And then they pick this guy…
For whatever reason, the Libertarian Party has always attracted what Mr. Libertarian Murray Rothbard called “luftmenschen.” These are the pint-glass philosophers who opine on the need to abolish prisons and legalize incest while imbibing large amounts of liquor (not that there is anything wrong with the latter). They make little money, lack job stability, and are shameless in public. The LP chairman candidate who stripped on stage at the recent Orlando convention personified the abject immaturity of the organization.
Johnson himself is no better. If the former governor were a principled Lew Rockwell type of libertarian, that would be a refreshing difference from the milquetoast tedium the LP serves around election time. Instead, Johnson is the D.C. archetype of libertarianism: goofy, dotty, gay-loving, and perpetually stoned. His policies come off as inchoate; he supports America as a global policeman and doesn’t want to cut public funds to baby-butchering Planned Parenthood. But he’s adamantly in favor of gay marriage, anti-discrimination laws, and weed legalization. As Michael Brendan Dougherty writes, “Johnson seems only to care about the liberties he himself would like to exercise: namely, smoking pot and commanding religious people what to do.”
Very nice, but the “for whatever reason” part should be the jumping off point for another column, not a throwaway line, no?
…that the theories, agonies, ecstasies, insults, and arguments that accompany sports — or, for that matter, music, movies, TV, and comic books — are as fundamental to the experience as touchdowns and shot clocks, face-offs and strikeouts…
David Cole writes:
But I also know that the minute you’re told that a lie is necessary because the ends justify the means, you need to resist, because you’re in the presence of a charlatan, regardless of that person’s credentials. (…)
Frankly, I wasn’t that interested in contacting Dr. Martucci, because I felt I already had a decent enough column without doing so. But then I learned a fascinating detail. In 2015, Martucci wrote a book titled—get this—Back to the Breast: Natural Motherhood and Breastfeeding in America. Wait…hold the phone. This is the person who advocates that doctors and public health officials stop using the term “natural” in relation to breastfeeding. WTF? She used it in the title of her own damn book!
Okay, now I was too curious not to reach out.
David Solway: ‘My friend Kathy Shaidle has recently posted a no-holds-barred article on the disaster of ‘hate speech’ legislation…’
David Solway writes:
Shaidle is writing specifically about society’s embrace of transgenderism and the legal crusade against dissenters, but the issue, implicit in her contestation, is larger than that. In subscribing, really or apparently, to the prudish and pharisaic mores of the time, have we secured an exemption from eventual persecution? More to the point, do we want to live in a society in which the government can arrest us at its discretion for our opinions, however neutral, moderate, abrasive or vehemently expressed?
If we do not speak our minds, or prefer to huddle under a canopy of pietistic complicity, as many do, we will awaken one day soon to find our freedom of expression even more severely compromised than it now is—or worse. Indeed, “microfascism” has a way of morphing into macrofascism. The upshot is that we will have reaped the bitter harvest of our cowardice, and an ironic form of justice will have been served.
Cody Brown writes:
With a single wire deposit, Thiel has made a tabloid that covers Silicon Valley untenable as a business. What media entrepreneur can afford to regularly take on Thiel’s lawsuits? But in that same stroke, he has validated the concerns of many dissenters and blessed new rules of engagement with the Silicon Valley establishment. Secrecy? Proxy lawsuits? Fraudulent client solicitation? All of those are on the table now.
I now feel hesitant to bring up a point like this in a public forum. So many of those I know in the heart of SV are thoughtful, deeply intelligent, interesting people but this is their blind spot. They have funded or built massive new institutions of social change without much scrutiny but the scrutiny is finally coming and they don’t know how to handle it. They will cut you out or block you for even engaging. Paul Graham and a partner at Andreessen Horowitz unfollowed after I made a few tweets in support of Gawker. A single email from any of these guys could torpedo my next round of funding. I have more to lose than to gain by putting my name next to this.
And that’s the point.
If the price of dissent in Silicon Valley is too high, dissent will find a darker avenue. The next ValleyWag is likely to be more like WikiLeaks. It could be anonymous. It could be outside the jurisdiction of The United States. And it could use all the shiny tools of the web, Tor, bitcoin financing, Zeronet, the blockchain, to exist above the law.
Tarek Fatah writes:
Steyn wrote: “We are witnessing the end of the late 20th-century progressive welfare democracy. The children and grandchildren of those fascists and republicans who waged a bitter civil war for the future of Spain now shrug when a bunch of foreigners blow up their capital. Too sedated even to sue for terms, they capitulate instantly.”
There was an outcry among Canada’s Islamists, who took Steyn and Maclean’s to the Ontario and British Columbia Human Rights Commissions.
My fellow Sun columnist, Farzana Hassan, and I wrote a rejoinder in Maclean’s titled, “Mark Steyn has a right to be wrong.”
Today, I recognize, Steyn was right and I was wrong. (…)
Chia Barsen, a 32-year old Canadian Marxist, was 10 when his family fled Islamic Iran, political refugees escaping the murderous rule of its barbaric ayatollahs.
Commenting on the liberal left’s reaction to the Oralando massacre, Barsen wrote on his blog:
“Blaming guns for the Islamist murder of 49 people in the Orlando gay club, is like saying that Zyklon B gas was the cause of the Holocausts and not the Nazis. Gun control is a clear and present issue in the U.S. and there are countless episodes of shootings in the U.S. to justify the removal of all guns (not just automatic weapons), from the streets.
“However, piggybacking on the gun control debate and not making any mention of the threat of Political Islam and Islamism, is the furthering of a political agenda and not simple ignorance or apathy.”