Steve G.

Posts Tagged ‘insanity’

LP Presidential Candidate, Senator Mike Gravel, Interviewed By Newsweek

In Barack Obama, Censorship, Democracy, Democrats, Iraq War, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Media, People in the news, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Republican, US Government, War on April 1, 2008 at 12:11 am

Senator Mike GravelSenator Mike GravelLP Presidential candidates normally don’t get this level of media exposure, ever. Senator Mike Gravel’s switch to the Libertarian Party is causing a great deal of positive mainstream media attention. Below is an excerpt from the Newsweek interview, posted today. I will note that Last Free voice beat Newsweek to the punch, interviewing Senator Gravel within 48 hours of his decision to run as an LP candidate.

After the crowded presidential primary shrunk from eight Democrats and 11 Republicans to only three viable candidates between the two parties, what’s a spurned presidential hopeful to do? Well, if you’re Ron Paul, you ignore John McCain‘s inevitability and keep running anyway. If you’re former U.S. senator Mike Gravel, you switch parties.

Last Monday, the former Democrat swung by the Libertarian Party‘s national headquarters and defected. “We handed him a [membership] card on the spot,” says Shane Cory, the party’s executive director. Two days later, Gravel formally announced he would run to be the Libertarian candidate for president, joining a field of 15 others. Cory wouldn’t comment on Gravel’s chances at the convention, which will take start in Denver on May 22, but he did say that Gravel’s party swap has garnered some much-appreciated exposure for the Libertarians.

Gravel spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Sarah Elkins about the 2008 race and why he’s still running. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: You’ve been a Democrat for your entire political career. Was it a tough decision to switch parties?
Mike Gravel:
It had been eating at me–believe me–ever since I was a senator [he served from 1969 to 1981]. When I was in the Senate, I was a maverick and, at the end of my term, I was not particularly happy with my progress in terms of partisanship with the Democrats and Republicans. So when I left office, I stayed away from partisan politics altogether. But when I decided to get back in the game and to get my message out to the American people about the National Initiative [a political movement that would allow ballot initiatives at the federal level], I had to pick a party that would allow me to get into the debates … But of all the parties I was probably closest to the Libertarians.

It sounds like you’ve been interested in leaving the Democratic Party for some time. Why didn’t you make the move sooner?
It wouldn’t have made any sense for me to enter the race as a Libertarian. [As a Democratic candidate], I got into the debates and got a fair amount of visibility up until General Electric [which owns NBC] along with the Democratic Party leadership, said they would get me out of the debates. And they did. GE said I did not meet their criteria for participating in the debates. I think it’s very interesting that a defense contractor said I had to meet their criteria in order to participate in the MSNBC debates. We’ve really come down in democracy when a defense contractor can decide what the American people hear from a candidate. It was a [Democratic National Committee] sanctioned debate, so we complained to the DNC and found out that Howard Dean had agreed to it and that not a single one of the other Democratic nominees raised a finger in protest, meaning that they were totally tone deaf to the censorship of the military-industrial complex.

So you didn’t consider running as a Libertarian from the get-go?
I would have preferred to run as an independent or Libertarian or Green Party, but I knew that none of those candidates would have gotten any traction. So I used my position as a legitimate Democratic candidate to get my name out there.

You still have to win the Libertarian primary in order to run as the party’s candidate.
I am probably the most well known and certainly the most experienced in terms of running for president and as a government official. I have 16 years of experience in elected office and have been a senator, and I have a great deal of foreign-policy experience.

placeAd2(commercialNode,’bigbox’,false,”)

You can read the very interesting three-page interview excerpt with Newsweek here.

Eugenics being promoted to prevent child abuse

In Big Brother, Children, Communism, Constitutional Rights, Crazy Claims, Health, Human Rights Abuses, Law, Libertarian, Minorities, Nanny State, Personal Responsibility, US Government on March 24, 2008 at 6:24 pm

EugenicsI ran across the following comment on a newspaper’s reader comments section:

ARRRG!… I’ve said it before and I will stand by it. Some people do not deserve to have children. It should be mandatory that when a girl get her period they go on birth control and when they are ready to have a kid someone has to come and check out the living conditions and a mental exam has to be administered to both parents and they have to pass and then they grant you permission to have a child. I personally think it would save a lot of children. Being a woman myself and seeing this type of stuff I am all for it. IGNORANCE IS PREVENTABLE!!!

Why on earth would anyone living in the United States harbor the belief that the government should have total control over everyone’s life, including their most basic right, to reproduce?

While I do understand that child abuse is a very serious problem in this country, the solution is the exact opposite of what she proposes. If everyone took responsibility for their own lives, there would be no child abuse or neglect. Obviously, total personal responsibility is merely a philosophical ideal, since there will always be those who refuse to step up and take responsibility. Nevertheless, the failure of the few to take responsibility for their lives does not negate the right of the many to do so, without government interference.

The same people who harbor such beliefs would likely scream to high heaven if the mother in question – who abused her infant after losing her temper when the baby cried for days on end – had undergone an abortion rather than giving birth to a child she likely did not want, and definitely could not handle. Regardless of what the uninformed among us believe, giving a child up for adoption carries a stigma as well. Many times a pregnant woman finds herself in the position that she’s damned if she does have the child, and she’s damned if she doesn’t have the child, due to social pressures.

I don’t have the answer to this dilemma, but I do know that government control over reproduction is not the answer. After all, many otherwise completely normal mothers lose their tempers with crying infants, socioeconomic status notwithstanding, so governmental control would not stop the problem. That does not excuse the behavior, but it does prove that the suggestion made above is rather ignorant; though strangely, she attributes ignorance to those who dare disagree with her.

If denying the government the ability to grant or deny such a basic human right as reproduction is her definition of ignorance, I will gladly bear the title.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not excusing the mother for abusing her child; far from it, in fact, since I find the abuse of the helpless to be the most heinous crime of all. However, there is an undercurrent in this country, with its basis in extremist religious beliefs and the far right, which uses child abuse cases as an excuse to advocate that the government take total control over the reproductive lives of its citizens. These extremists do not understand that government must be controlled, and never given carte blanche to do whatever it wants. Yet they would grant the government the right to decide who can reproduce, and when they can reproduce; and as history has proven, in no time the government would turn that power into a eugenics program wherein the poor – which by necessity would include many minorities – would not be permitted to reproduce at all. That’s absolutely insane.

I fear for the future of this country, when I read such comments. Perhaps it is easier for some if they don’t have to take any responsibility whatsoever for their lives; but when they are openly and actively advocating total government control over others’ lives, they have gone too far. As libertarians we have a responsibility to speak out, loudly and clearly, against anyone who would openly advocate such bizarre government programs. We have a responsibility to educate others about the very real dangers of giving the government too much control over our lives, whether we run across the statist mindset online, or in our personal lives. As libertarians, we must spread the word of liberty, even if only to one person at a time.