Thursday, July 30, 2009

Blog Interviews: Mr. David Colborne

For this round of Blog Interviews the Liberty Pen is going local. I have had the pleasure of interviewing Mr. David Colborne, Secretary for the Nevada Capital Libertarian Party. It is my contention that the impressions of Libertarianism are artificial and carefully effected manipulation, and I state this position because of the multiple conversations I have had via person-to-person and on blogging forums. A carefully scripted depiction that conveys the fundamental character of a thing, without the infusion of nescience and personal bias (both cognitive factors), could be called an explicit definition. If you want specificity the example would be; libertarianism is a political philosophy that advocates limited government; personal responsibility; free markets; and individual sovereignty. As a corollary I would like to add the following as a supplementation;

"...disparate reciprocity is a key element of individualism; the acknowlegement that fundamental distinctions exist between dissimilar elements, and to ensure social equilibrium a consonance must be afforded to the protean aspects of individual sovereignty."

In other words; if we except as the normative that all individual beings are different, we must also accept that the pursuance of one's self-interests will also vary. During the advancement of our cause we must remain cognizant not to infringe upon the rights of others. Respect for this form of individuality will effect the inferred element of disparate reciprocity. I sumit that any real social balance will only manifest when we disengage ourselves from other people's lives.

But, I will concede that this is my viewpoint and I do not speak for the bulk of Libertarians. Therefore, for your reading pleasure we would like to present the following interview. We hope you enjoy it.






tLP: To begin, please tell our readers what a Libertarian is, and what does Libertarianism mean to you?





Mr. Coborne: Do you like telling people what to do? Do you enjoy it when people tell you what to do? If your answer to both of those questions is "no", you're a Libertarian. Libertarianism, at least to me, means taking the same attitude and same instinct that we use on our friends, coworkers, and neighbors, and applying it on a local, state, and national level.



tLP: Why did you decide to become politically active?







Mr. Colborne: Part of it was upbringing - my mom was rather politically active in her younger years and she made it a point to pass that on to me. Part of it was that, as I grew up, I noticed that politicians seemed to hew to two basic paths: Either they were willing to let me do whatever I wanted with my life but wanted to reach for my wallet, or they were happy to let me keep my wallet but wanted to tell me what to do in the privacy of my own home. I wasn't terribly excited about either prospect, so I decided to do something about it.




tLP: Do you have friends that are Democrat or Republican? If so, what are your political conversations like?






Mr. Colborne: You bet! My best friend is a Republican and my wife's best friend is a Green. Believe it or not, we each have quite a bit in common politically, though we may not necessarily realize it. My Republican friend and I, of course, agree on issues like gun control, taxes, and most government regulation. However, he's a little more reluctant to approve of things like gay marriage and, amusingly enough, people forgetting to use their turn signals. My wife's friend, meanwhile, is about as interested in government control in the bedroom as I am - on the other hand, she's not convinced that corporations can be made to behave responsibly without serious government intervention. Personally, I just try to avoid arguing with them and instead focus on coming up with compromises that both can live with. Libertarianism makes this surprisingly easy.

For example, on the issue of gay marriage, many Libertarians will tell you they're not in favor of government-sponsored gay marriage - in their view, the government shouldn't have their nose in marriage at all! I think that might be a little extreme, at least for now, but I do think there's some value in the spirit behind this idea. For my Republican friend, he's upset that a group of people with no religious affiliation are attempting to take over the institution of marriage via government fiat. For my wife's Green friend, she just wants to see gay people receive equal treatment under the law. From her viewpoint, if we call a contractual union between two straight people a "marriage" and a contractual union between two gay people something else, it will be far too easy for some opportunistic legislator to declare that the union between the two gay people no longer shares the same rights as the union between the two straight people. I think both are valid concerns. One possible solution, which both of them found reasonably acceptable, was to simply pull government out of the "marriage" business entirely and declare that, as far as the government was concerned, straight or gay, everybody just had a civil union. If two people wanted to get "married", they could either just decide they're "married" or take it up with a religious figure of their choice.

Interestingly, there already is some precedent for this idea. Mormons, for example, recognize both regular marriages and "temple marriages". According to the Latter-Day Saint faith, temple marriages have a very different and far more restrictive set of rules than regular civil marriages; as far as the government is concerned, however, there is absolutely no distinction between the two. Whether two people choose to follow the government's rules or the more restrictive LDS rules is a voluntary choice between those two people, one which the government is completely indifferent to.




tLP: What are some misconceptions about Libertarians?







Mr. Colborne: Probably the biggest misconception is that we're a bunch of gun-toting, drug using hedonists. Personally, I don't have a gun - to be honest, if you gave me a gun, I'd have a very limited understanding of what to do with one. I don't use drugs; I've tried marijuana but, frankly, didn't like it. I barely even drink - honestly, you could count the number of times I drink anything alcoholic in a year on two hands. As for wanton hedonism, well, my wife and I are very happy with each other and neither of us are particularly interested in sharing.




tLP: How would Libertarian principles benefit our country?







Mr. Colborne: Libertarian principles are based around the concept that, ultimately, people are motivated by self-interest. Contrary to what people think, we don't think that people are incorruptible - on the contrary, we simply assume that people in government are just as corruptible as any capitalist and vice-versa. When you have power, it's in your best interest to exercise it. All Libertarians want is to make sure that people can pick and choose who they're dealing with voluntarily and, just as importantly, choose to stop dealing with them if they're dissatisfied. For example, if people really wanted GM to continue doing business, they would have bought GM products.




tLP: If not already answered in the previous question, how would a Libertarian limit the size of government?






Mr. Colborne: The answer, of course, is depressingly simple: Slowly.

Ultimately, Libertarians are going to be constrained in how they can limit the size of government by the mandate given to them by the voters. Consequently, in order for a Libertarian to meaningfully decrease the size of government, they will need to prove - through action, when and where possible - that less government really does provide more for everyone. However, we have to remember that many people rely on the government for food, shelter, health care, education, and retirement. If we're going to meaningfully reduce the size of government, we will need to provide better alternatives, and that will take some time and some imagination.

Remember, it took generations for our government to reach its current size. It's not going away in four years, no matter who gets elected. The Libertarian goal is a long-term goal.




tLP: Do you feel that there is an assault on fundamentalist principles, as they pertain to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, individualism, self-reliance and self-responsibility, and limited government?





Mr. Colborne: Hanlon's Razor states, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." For this question, I'd like to replace "stupidity" with "indifference", though the end result is the same.

I think that most people think they believe in the country's fundamental principles. I think that most people in this country think they believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, individualism, self-reliance, and self-responsibility. If you ask most people in this country about their government, they'll tell you (regardless of party affiliation) that our government is a gigantic and intrusive waste of oxygen. However, if you ask them about individual principles, there will be a "but".

  • People believe in free speech... BUT they believe that, y'know, maybe people shouldn't be allowed to say hateful things about minorities. That sounds reasonable, right?
  • People believe in the right to defend themselves... BUT there are a lot of people killing each other in our cities with guns! We should do something about that!
  • People believe in search warrants, that we should be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures... BUT you can flush drugs down a toilet awfully fast, and do we really believe that terrorists won't cover their tracks if a police officer has to knock first?
  • People believe that cruel and unusual punishments shouldn't be inflicted... BUT, man, child molesters sure do seem to re-offend a lot, don't they? We should do something about that!

... and so on. They're all legitimate objections - they really are! Who wants to speak out for racist idiots, or gun-toting gangbangers, or drug dealers, or sex offenders? Nobody with sense, that's who, and I'm not about to start. However, people need to realize that freedom isn't really freedom if the only choices we can make are right ones. If we want to be free to openly criticize our government, to say that Bush is a chimp or that Obama is a socialist, we have to accept that some people will be free to say some incredibly stupid and hateful things. If we want to be free to defend ourselves, we have to accept that the reason we need that freedom in the first place is because some people out there wish to harm us. If we want the freedom to avoid random invasions of our homes by the police, we have to accept that some people will get away with a few things they wouldn't otherwise get away with. If we want the freedom to serve our time after a crime and try to live a normal life afterward, we have to accept that some people will exercise that opportunity better than others. Otherwise, we're going to live in a world where political speech is controlled by whomever is in power, a world where it's against the law to protect yourself from someone who values your wallet more than your life, a world where SWAT teams can barge in anytime, and a world where 17 year olds can ruin their rest of their lives, unable to live in certain neighborhoods or hold certain jobs, simply by attending the same party as their 14-year-old classmate.





tLP: How would you describe the Nevada Libertarian Party? Please name some of the members and describe your function within the party.






Mr. Colborne: We're a small but growing minor party, full of a healthy mix of old guards and new blood. Personally, I'm the secretary for both the Libertarian Party of Nevada and for the Nevada Capital Libertarian Party, which is the regional affiliate for Washoe County (Reno/Sparks), Carson City, and Douglas County - considering how I only became active in the state party in January, I'm not complaining with my current position in the party. Our State Chairman is Joe Silvestri, who has been active in Clark County for a number of years. Of course, Wayne Allyn Root lives in Las Vegas, so he's been moderately active in the Party as well - he spoke at our convention last March, and we're working on securing him for our next convention in February. In northern Nevada, Nik York was undoubtedly the one that got the ball rolling, which would explain why he's now the Chair for the regional affiliate. Dave Thomas and Vicki Hargrove have both been active in the Tea Party movement in northern Nevada, Isabel Isherwood has been working to organize another affiliate in Nye County, Kris McKinster has been working on updating our web site... honestly, I could go on like this, but I'm afraid I'll forget someone!




tLP: What are some of the goals of the Nevada Libertarian Party?






Mr. Colborne: We're a political party, so I'd say goal #1 always has been and always shall be to win elections! Unfortunately, we haven't had much success on that front, so our focus has been on getting our name and our platform out there and doing what we can when and where we can to ensure that Libertarian-minded people in Nevada realize that somebody is speaking for them. For us, that means going local. We need local organizations that reflect and speak to the local needs and desires of the electorate throughout Nevada. Needless to say, Libertarians in Elko might disagree with Libertarians in Las Vegas on what issues are most important in a given moment and we need to be flexible and local enough to work with that.



tLP: What are the chances that Senator Harry Reid will loose his re-election bid? How would it benefit Nevada to have a new representative in the Senate?





Mr. Colborne: The chances are better than zero - to be honest, Reid isn't terribly popular in Nevada, especially in many of the more rural portions of the state where his public land use policies have done an excellent job of strangling the mining industry and killed off numerous jobs, especially in Ely. Of course, what he lacks in popularity, he makes up for with strong political and financial connections, which will make it difficult, albeit not impossible, to push him out of there.

Though you would think that having the Senate Majority Leader would be a boon to Nevada, Reid's results for Nevada have been, to put it diplomatically, mixed. As Senate Majority Leader, his attention is drawn to a more national focus, frequently at the expense of Nevada's interests (hence why over 66% of our state is still owned by the federal government). A freshman Senator would be far better motivated to focus on their local constituents and their needs.

With that, I think I've pontificated enough for one night. Let me know if you need anything else or wish to go into any further detail on any of the points I've touched on.





There are fundamental differences between Libertarians and Conservatives, and this has led to divisiveness and an irrational animus against divergent political orientation. This fracturing has detracted our attention from the commonalities we do share, and if we persist in manifesting ideological dissimilarities our Republic will fall. What would your opinion be?

The Liberty Pen would like to thank Mr. David Colborne for taking the time to do this interview. We hope that he will visit us again and provide some keen insight into the relevant issues of the day. Until next time.....













In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take so
me time and look at this blog,
read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you
.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Why Are We Moving Toward Socialized Medicine? by Yaron Brook

The following is an article I received via email, and it is written from Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Center For Individual Rights. An intelligent article that proposes fundamental reasoning, I hope you enjoy it.









Why Are We Moving Toward Socialized Medicine?

By Yaron Brook



Government intervention in medicine is wrecking American health care. Nearly half of all spending on health care in America is already government spending. Yet President Obama’s “reforms” will only expand that intervention.

Prior to the government’s entrance into medicine, health care was regarded as a product to be traded voluntarily on a free market--no different from food, clothing, or any other important good or service. Medical providers competed to provide the best quality services at the lowest possible prices. Virtually all Americans could afford basic health care, while those few who could not were able to rely on abundant private charity.

Had this freedom been allowed to endure, Americans’ rising productivity would have afforded them better and better health care, just as, today, we buy better and more varied food and clothing than people did a century ago. There would be no crisis of affordability, as there isn’t for food or clothing.

But by the time Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965, this view of health care as an economic product--for which each individual must assume responsibility--had given way to a view of health care as a “right,” an unearned “entitlement,” to be provided at others’ expense.

This entitlement mentality fueled the rise of our current third-party-payer system, a blend of government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, together with government-controlled employer-based health insurance (itself spawned by perverse tax incentives during the wage and price controls of World War II).

The resulting system aimed to relieve the individual of the “burden” of paying for his own health care by coercively imposing its costs on his neighbors. Today, for every dollar’s worth of hospital care a patient consumes, that patient pays only about 3 cents out of pocket; the rest is paid by third-party coverage. And for the health care system as a whole, patients pay only about 14 percent.

Shifting the responsibility for health care costs away from the individuals who accrue them led to an explosion in spending. In a system in which someone else is footing the bill, consumers, encouraged to regard health care as a “right,” demand medical services without having to consider their real price. When, through the 1970s and 1980s, this artificially inflated consumer demand sent expenditures soaring out of control, the government cracked down by enacting further coercive measures: price controls on medical services, cuts to medical benefits, and a crushing burden of regulations on every aspect of the health care system.

As each new intervention further distorted the health care market, driving up costs and lowering quality, belligerent voices demanded still further interventions to preserve the “right” to health care: from regulations mandating various forms of insurance coverage to Bush’s massive prescription drug bill.

The solution to this ongoing crisis is to recognize that the very idea of a “right” to health care is a perversion. There can be no such thing as a “right” to products or services created by the effort of others, and this most definitely includes medical products and services. Rights, as the Founders conceived them, are not claims to economic goods, but to freedoms of action.

You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services--no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a “right” to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.

Real and lasting solutions to our health care problems require a rejection of the entitlement mentality in favor of a proper conception of rights. This would provide the moral basis for breaking the regulatory chains stifling the medical industry; for lifting the tax and regulatory incentives fueling our dysfunctional, employer-based insurance system; for inaugurating a gradual phase-out of all government health care programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid; and for restoring a true free market in medical care.

Such sweeping reforms would unleash the power of capitalism in the medical industry. They would provide the freedom for entrepreneurs motivated by profit to compete with each other to offer the best quality medical services at the lowest prices, driving innovation and bringing affordable medical care, once again, into the reach of all Americans.

Yaron Brook is the president of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”








In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take so
me time and look at this blog,
read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you
.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Obama's Waterloo by Wayne Allyn Root

The following article was written by Wayne Allyn Root, a Libertarian who was the 2008 United States Libertarian Party vice-presidential nominee.









OBAMA'S WATERLOO


I'm sorry to say it but “I told you so.” Obama is a radical socialist, with a chip on his shoulder. And finally America is taking notice. His true colors are showing and his polls are dropping like a lead balloon. Later today a Rasmussen Poll will be released showing that after only 6 short months, Obama's glow is gone. His approval ratings are plummeting into negative territory. Remarkably, someone with such strong support and goodwill from the American people only weeks ago, has lost that support almost overnight. Rasmussen, the most accurate pollster of the 2008 election, will show that Obama's support is actually below 50% for the first time. Among independents, his support is a remarkably low 37%. Obama is rapidly becoming the most unpopular President in recent history. His poll numbers are already slightly lower than George W. Bush at the same point in his Presidency (about 6 months in), and those same ratings place him 10th in popularity out of the last 12 U.S. Presidents (and quite possibly headed for last place).

Why is this happening? First and foremost Obama over-reached. His ambitious, radical pro union, big spending, big tax agenda has finally caught up with his image. Some liberals might actually understand that. But what liberals don't understand is the powerful negative effect that his appointment of Sonia Sotomayor (and her reverse racist beliefs) had on Obama's image. I'll discuss that in a moment. But the real straw that broke the camel's back was Obama's comments about the police. In an unheard of example of audacity, a President of the United States weighed in on a local confrontation between a white police officer and a black Harvard professor (who happens to be Obama's buddy). Without knowing of the details of the case, our President called the actions of a courageous police officer doing his job and risking his life “dumb” and defended a buddy who cursed out the police officer. The real radical leftist has appeared and it is shocking to America, especially white America, who gave Obama the benefit of the doubt that he was in fact a nice, moderate, “uniter, not divider” who had finally put race aside. But in Obama's radical world, race is never put aside.

I wrote commentaries well before the election warning America that we were dealing with a radical leftist with Socialist views. He entered the Presidential race ranked the most extreme liberal of any of our 100 U.S. Senators, yet claimed to be a moderate and “uniter, not divider.” I knew better. You see I attended Columbia University with Obama. Same class, same major (political science, pre-law), same year of graduation (1983). And what I witnessed at Columbia was classmates so extreme in their radical left-wing views as to make me physically sick. I saw classmates who literally hated America, hated capitalism, and rooted for the death of a conservative President. I sat in political science class in 1981 in stunned disbelief as my classmates cheered, high-fived and celebrated like it was New Years upon hearing the news that President Reagan had been assassinated (that was the first erroneous report we heard- that he was dead).

I debated my classmates for 4 long years about capitalism and free markets, and heard their views up close and personal. They weren't moderate Democrats simply looking to protect the lower classes. They were radical Marxists and Socialists looking to destroy capitalism, tax and unionize businesses to death, and greatly expand government and the welfare state in order to hand power to “the disadvantaged.” I met classmates- both white and black- who seemed to openly despise and resent white people (and especially wealthy white people). And who openly hated policemen and called them “pigs.” This is the world that Obama hails from. It is a world view that disgusted me then, and now more than ever.

Most of my Ivy League classmates wound up going into any one of 3 professions- media/journalism, education and law. Is it no wonder our country is so screwed up? These are today the biased, radical, leftist-bordering-on-Socialist journalists who openly shower Obama with adulation, and denigrate and slander any political leader with a conservative or capitalist point of view. These are today the educators who brainwash our children from a pro big government, pro tax, pro-union, pro affirmative action point of view. And most importantly, these are the lawyers who spend their lives suing businesses (thereby killing jobs) and running up the cost of health care with frivolous lawsuits. One of the primary reasons that health care is so expensive is because of lawyers (like Obama and wife Michelle). What we desperately need to do to save healthcare and lower costs is to implement tort reform, not universal health care run by government. But you'll notice Obama doesn't mention that. Why? Because he's a lawyer. Like so many politicians from the left, he protects lawyers and refuses to fight for tort reform, instead fraudulently blaming others for the health care crisis that in so many ways his profession has contributed to.

Obama's first 6 months in office are now showing his true radical colors. He is not like the rest of us. He is not a moderate. He is not a uniter. His smile and calm demeanor hides a radical viewpoint. He is out to help only one group- Democratic voters. Obama's tunnel vision is about helping the poor, disadvantaged, minorities, union members, and government employees. And of course anyone who represents them- lawyers, union bosses, government bureaucrats, and lobbyists. In Obama's radical leftist view the rest of us can go to hell.

Obama talks nonstop about “sacrifice.” Yet he hasn't asked anyone of the key groups of his voting bloc to sacrifice a thing. His entire bloated spending spree is about hiring millions of new federal government employees and handing trillions of dollars to the states so that they can save the jobs (and raises) of state and local government employees. And of course handing out welfare checks that he calls “tax cuts” to people who never paid income taxes in the first place.

Americans- especially white Americans- were THRILLED to elect a black President to once and for all prove that racism is dead. To show the world that America is the greatest nation in the world. To show that the color of a person's skin is no longer a factor in success. But what they didn't understand is how much Obama himself does not believe in those principles. It didn't take long for Obama to show his true colors. He came out with guns blazing with his radical Socialist ideas- the biggest government spending programs in history; gigantic new taxes that threaten to wipe out the upper middle class and small business owners (coincidently, the two groups that make all the contributions to Republican, Conservative and Libertarian causes); radical and risky trillion dollar ideas like Cap and Trade and Universal Healthcare in the middle of a depression; Card Check- a law designed to unionize every large (and possibly small) business in the country, and turn our entire U.S. economy into one big Detroit, Michigan; apologizing and genuflecting to every radical, terrorist and anti-American murderer in the world; and appointing a Supreme Court nominee who thinks a Latina women can make better decisions as a judge than a white male…and backs up that reverse racist view by throwing out the test results of hard-working, heroic white firefighters who passed an exam for promotion- simply because they were white. (Author's Note: I don't personally believe there is such a thing as "reverse racism." You are either a racist or not).

Sometimes winning is not a victory. In this case, I believe that the Sotomayor nomination was deadly for Obama's image among the same moderate, independent and even conservative voters who took a chance and voted for Obama to end the issue of race forever. They didn't take that chance, and give Obama the benefit of the doubt, so he could smash them in the face with a reverse racist, affirmative action queen. He may have won Sotomayor the lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, but he lost his benefit of the doubt with middle class and blue-collar white voters.

But next came Obama's Waterloo- his decision to weigh in on the police confrontation in Cambridge during a nationally-televised press conference. On a personal note, I'm a white male. Yet in my lifetime I've had guns pulled on me three times by police. Were those incidents frightening? Of course. Was I shaken? Of course. But in all 3 cases, the police were correctly doing their job. And of course, being white, I could not blame the incidents on the color of my skin. Did it ever occur to President Obama or that Harvard professor that any homeowner- white or black- would have experienced the same thing in a similar situation.

Guns weren't drawn on me (by police) because I'm white- they were drawn on me because police were simply trying to defend property or protect society. They didn't care about the color of my skin. They were simply doing their job. The same thing appears to be true in the controversial incident in Cambridge. Was a gun pulled on Obama's friend because he was black? Or because he appeared to be a burglar breaking into a home? Obama wasn't there and should not have weighed in. That was a big mistake. But more importantly, when a policeman shows up at a home because a neighbor reports witnessing a break-in, that policeman's life is in danger. Any hesitation could result in his death. He may never see his wife or children again. His job is to pull his gun and ask questions- no matter the color of the skin or the importance of the person he is confronting. That Harvard professor should understand that it was his property that this policeman was protecting. It was his neighborhood and neighbors that this policeman was protecting.

That professor should have been smart enough to show respect to a police officer with a gun drawn asking questions. That professor's only response should have been to treat that officer politely and do exactly as he was asked. He should have shown his I.D. and politely and nicely defused the explosive situation. When a policeman's life is in potential danger, he has every right to treat the situation seriously. He has every reason to question the intruder and to not assume that he is the law-abiding homeowner. Those kind of assumptions get a policeman killed. Without being there to see the actual events as they unfolded, a U.S. President has only one reasonable choice- shut up and stay out of the controversy.

Obama made a big mistake. He just couldn't help himself- the real Obama (the radical leftist who doesn't support the police) came out. I believe this minor controversy, when combined with the negative impact of the Sotomayor nomination, may eventually be seen as the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for the political image of Barack Obama. From this point on, the bloom is off the rose, and the benefit of the doubt is off Obama. The moderate uniter is now rightfully seen by middle America as the radical Socialist divider.


Wayne Allyn Root was the 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate. His new book is entitled, “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts.” For more of Wayne's views, commentaries, or to watch his many media interviews, please visit his web site at: ROOTforAmerica









In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take so
me time and look at this blog,
read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you
.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Senator Harry Reid's Response To My Letter

I had written Senator Harry Reid (my State Senator) a letter last month and displayed said letter in a post on the Liberty Pen. I did not bear any illusions that he would personally read my correspondence and give it its due regard. Nor did I consider that the entirety of my letter would yield careful deliberation, for my letter was constructed with expressed dissent and careful admonishment, therefore I am of no import. Admittedly, when I read the letter I couldn't stop laughing because the absurdity got the better of me. Great for talking points, but an intellectual retort it is not. I hope the following letter purveys an understanding into my deepest sorrow. However, if you would rather have the crux of his response and save yourself the loss of precious time, just look at the attached photo.



Dear Mr. Proulx:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate hearing from you, although I regret to learn of your disappointment with my work in the Senate.

As Nevada's senior senator and the Senate Majority Leader, it is my job to do what is in the best interest of our state and work on behalf of the people of Nevada. Please be assured that I take these responsibilities very seriously, and I will continue to do everything I can to make Nevada an even better place to live and raise a family.

I never forget where I came from or the people I serve. In my office, I keep a picture of the home in Searchlight where I grew up. Not a day passes without me reflecting on the values I learned there - integrity, dedication, and service. These Nevada values have shaped my work on behalf of our state throughout my career in public service. There are many pressing issues facing the Congress, and as my colleagues and I work in a bipartisan fashion to stabilize the housing and financial markets, stimulate the economy, and ensure our energy independence, I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind.

Nevada's working families deserve the implementation of policies that reward their hard work and provide opportunities for a more secure future. I remain committed to using my Senate leadership position to achieve these aims. Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

My best wishes to you.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid

United States Senator

Nevada


I plan on writing other letters to my Senator, but something tells me I should just keep the photo out on my desk.

theLibertyPen





In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take so
me time and look at this blog,
read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you
.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Blog Interviews: The Liberty Pen

I was recently asked to do an interview by The Classic Liberal, an honor to say the least. I do not view myself with any significance or of high import, as I am sure there are other individuals of higher relevance. If you are so inclined, or simply bored, please stop by the The Classic Liberal and read the interview. Then, when you are finished peruse the other articles such as;

"The Patronizing Politics of Progressive Hate"
"Palin Tells Fed: Alaska is Sovereign!"





Thank you for taking the time to read this blog and I hope it helps you in some way. To those of you who visited the blogs we recommended I would like to personally thank you. From my own perspective I found camaraderie, passion, intelligence, the desire for liberty, and an inviolable fervency for a Republic our Founding Fathers paid for in blood. Truly, I am in good company.

theLibertyPen












In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take so
me time and look at this blog,
read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you
.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Blog Interviews: Feed Your ADHD

Ladies and gentlemen it is time again for another installment of Blog Interviews from the Liberty Pen. This week we have Dr. Dave from Feed Your ADHD, but before we commence I must make the following statement to those of you who do not know Dr. Dave or his blog, - "No, he is not a real Doctor in the medical sense." By my own stipulative definition Dr. Dave is an educated individual with a self-conferred doctorate in the field of caustic wit and snark. As with the other individuals I have interviewed, Dr. Dave is unique in his approach at constructing social and political annotaions. At times he is compendious, on other occasions he is more extensive in his examination of socio-political dynamics. But if you truly want to know the derivation of his work I shall let Dr. Dave purvey his intro;

"Creating a foreseeable risk of substantial disruption."

I have told Dr. Dave before that he has a rapier wit, and when you peruse his blog you will inevitably perceive it to be an incisive extension of his acumen. His posts are not for the faint of heart, but if you open your mind and become receptive you will definitely learn something. Now, for your reading pleasure I offer you a substantial disruption, Dr. Dave's FEED YOUR ADHD.



tLP: Good evening Dr. Dave how are you?







Feed Your ADHD: I am faaaantastic, thank you for asking. I am ready to go so tell everybody to put their mental cups on!








tLP: Excellent my friend, let's start with the basic question. What is your blog about?




Feed Your ADHD: Feed Your ADHD is a satirical, sometimes humorous, always hyperbolic, blog that tosses friggin’ EMPs at the stupidity that goes on in Washington, D.C., and equally morally bankrupt and corrupt governments around the world. William Faulkner once said writing brings order to chaos. My blog attempts to bring chaos in an entertaining way to what the thieves in power pass off as order. As it says in my blog profile, I’m creating a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption,” to quote Sonia Sotomayor [http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Critics-unhappy-with-Sotomayors-role-in-CT-free-speech-case.html], putting myself on Janet Napolitano's domestic terror list for the reader.



tLP: Why did you start your blog?




Feed Your ADHD: It started off as a release from the daily monotony of corporate life (which is why I go by the pseudonym, “Dr. Dave”). When I was younger, I spent 5 years writing for newspapers and then a couple more writing for magazines. When my wife and I had children, I stopped chasing the dream of trying to become a poor man’s Conservative Hunter S. Thompson, entrenching myself in the corporate world to bring home half a dollar while my wife stayed home with the kids. Last fall I started to get the itch again, and a writer friend suggested I start a blog. My first few posts were little puerile attempts at sarcasm…about the NFL and the Wall Street bailout and blogging…and then I began to pay attention to what was going to happen in the presidential election. Once I started looking into who Barack Hussein Obama (or as he’s known around my place, Obugger) is, there was no going back. The night he was elected I wrote a piece about how all his hope and change b.s. was smoke and mirrors. But punditry hasn’t always been my strongest form, and I stumbled around between sarcasm and punditry until, about a month or so before Obugger was about to accept his crown, I discovered satire over at Iowahawk [http://iowahawk.typepad.com/]. What David Burge was doing over there, and had been doing for 5 years, seemed, to me, the perfect way to go about commenting on all of the insanity around us, in a funny and critical and poignant way. Since then I’ve been posting a mixture of satire and sarcasm with regularity about a group of imbeciles, the Obama administration and Congress, who truly deserve my twisted attention.



tLP: What are you hoping to accomplish with your blog?




Feed Your ADHD: It keeps me out of the bars and from taking up with a mistress in Argentina and getting myself into trouble for being a hypocrite. Really, I’m just trying to comment on the daily news cycle in an entertaining way while amusing myself. I figure if you come to my blog and laugh a little bit, you might see the steady stream of impending doom that blares from your TV, newspaper, and Obugger’s house every night with a little less anxiety in your heart. I have no idea if we’re about to either fall off the far edge of the Earth or begin to wake up to the power and freedom grabs going on in D.C., but I just can’t chronicle what’s happening in any other way. They say sarcasm masks one’s inadequacies, but I believe it helps us deflect the ineptitudes of those with power and bad intent, and peer through their smokescreen to see what’s really going on.



tLP: How are your posts received by people, good, fair, or against?




Feed Your ADHD: I have a regular group of readers who seem to enjoy themselves when they come to my place. Once in a while I’ll get spammed by some liberal calling himself “anonymous.” I used to get into long drawn out debates with them, but then I realized the stupidity, both mine and theirs, of debating satire, that is FICTION. Please. A blogger friend of mine likes to call in other bloggers to help gang up on a liberal spammer, and I think that’s an adequate tactic. I think I’ll follow suit in the future. Rather than exhausting my energy debating policy with someone who’s clearly not going to see, or even acknowledge, my side at all, I’ll go on to my next insane post and let my friends gang up on the Zombiecrat. Or I could just do what Hunter Thompson would do…track the bastard down and spray his eyes with mace. Either way works just fine for me.



tLP: How important is your blog in today's economic and political climates?




Feed Your ADHD: Feed Your ADHD is about as important as yesterday’s post. By that I mean, it’s not important at all. It’s just something that I do to take the edge off my day and give a few readers a laugh or two, while hopefully being a mite bite in the side of the idiots in D.C. This is a terrible moment in time and history, and I’m just trying to put my own little bizarre stamp on it. That’s all the blog really is. And that’s all I should really expect from it, given that every microsecond someone with far more talent and far more interesting things to say starts another blog.

Thanks for the opportunity, LP. Please tell others they can find me at Feed Your ADHD [http://feedyouradhd.blogspot.com] most every day.


I would like to thank Dr. Dave from Feed Your ADHD for supplying his time and giving a great interview. My intent, as I have explicated in previous posts, is to provide a medium for other bloggers to get together and learn from each other. In dangerous times such as these an aggregation of liberty-minded individuals is paramount for our Republic's survivability. But I also understand that blogs such as Dr. Dave's may not be to everyone's liking, or that his approach to satire is too vituperative (as surmised by the Daily Kos). If you feel so inclined please consider the following quote from Eric Idle;

"At least one way of measuring the freedom of any society is the amount of comedy that is permitted, and clearly a healthy society permits more satirical comment than a repressive, so that if comedy is to function in some way as a safety release then it must obviously deal with these taboo areas. This is part of the responsibility we accord our licensed jesters, that nothing be excused the searching light of comedy. If anything can survive the probe of humour it is clearly of value, and conversely all groups who claim immunity from laughter are claiming special privileges which should not be granted." Eric Idle



theLibertyPen




In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take so
me time and look at this blog,
read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you
.