought on Obama's side tooth and nail in all this, until we can force the media to do what they should have been doing all along, but they're too busy kissing his ring, and asking Michelle what her favorit color is.

At some point, we are going to be getting very good at using the internet to be able pry off the lid on Obama's past, much of which he still refuses to reveal. I expect that some version of the "Fairness Doctrine" or massive legal and other intimidation will be aimed at shutting down conservative voices on the internet, and I expect it soon after Nov. 4.

I'm sure you'll be gloating when it happens too.
10.18.2008 9:40pm
MarkField (mail):

... but I didn't characterize the Bush administration in the post you quoted.


I thought you had, but you may only have been referencing the post to which you were responding. My bad in that case.
10.18.2008 10:04pm
Joe Bingham (mail):
Mark,

You're right, I was just referring to commontheme's rant. No problem, I just wanted to be clear.
10.18.2008 10:13pm
LM (mail):
EIDE_Interface:

The socialist want to turn my dear country into a Communist USA? I won't let them. They will bring hell fire down on themselves from millions of Americans who will NOT stand for it. Safe to say, you can read between the lines.

We socialists are lucky we can read at all, so why don't you humor us and tell us exactly what you mean?
10.18.2008 10:54pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
nieporent:

"Turned out to be unsubstantiated" does not mean "false"


That's a fun game. Let's play it.

Have you heard the news? McCain rapes nuns and tortures puppies. What? You say this is a scurrilous, baseless, unsubstantiated accusation? To that I say, so what? You should know it's still OK for me to say it. After all, I just have to apply the nieporent doctrine:

"unsubstantiated" does not mean "false"


Have you heard the other news? nieporent rapes nuns and tortures puppies. And it's perfectly OK for me to say that, too. Same reason.

AT said Wooten did something bad. They didn't say he may have done it, or could have done it. They didn't say it was an accusation or allegation. They simply offered it as a flat, plain statement, as if it were a proven fact. Even though this specific allegation had been investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. (By the way, Palin made a long list of other allegations that turned out to be unsubstantiated.) Is this your concept of honest reporting? I guess you're telling us pretty explicitly that it is.

They didn't imply otherwise


They did indeed imply that he was in uniform during the first incident. Read:

a second time while in civvies


This implies that the first time was not in "civvies." Trouble is, that's false.

why would that matter?


Because drinking and driving in uniform implies drinking on duty. Which is more egregious than drinking off-duty. Duh.

By the way, I notice you're not bothering to explain why it's OK for AT to say that Wooten "drove drunk." No witness ever alleged that he "drove drunk" (Palin made this allegation, but she was admittedly transmitting nothing more than double or triple hearsay, and the police investigation showed that this was yet another unsubstantiated allegation). Is this another instance where we're supposed to apply the nieporent doctrine? I'm free to make any defamatory statement that pops into my head, and the burden is on the target to affirmatively prove that my statement is false? Maybe you don't realize that defamation law doesn't work that way, and for good reason.
10.19.2008 8:30am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
geo:

I'm sick of having to do hours of research to refute lefties who throw out unsupported assertions


Gosh, that's funny. The one who's throwing out "unsupported assertions" is you. Unlike you, I showed proof for my claim (that leading righty sources are dishonest). And you haven't made even a pretense of refuting that proof. And you were the one who made a claim about certain sources having "a strong reputation for accuracy." If Power Line and National Review are dishonest (and I proved they are), why should anyone trust a statement from Newsmax or American Thinker [sic]?

You specifically cited AT, and proving how irresponsible they are was a trivial exercise. It took just a few minutes to find a blatant example.

I can show just as many examples of every one of the major media … making a lot bigger mistakes than those


All humans make "mistakes." But it's no longer appropriate to write off a false statement as a 'mistake,' if the writer has been notified and fails to run a correction. With regard to the examples I showed you for Power Line and NR, the writer was notified and failed to run a correction. That is sufficient to prove that the 'mistake' is an intentional falsehood.

simply because it is a rightwing blog does not mean it is inaccurate


Naturally. Even rightwing blogs should be expected to achieve the accuracy of a stopped clock. But their uncorroborated statements are not to be taken seriously.
10.19.2008 8:44am
Tom Perkins (mail):

Because drinking and driving in uniform implies drinking on duty. Which is more egregious than drinking off-duty. Duh.


It would be more serious, but either is more than serious enough to demand the end of employment if there is any pattern of other misbehavior, which there is.

I still well remember you claiming that drinking and driving is nothing serious at all, because you can drink one beer in the evening and drive the next day...


Unlike you, I showed proof for my claim (that leading righty sources are dishonest).


No, you haven't, certainly not the two you've just mentioned.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
10.19.2008 1:39pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
perkins:

I still well remember you claiming that drinking and driving is nothing serious at all


When you make blatantly false claims about what I allegedly said you should at least have the guts to point to my actual statement. Then readers can see that you're making shit up. And they can also see all the questions you ducked.

No, you haven't, certainly not the two you've just mentioned.


I showed proof of three righty sources making phony claims. Among other things, you have trouble counting.

Let's review AT for a moment. They said Wooten "drove drunk." Really? Here's what really happened:

Wooten did "take [an] open beer with him when he drove away in his trooper vehicle" on one occasion …[37] Wooten was not on duty; he was wearing "civilian attire." And he "drove approximately one mile to his residence."[22] Because Wooten "was a member of the SERT [SWAT] team … he [was allowed to] use his State vehicle for personal use."[38] The only witnesses to this event were close friends of Sarah Palin's father: "Adrian Lane was a student of Chuck Heath's in Idaho when he was a child and they have been close friends ever since."[27]


You can find proof for all that in the police interviews (pdf, pdf, pdf). Other primary documents can be found via the wiki article. google troopergate.

Let us know as soon as you locate some proof that Wooten "drove drunk."

It's no surprise that you're defending those who make phony claims, since that's what you routinely do, including right now.
10.19.2008 4:26pm
Tom Perkins (mail):
jukeboxgrad, I quote you verbatim:


I had a drink yesterday. I'm going to be "driving state property" tomorrow. Is that a "big deal?"


And you made out like the answer is no. Which it wouldn't be--except that isn't what we are talking about--you drinking in the evening and then driving in the morning. We were talking about the trooper drinking and driving his patrol car--which you were insisting was no big deal, and certainly not grounds for termination even in light of his other misbehavior. Per you.


Wooten did "take [an] open beer with him when he drove away in his trooper vehicle" on one occasion …[37]


There's no Alaska state trooper exception to laws against drinking and driving.

Oh, wait, the problem is, there is one. Monhegan administered the exception. You don't have to have the mandatory breath or blood test done, if you're one of Monhegan's troopers.

Jukeboxgrad, if you're going to claim I'm a liar, you need to actually show I'm lying instead of proving my case for me.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
10.19.2008 10:51pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
' I mean, it's not like Palin has some sort of sterling reputation for truthfulness.'

You can say that again.
10.20.2008 3:38am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
perkins:

We were talking about the trooper drinking and driving his patrol car--which you were insisting was no big deal


I'm going to ask you the same question you ducked on the other thread. I'm sure you will duck it again. Please tell us how much time elapsed between the following two events:

A) the trooper drinking
B) the trooper driving his patrol car

If the time elapsed was 48 hours, would you claim that there is a problem? How about 24? How about 8? How about 4, or 2, or 1? What is the threshold? And how much time elapsed, in this instance? How do you know?

And speaking of ducking questions: why is it OK with you that AT said he was "drunk," when that is not what the witnesses alleged?

Oh, wait, the problem is, there is one. Monhegan administered the exception. You don't have to have the mandatory breath or blood test done, if you're one of Monhegan's troopers.


Nice job revealing that you lack even the most basic familiarity with the facts. The beer incident happened in 2004. Monegan did not become Commisioner of Public Safety until 12/06. Wooten had been investigated and disciplined by a previous administration, under the previous Governor and the previous Commissioner of Public Safety.

Are you saying that it was Monegan's duty to reopen all prior investigations involving trooper misconduct, under all prior administrations? Or just the ones connected with custody battles in Palin's family?

And by the way, who was supposed to administer "the mandatory breath or blood test?" In the beer incident, there were no police present. The only witnesses were a couple who are very close friends with Palin's father. And they didn't report the incident to police until a year later. Is that when "the mandatory breath or blood test" should have been done? As I said, you're very confused about the basic facts.

if you're going to claim I'm a liar, you need to actually show I'm lying


This is what you said:

I still well remember you claiming that drinking and driving is nothing serious at all


We're still waiting for you to indicate where I said that.
10.20.2008 9:50am
Tom Perkins (mail):

I still well remember you claiming that drinking and driving is nothing serious at all


Your whole commentary about Wooten getting into the patrol car with an open container is dismissive of even the concept that drinking and driving is serious.


If the time elapsed was 48 hours, would you claim that there is a problem? How about 24? How about 8? How about 4, or 2, or 1? What is the threshold? And how much time elapsed, in this instance? How do you know?


Your red herring doesn't matter when getting into a car with an open alcoholic beverage will get anyone except someone behind the blue wall of silence thrown under the jail. Your hypotheticals are not relevant to the issue, they are a pathetic distraciton.


why is it OK with you that AT said he was "drunk," when that is not what the witnesses alleged?


Because it is not credible a man getting into a vehicle with an open container is not drinking from it, neither is ANY degree of intoxication or possession of an open container acceptable in a public servant employing a public vehicle at the time.


Nice job revealing that you lack even the most basic familiarity with the facts.


I understand why you think disagreement is the same as ignorance--your conflation of the two does not reflect well on you.

Monhegan had a duty to undo the whitewash which Wooten enjoyed, and yes, if he had credible evidence of such a whitewash in other cases, those should have been opened as well.


In the beer incident, there were no police present.


The reports I have read clearly state there were other incidents where Wooten was driven home by a colleague and no sobriety test given.


I still well remember you claiming that drinking and driving is nothing serious at all

We're still waiting for you to indicate where I said that.


JBG, you are still writing that it is no big deal.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
10.20.2008 8:15pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Your whole commentary about Wooten getting into the patrol car with an open container is dismissive of even the concept that drinking and driving is serious.


This is what you said before:

I still well remember you claiming that drinking and driving is nothing serious at all


We're still waiting for you to show where I said that. What I said is this: the seriousness of drinking and driving depends directly on, among other things, the amount of time elapsed between the drinking and the driving.

Your red herring doesn't matter when getting into a car with an open alcoholic beverage will get anyone except someone behind the blue wall of silence thrown under the jail.


Nice job continuing to duck the question. The witnesses didn't say they saw him drink in the car. They saw him drink prior to getting into the car. Trouble is, you don't know how much prior. Are you seriously claiming it doesn't matter? What if it was an hour prior? What if it was 4 hours prior? What do you believe is the relevant threshold? And if they witnessed something serious, why did they wait a year to report it?

it is not credible a man getting into a vehicle with an open container is not drinking from it


It's acknowledged that he was about to drive a mile to his house. How do you know he wasn't planning to have it at home?

neither is ANY degree of intoxication or possession of an open container acceptable in a public servant employing a public vehicle at the time


There you go again, ducking another question. Why is it OK for AT to say he was "drunk?" The fact that "neither is ANY degree of intoxication or possession of an open container acceptable in a public servant employing a public vehicle at the time" is not an excuse to make a false claim about his condition. The witnesses did not allege that he was "drunk."

By the way, what was his "degree of intoxication?" Where is your proof that there was any "degree of intoxication?"

Monhegan had a duty to undo the whitewash which Wooten enjoyed


Where is the evidence that the investigation of Wooten was a "whitewash?" And why should an uncorroborated report by Heath's close friend be considered proof of anything, especially since he waited a year to make the report?

The reports I have read clearly state there were other incidents where Wooten was driven home by a colleague and no sobriety test given.


The "reports" you have read stem from an email that Sarah Palin sent to Col. Grimes on 8/10/05. The email was packed with all sorts of hearsay that turned out to be unsubstantiated, after the police interviewed fifteen witnesses. There is ample evidence that Palin is a serial fabricator, so it's no surprise that most of her allegations against Wooten turned out to be phony. But she's still making phony allegations against him. Just like AT, and you.

I already told you where you can find the email, and also where you can find police transcripts of the witnesses that were interviewed. Along with lots of proof regarding the many false statements Palin has made.
10.20.2008 10:58pm