Once upon a time (actually a mere 15 years ago before the Bush family took control of the Republican party), being a Republican meant supporting individual liberty, free markets, peace through strength, federalism and limited government. One could even argue that the Republican party still held to these principles as recently as 1996. How times have changes. Now being a Republican means supporting:

1. protectionist tariffs;
2. the largest new entitlement program in 40 years;
3. the largest increases in domestic spending since LBJ (more than either Clinton or Carter);
4. the largest federal intervention in education ever;
5. huge federal intervention in the energy market, including massive subsidies for uneconomic forms of energy;
6. cooperating with European socialists to destroy financial privacy and tax competition;
7. Arresting Americans for alleged crimes and holding them indefinitely without having to prove anything in court or even charge them with a crime or provide access to an attorney, provided that the federal government declares them an enemy combatant or a material witness;

This, of course, is only a partial list of destructive things the Republicans have done once they gained power.

ORINDA, Calif., Nov. 19 -- California consumers are big winners in the $1.1 billion settlement of the antitrust suit against Microsoft, according to Consumers First, a California-based consumer-rights organization. The group, which works to educate the public, media and government officials about important changes in the marketplace, applauds this unprecedented settlement, which has resulted in more than 14 million California consumers and businesses being eligible to collect cash refunds.

"I encourage consumers to take full advantage of the settlement by filing a claim in a timely manner," said Jim Conran, president, Consumers First. "Consumers should also share the information with their family, friends, local schools and businesses because everyone can benefit from this settlement."

[. . .] "This settlement provides real benefits to consumers," said Conran. "The vouchers average out to a 22 percent discount on what the purchaser originally paid."

My appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit presents a simple question: Does the government have any legal obligation to support its arguments with facts? If so, then what facts should the public have access to; if not, then is there any effective check on the executive's power to unilaterally destroy private businesses through selective enforcement of the antitrust laws? Whatever the answer, the question must be asked, if for no other reason than nobody has asked it before.

In 1974, Congress amended the antitrust laws to expand judicial oversight of antitrust settlements. The idea was to provide for "meaningful" public comment, ostensibly to aid the court in deciding whether a settlement was in the "public interest." One requirement of the law was that the DOJ must disclose any "determinative" documents or information related to a settlement. On paper, it sounds like a salutary reform: Let the people see what the DOJ is thinking. At the very least, let the people see why the DOJ thinks that a particular settlement will "restore competition" to the marketplace.

In practice, however, the DOJ has ignored the law and has made every effort to thwart public and judicial oversight of its settlements. In virtually every antitrust settlement (keep in mind, more than 80% of all government antitrust cases result in settlement) the DOJ says that there are no "determinative" documents within the law’s meaning. Most judges accept this assertion blindly. And why shouldn’t they? Rarely does an outside party stand up and object.

Nicolas (sic):

I'd like to respond to your criticism of my candidacy and I hope you'll be honorable enough to print it.

First of all I am an Objectivist not a Libertarian. Calling me a Libertarian is a lazy and inappropriate ad hominem. Each time you use the expression as a jab. Truth be told, all Objectivists are libertarian in the realm of politics but Objectivists and libertarians have tremendous differences. I am just as upset with the people who wear only the title "libertarian" as you are so please don't refer to me as a libertarian. I am an Objectivist.

Second, I fully expected the sort of article you wrote the moment I decided to run for Governor. I could have written it myself and let you put your name on it. The error you made was in your premise that I was running to become Governor. In fact I ran for Governor primarily to spread Objectivist ideas in the mass media and to promote my Objectivist television show. In other words I was executing the Objectivist game plan of trying to change the underlying thinking of the culture before trying to cash in on the politics. It just so happened that my educational project happened to be a run for Governor. Surely you are smarter than to think I was running with an expectation of winning.

Third, "an exercise in futility" is your main criticism but this criticism could be leveled against you or any Objectivist as we are so greatly outnumbered in such an irrational culture. Isn't your website an exercise in futility? You have to start somewhere despite the enormity of the task. Again I remind you my campaign was about spreading Objectivist ideas not winning an election. Therefore votes are irrelevant. My campaign was a success because of the many interviews I gave on television, radio and in print. I may also appear in several independent films made about the California Recall distilling Objectivist ideas.

Now on to my television show FreeNation and your criticism of my use of the drug raid as the opening segment. Again you are making an error not me. The error you are making is that the purpose of my show is to promote Objectivism. Wrong. The #1 goal of my show is to maximize profits. To maximize profits I need to draw the largest audience possible. To draw the largest audience possible I need the most dramatic video combined with the most shocking and compelling stories. The #2 goal is to advance Objectivist ideas. Without success at goal #1 then goal #2 will be impossible. Choosing topics based on drawing a large audience will yield a different set of stories than choosing topics based on promulgating a philosophy. In fact I myself often criticize libertarians for focusing too much on drug legalization. If I found compelling video footage relating to the topics that top my list of grievances I would have run that instead. If you come across good footage relating to the topics that you would put at the top of your list for my show then please send it to me.

Also, you didn't watch the episode very carefully. It was not primarily focused on "the drug war" but in fact it was about individual sovereignty. I focused on the issue in this segment and the FDA segment of "should a person be prohibited from putting something into their own body." Watch it again. Also your readers should know that there are four segments in my demo episode. The other three deal with: licensing laws, social security, and the FDA.

Before you published this article you sent me an e-mail where you made the same points you do in your article. I answered your mistakes in my reply. So why did you "blank out", as Ayn Rand would say, ignore what I said and publish your article, chock full of mistakes anyway? Isn't that what we accuse everyone else of doing. You still could have criticized my run for Governor but done it in a more knowledgeable way having incorporated input from the subject of the story—me.

Finally, your last sentence about "navigating through his errors in philosophy" is ridiculously condescending, spoken as if you are the high lord of Objectivism. You made six errors in that one article and I made zero errors in my activism. I get tired of the "holier than thou" attitude. I’m just as much an Objectivist as you and perhaps more. If you doubt that I'm an Objectivist I challenge you to find substantial issues where my viewpoint diverges from Objectivism. Keep in mind I may apply the same test to you. Judge and prepare to be judged.

However, despite the fact that your article is completely wrong, lousy journalism and shamelessly misrepresents me, I applaud the activism you undertake with CMDC (sic). Let's break the old habits of bitter Objectivist in-fighting and unite to help Objectivist ideas win and laissez-faire capitalism be realized. One dumb article is less important than achieving the incredible potential that freedom has to offer.


Logan Darrow Clements
Executive Producer, FreeNation TV
former candidate for Governor of California

P.S. You also got my name wrong. It's Logan Darrow Clements. That's 7 errors.

Q: In our age of multiculturalism and politically correct attitudes, it is considered bad manners and even wrong to claim any superiority for Western civilization and its achievements. Multiculturalism regards all societies and traditions as of equal merit and is very critical of the West, claiming to see in America an explanation for the world's evils. How can you defend the West, as you do in your book, and claim that its traditions and civilization are superior?

A: Our core value is reason. Western civilization is the culture that is most concerned with natural law, the scientific method, religious toleration and the application of reason to the task of living - all of that. This cannot be said enough.

Defending Western civilization is not defending the "superiority" of white men. That other peoples had not developed the application of reason to life does not mean that they are in any way inferior. It means that they had not yet achieved what the Europeans achieved over many centuries. But if we take an objective look at the standards of men's lives, then Western civilization is superior in very visible ways. The Indians might have developed it all on their own, but they did not. There is no such thing as a racial inferiority that says they couldn't have done it. But you don't have to invent everything yourself to benefit from it, and any gift of knowledge is a great gift.

In any case, tribal society is prerational. And no moral blame can be attached to a tribal society living in a prerational, primitive manner. I always point out that there is no shame in having ancestors called "savages" since everyone living on Earth today has ancestors who were in fact savages. The root of the word is "forest," meaning people who live in the forest.

Aimee Jennings, who now lives in New York, said inspiration struck after demonstrations at the 1996 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. "People were acting really goofy for the media, but with no message," Jennings recalled. "The people who had the bullhorn got to state the message, and most them were boys."

riot don’t diet by Mary Xmas
RIOT DON'T DIET
GET UP GET OUT AND TRY IT
RIOT DON'T DIET
GET UP GET OUT AND TRY IT
hey girl (clap clap clap)
get yer face out of that magazine
you are more than a beauty machine
you've got anger soul and more
take to the street and let it roar
RIOT DON'T DIET
GET UP GET OUT AND TRY IT
RIOT DON'T DIET
GET UP GET OUT AND TRY IT
uh-HUH (clap clap clap)
If cosmo makes you sick and pale
you know what you need to do
MOLOTOV COKTAIL!
liberate the beauty queen
burn the bibles of the fashion scene
LET'S (CLAP) GET (CLAP) MEAN!!!!!!

Refrain
Hey Hey, Ho Ho,
your leftist junk has got to go
Hey Hey, Ho Ho,
your leftist junk has got to go

If Cosmo makes you sick and pale,
maybe you're just a big dumb whale

Refrain

You wouldn't be cut out of the beauty scene
if you weren't so bitter, nasty and mean

Refrain

You think black clothes say you're poetic
the said truth is you're just pathetic

Refrain

You ignorant hippy communist
Move to North Korea, you won’t be missed

Just because it rhymes
doesn’t mean its true
Just because it rhymes
doesn’t mean its true . . .

Just as the country that sent those 4.7 million young men off to the Great War disrupted or ended those young lives for a larger purpose, today, the country that is America must decide whether it is prepared to disrupt or end young lives for another, greater, purpose. (As the father of two healthy teen-age sons, I think about such matters on a personal as well as theoretical basis.) But it is becoming ever more obvious that we do not have sufficient armed forces to face and master the many perils that are assembling against us. . .

. . . Finally, then — as it always does — it comes down to moral, not mathematical decisions. Unless the terrorists voluntarily go back into their hole (which seems unlikely), the president will soon have to ask the American people to accept our obligation to effectively fight the terrorist scourge by substantially increasing the size of our military. Whether by draft or by voluntary means, it will cost huge sums. Many of those new troops will fight — and some will die — so that millions of American civilians will not be killed by terrorists.

On November 10, 1775, a Corps of Marines was created by a resolution of the Continental Congress. Since that date, many thousand men have borne the name Marine. In memory of them, it is fitting that we who are Marines should commemorate the Birthday of our Corps by calling to mind the glories of its long and illustrious history.

The record of our Corps is one which will bear comparison with that of the most famous military organizations in the world's history. During 90 of the 146 years of it's existence the Marine Corps has been in action against the nations foes. From the battle of Trenton to the Argonne. Marines have won foremost honors in war, and in the long eras of tranquility at home. Generation after generation of Marines have grown gray in war in both hemispheres and in every corner of the seven seas that our country and its citizens might enjoy peace and security.

In every battle and skirmish since the birth of our Corps Marines have acquitted themselves with the greatest distinction, winning new honors on each occasion until the term Marine has come to signify all that is highest in military efficiency and soldierly virtue.

This high name of distinction and soldierly repute we who are Marines today have received from those who preceded us in the Corps. With it we also received from them the eternal spirit which has animated our Corps from generation to generation and has been the distinguishing mark of the Marines in every age. So long as that spirit continues to flourish Marines will be found equal to every emergency in the future as they have been in the past, and the men of our nation will regard us as worthy successors to the long line of illustrious men who have served as "Soldiers of the Sea" since the founding of the Corps.

President Bush today signed into law the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 to end the abhorrent practice of partial birth abortion. The legislation signed by the President helps continue to build a culture of life in America and will reaffirm a basic standard of humanity the responsibility to defend the vulnerable and weak. As he signed this important legislation the President said, "By acting to prevent this practice, the elected branches of our government have affirmed a basic standard of humanity, the duty of the strong to protect the weak. The wide agreement amongst men and women on this issue, regardless of political party, shows that bitterness in political debate can be overcome by compassion and the power of conscience. And the executive

With the President's signature, the ban on partial birth abortion is now law, but as the President said in his remarks there are those that would like to see the courts overturn it.

Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and Senior Lecturer in Law with the University of Chicago Law School will receive the Department of Justice John Sherman Award for his lifetime contributions to the teaching and enforcement of antitrust law and the development of antitrust policy. The award will be presented during a celebration of the Antitrust Division's 70th and 100th Anniversaries on November 6, 2003, in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice.

"Judge Posner's work has been critical to promoting a sounder understanding of antitrust law. The Antitrust Division and antitrust practitioners worldwide are tremendously grateful for the time and energy he has devoted to antitrust issues, including his valuable writings, thoughtful analyses, and dedication to providing an intellectually rigorous foundation for antitrust enforcement," said R. Hewitt Pate, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division.

Created in 1994, the John Sherman Award is presented by the Department's Antitrust Division to a person or persons for their outstanding achievement in antitrust law, contributing to the protection of American consumers and to the preservation of economic liberty.

The nation's two largest frozen-juice can manufacturers — Sonoco Products Company and Pasco Beverages Company — agreed to abandon their proposed can-making equipment deal after the Department of Justice expressed concerns that the deal could have been anticompetitive, the Department announced today. The Department's Antitrust Division said that Pasco's proposed sale would have given Sonoco control of virtually all of the equipment used to make the spiral-wound composite cans used to package frozen juice concentrate in the United States.

At the same time, the Department said that it has closed its investigation of the proposed transaction. The Department said that the parties' decision to abandon the proposed acquisition eliminated its competitive concerns.

R. Hewitt Pate, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division said, "The decision of Sonoco and Pasco to abandon the equipment sale will preserve competition for packaging for this important consumer product."