Winter’s Haven

I quote:

We regret to announce that due to unforeseen circumstances beyond our control, the publication of The Astrological Magazine will cease with the December 2007 issue.

There is (poetic) justice in the universe after all!

Hat tip to the Bad Astronomer for finding this.

Commenting on the scandalous Ron Paul newsletters brought to light by The New Republic today, David Bernstein provides some very informative background on the political and cultural forces which produced this situation. I quote:

[T]here are really two disparate groups to whom the limited-government message appeals: philosophical libertarians (which consists of a tiny percentage of Americans, but something like 10% are at least inclined toward a general libertarian perspective), and those who hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories, ranging from old chestnuts like a freemason conspiracy, a Council on Foreign Relations/Bildeberger conspiracy, or a conspiracy to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty in favor of world government; to variations on old anti-Semitic themes (ranging from domination by Zionist conspirators to domination by Jewish bankers led by the Rothchilds to domination by Jews in Hollywood); to newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.

Mainstream libertarian groups like Cato and Reason have nothing to do with the latter types, but other self-proclaimed libertarian groups, like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, play footsie with them. (I recently turned down an invitation to do a book review for an academic journal published by LVMI because I don’t want my name associated with the Institute.) Paul himself seems to have made a career of straddling the line between respectable libertarian sentiment and conspiracy-mongering nuttiness, receiving support and accolades from both sides.

Given Paul’s lame and none-too-reassuring reaction to the scandal, it appears that all of us who wanted a philosophical libertarian to vote for finally are being forced to the realization that Paul is the other type of “libertarian”.

There is one small point of optimism in all this. Paul’s campaign has stirred up a lot of excitement, and the vast majority of it is from mainstream libertarians — people who simply want less war, greater personal freedom, and smaller government. The Satan’s-army-wears-blue-helmets people will remain an ugly but tiny fringe group. Yet the Paul phenomenon has shown that there are more than a few people wishing for a respectable libertarian to vote for.

My last post argued that voters ought to ignore issues which are chiefly ideological (such as evolution/creationism) and instead evaluate candidates on their policies. I feel that I should pass along this article by Megan McArdle which contends that Paul’s proposed policies would do remarkably little good (from a libertarian perspective, that is).

She’s probably right; I briefly thought I might find a substantive response in the comments, but no. Let’s be honest here: the libertarian movement attracts more than its fair share of cranks. And it’s becoming pretty clear that the sane and intellectual libertarians are a lot less enthusiastic about Paul than the cranks are. But a lot of libertarians are nonetheless drawn to Paul in our desperation to find a candidate we can truly support.

In my opinion, rest of the GOP slate is a truly awful group of authoritarians and theocrats. On the democratic side, I don’t like either Obama or Clinton. Edwards is terrible. I think Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson are pretty decent, but they have even less chance of winning a party nomination than Paul does. In all likelyhood, I’ll just stay home in November, unless I’m really, really bored, in which case I might venture to the polls to cast a protest vote for whatever rabid goat is running on the Libertarian Party ticket.

Politics sucks.

The Bad Astronomer condemns Ron Paul for reasons which are… politically misguided. Namely, Paul is a creationist.

I think I speak for a lot of atheists libertarians when I say that, yes, Ron Paul’s views on evolution/creationism are awful, but in spite of that I’d still be fairly overjoyed to see him in the Oval Office. Why?

I don’t completely agree with the views of any of the presidential candidates. In choosing between the imperfect options available to me, I think the relevant question to ask is not “Who has the least terrible ideas?” but rather, “Who’s bad ideas are least likely to produce bad policies?”

The president’s power to push America towards a theocratic pre-Enlightenment society is quite limited. The Constitution has proven quite effective at protecting us from all the previous creationist presidents; I don’t see any reason to believe that Paul could succeed in bringing creationism into public schools where Bush and others have failed.

The president has much more influence over (for example) health care policy, and far more ability to do us all damage by instituting bad health care policy. Which is why, given a choice between a creationist and a democrat who favors even more state intervention in health care, I’ll hold my nose and vote for the creationist.

Ron Paul may be an idiot in a lot of ways, but the other presidential candidates are much bigger idiots in ways that will actually affect us.

My mobile phone has been having problems — I couldn’t call out or access voicemail. I now have a different service, and a new phone number. Email me for the new phone number; I’m not going to post it online.

From Utah, a correspondent for The Economist relates that

Ironically, one of the worst places [for Mormon missonaries] to be sent on a mission is the American Bible belt, says another of the students: “People there have had guns pulled on them or dogs set on them.”

Think about that. Of all the many places in the world to which the Mormons send missionaries, the one of most violently hostile religious cultures they venture into is the American South.

(Actually, are there any places to which the LDS does not send missionaries? As bad as the South may be, I feel pretty certain that there are some Muslim countries which would be much more dangerous for missionaries from America.)

Is there a cure for the condition where you are perpetually dissatisfied with your computer’s wallpaper image, no matter how many different images you try? Is there even a name for this condition?

After sarcastically venting my frustration that my own impeccably sensible ideas are so are out of the political mainstream, I was reminded of a recent post from Megan McArdle. She doesn’t understand why so many liberals oppose funding education through vouchers, rather than having the government provide it directly, as it currently does. And, frankly, I don’t either (well, aside from the concern that vouchers might fund religious indoctrination).

I kinda think that the Left’s dislike of school vouchers is part knee-jerk opposition to anything proposed by the Right, and part stubborn unwillingness to consider replacing a state-run program with a market-based alternative. But maybe my understanding of other people’s views on this issue is totally off-base. Anyone care to offer perspective on this? The objections to vouchers offered by Megan’s commenters are… well, weird and nonsensical, if you ask me.

This poor creature is one of the many cats who have been taken in by Canonical’s devious business practices. Free gets expensive quickly when your t-shirt becomes obsolete every six months.

(Yes, I am ashamed to say that this LOLcat is original. But publicly humiliating myself is a small price to pay for protecting feline consumer rights.)

Update: Oops, the “devious business practices” link was pointing to the wrong location. It’s now corrected, and points to the page selling the t-shirt. But seriously, don’t buy it. If you really want an Ubuntu t-shirt, do the sane thing and buy one that won’t automatically become obsolete.

Reporting on the “pay-as-you-go” budget rules adopted by the Democratic majority in Congress, Edmund L. Andrews of the New York Times brings us the news that

Senate Democrats face an agonizing choice in the days ahead: find a way to raise at least $50 billion in new taxes, or undermine their most important rule for enforcing budget discipline.

Being the crazed radical libertarian that I am, I can’t help but to suggest a third option: cut spending. There was a time when I looked upon my own political ideas as entirely sane and pragmatic. However, it’s becoming clear that I haven’t got as many marbles as I had thought, given that my idea is clearly unthinkable to everyone in Congress and at the Times. I’m sure that you, dear reader, being a far more sane and moderate person than I, will share none of my shock and discontent in learning that the aforementioned article doesn’t even hint at the possibility of cutting federal spending.

So, I’m a crazy radical. I guess this means I’m gonna have to stop cutting or washing my hair, start taking colloidal silver until my skin turns blue, and LSD until I think it’s turned green. Fuck.