Monday, March 27, 2006

George Mason beats the Powers that Be

Prophetic isn't that a school named after a genuine U.S. patriot George Mason helped to take down the Powers that Be in college basketball just as Mason helped to take down the British so long ago.

George Mason proved there's a place in college basketball for any school willing to make even a modest investment in the sport as they do. There are plenty of good players out there. All one needs is a good coach and good teams and you can do anything with it. That's truly the joy of college basketball and basketball in general really outside the NBA. Football takes an army. Baseball requires specialty skills like pitching and hockey requires goaltending. But in basketball, you only need five guys.

I made mention of the major/mid-major divide in college basketball as part of the way we sort of divide the haves and have-less in American society or bigs and littles. It's the same difference between the major and non-major political parties. But just as George Mason proved there's a place for schools like themselves in the Final Four, there's a place for non-major parties in U.S. poltics if they do it right. George Mason (which happens to be where Walter Williams teaches) did it the right way and won and so can the non-major parties.

Holy Cross too in the NCAA Hockey Tournament became the first No. 4 seed in a region to beat a No. 1, Minnesota, another non-major fiding its place.

Speaking of hockey, kudos to my University of Wisconsin teams, the women for winning their first national championship and men making the Frozen Four for the first time since 1992. Go Big Red! Wisconsin is the real state of hockey.

---Sean Scallon

Sunday, March 26, 2006

The Politics of FU

When you see someone "flip-the-bird" to someone else, is it just an obscene gesture….

….or the ultimate act of defiance?

I cannot spell out the phrase, at least not for the websites I write for or in good taste, but its beginning two letters, F and U will tell you what I mean. And when you put the letters, u,c,k, and o and u with them, you spell out the phrase that while obscene and vulgar, has its use in the English language (and many others I suppose) to convey one's stand, one's declaration of independence (even if it's sometimes childish) and one's willingness to defy one's immediate tormentors. It can be a very powerful phrase as the bird for which it stands for can be a powerful symbol.

So when the New Hampshire State House of Representatives recently voted for bill that would instruct the state to ignore the federal Real ID act, it was a big FU the state of New Hampshire said to the federal government.

Or the finger, whichever you prefer.

Of course, in a proper forum we would call this "nullification," and I recently wrote on column on nullification as way for states and localities to operate in between gross servitude to the Feds and secession, which very many places wouldn't try anyway.

But lets face it, what nullification comes down to is one body of government saying FU to another. "No! We will not obey! FU!"

In a polite way.

But more and more governments are saying FU to each other. Utah is saying FU to the Feds when it comes to No Child Left Behind. The city of Madison, Wisconsin said FU to the rest of the state and imposed one of the highest minimum wage in the country at $7.25 an hour. Judge Roy Moore down in Alabama said FU to the federal courts and put the Ten Commandments in the state supreme court building on a solid block of granite. San Francisco said FU to California and had gay marriages in city hall. Many towns and a few states said FU to feds once again over the Patriot Act and when municipalities offer themselves as sanctuaries to illegal immigrants or tell their cops not to arrest or even ask persons about their immigration status, isn't that saying FU to our nation's immigration laws?

Indeed it is.

The politics of FU splits apart both parties and ideologies. It all depends on what your side controls I suppose as to where you stand. But it's important none-the-less that more and more such governments are willing to flip their fingers every now and then not just to show independence, but to protect their interests and values when they are threatened by those who like to lord over them. It's helpful reminder that authority is only as good those willing to carry it out. FU can provide a healthy check to those writing laws to stay within the guidelines lain down by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Such powers like the feds, or the state, or a county, or some authority or commission tend to stray from those guidelines given the power they have, like cattle straying from a herd It takes the jolt of someone or something saying FU, loud and clear, to bring them back into line like a cattle prod does.

Shocking it is to think that there is a politics to such a shocking phrase when said in the hallowed halls of government. You can't hear it on TV, not even cable. But it's going to be heard more and more often. FU.

--Sean Scallon

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Feingold connects at home - Rural listeners applaud senator's resolution

This story comes from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel as they sent a reporter to one of Sen. Feingold's listening sessions (in my old stomping grounds of Shawano and Menomoniee counties) It just goes to show that the Powers that Be in Washington are completly clueless when it comes to how Sen. Feingold's censure motion plays in rural Wisconsin. Menomoniee, which is also home to the Menomoniee Indian reservation, is a solid Democratic county while Shawano is usually reliably Republican (a lot of "soft" Republicans here). If the Democrats had the courage to say what they think like Feingold, perhaps few would dismiss them as a worthless opposition party.

---Sean Scallon


Feingold connects at home
Rural listeners applaud senator's resolution
By BILL GLAUBER
bglauber@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Mar. 20, 2006

Belle Plaine - Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold wants to make one thing perfectly clear - he's for wiretapping terrorists.

He just wants it done legally.

That was the message Feingold carried to this corner of rural Wisconsin Monday during two listening sessions with constituents. The meetings came days after Feingold rattled Washington and the White House with his resolution to censure President Bush over a domestic wiretapping program.

While Feingold's censure bid caused a commotion inside the Washington Beltway and on the ever-expanding blogosphere, it was just one of many issues brought up by his constituents, who deal with real-life concerns such as farming, education, health care and Social Security.

But when Feingold made his case to censure the president, he received sustained applause from a crowd of nearly 100 people at the Belle Plaine Community Center in Shawano County.

"If you were on the phone with an al-Qaida person, I support your being wiretapped, all the time, for a long time," he told the audience. "We have laws already that allow the president to wiretap your line for 72 hours without a warrant. All he has to do is apply for that warrant. . . . The whole thing they're saying about how Senator Feingold doesn't want us to be able to wiretap. That's absolute nonsense. I support wiretapping every single person who is working with a terrorist. Just do it within the law. That's all we ask."

In an interview, Feingold said letters to his office were running 3 to 1 in favor of his censure position. He said "people are coming around," although only two Democratic senators have become co-sponsors of the resolution: Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California.

"We cannot allow the president of the United States to break the law," he said. "Censure is a quick way to solve the problem. Pass a resolution. It's over. We can get back to the work of fighting terrorism, dealing with health care issues."

Feingold received a favorable hearing in Belle Plaine and at a later session at the Menominee County Highway Department.

"When he called for the censure, it pleased me enormously. The issue is not a safe issue because so much of the public seems to be in support of wiretapping," said Joan Hoffman, 69, who lives in Menominee County.

There were a few lighthearted moments and a bizarre one at the meeting in Belle Plaine.

The first questioner lauded Feingold, got on one knee, and then prayed that the senator become president. Feingold, clearly embarrassed, gently told the man, "Oh, don't do that."

Tina Mullen, 40, said she had two questions. "Are you running for president," she asked.

Feingold quickly replied: "What's the other question?"

Mullen asked if a woman or minority could be elected president. Feingold agreed that such a groundbreaking event might occur and said that America is poised for dramatic change.

In an interview, he fielded inevitable questions about his presidential prospects and stuck with his stock answer that he'll review his options after the mid-term elections in November. He said he wasn't using the censure issue to boost his presidential prospects.

"Let's face it, did I vote against the USA Patriot act so that I could run for president? Did I vote to hear the evidence in the (Bill) Clinton (impeachment) trial so that I could run for president? I'm a Wisconsin independent. I call them as I see them. I do what I think is right. If that means people want me to be a senator, great. If they don't, fine. If it means that I might run for president, we'll see. But I don't make my decisions based on that kind of thing."

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

When is a Civil War not a Civil War? When it's Iraq of course

Those who cry and stamp their feet exclaiming that Iraq is NOT in a state of civil war, I have to ask what level of violence do they need to see in order for the say that Iraq is in a state of civil war?

Do they need to see set piece battles?

Do they need to see one side in blue and the other in gray?

Do they need to see a Sunni Lee and Shiite Grant?

Do they need to see an equivalent of Gettysburg in order to convince them of what seems to be obvious to the non-Bushbots across the country.

In order to bring certain people and realty together again, let us focus on that perversion of language known as the phrase "civil war."

You don't have to be a big fan of that great student of language George Carlin (although it helps) to know that there is no such thing as a "civil war." No one says "Pardon me," before they fire off a few rounds from their machine gun, nor do they say "Sorry!" afterward. There is simply no such thing as a "civil war." It does not exist.

Instead of saying "civil war," one should use the phrase "internal warfare" or "internal conflict." This makes much more sense because it is an apt description. It is internal, meaning within something, such as the nation itself or amongst one group of people. The only reason War Between the States or the War of Northern Aggression is not used more often because the winning side prefers to refer to the conflict as an internal war, meaning within the U.S or among Americans, rather than legitimize the existence of separate Southern Confederacy or prevent such Confederacy from claiming decent from the original Articles of Confederation. The winners get to do this.

Now, once we know the correct term to use in this case, then we can realize what the situation in Iraq truly is about. It is, without question, a state of "internal war." The fighting is occurring within Iraqi society. Sunni vs. Shiites are two of the main ethno-religious factions within Iraq. They are fighting and killing each other on the streets. It is organized violence, it is war. Plus, certain Sunnis are also fighting against the elected government. It's an insurgency. That's also internal warfare, fighting amongst political groups i.e. those who control the state and its security apparatus and those opposed to them. In the case of Iraq, this goes back to the ethno-religious struggle. The Shiites control the apparatus of the state and Sunnis that are opposed them are a part of the insurgency.

Iraq has been in a state of internal warfare once the U.S. helped to create a government of native Iraqis. Soon the insurgency, which had been just fighting the U.S. occupation, (And yes, it is an occupation for the "liberators" have completed their mission, meaning they've overthrown the oppressive government of Saddam Hussein. That was true even after World War II. U.S. forces went from liberators to occupiers and still remain so to this day because they haven't completely left Germany and Japan.) was now fighting an Iraqi government, one that had been legitimized after two elections.

So U.S. forces are right in the middle of internal warfare within Iraq, no ifs, ands or buts about it. It's there right in front of you on the TV screen, in the newspages, and in the computer downloads. Since it is highly doubtful young men and women in the U.S. joined the military in order become referees in the middle of such conflicts (which is what they've become), there is no point in their presence in Iraq either. U.S. soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen, have simply taken over for Saddam Hussein as the centrifugal force holding an artificial country like Iraq together. In order to keep the country from flying apart, the U.S. would have to have a military presence within the country for well over 25 to 30 years (and probably longer) while the building of an actual Iraqi nation (with billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars of course) took place. They would also still have to defend themselves from terrorist attack on a constant basis.

The only way out of Iraq is to acknowledge Iraq as being an artificial country and acknowledge the differences that exist. It also requires creating a loose , decentralized state (which already exists in the Kurdish areas.) where everyone can have power and sovereignty of some sort where they live. This has to be the true successor to the secularized tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the Baathists, not a U.S. sponsored centralized government backed by foreign guns. The quicker all sides in this internal warfare can get something for their sacrifices, the quicker U.S. forces can exit, and that means all of them. It is the only way to defuse the situation of internal warfare.

That's the kind of war Iraq is currently going through, and there's nothing civil about it.

---Sean Scallon

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

New Hampshire State House defies the U.S. gov't on ID law

Here's my first posting from the Free State Project and it's one that brought a smile to my face and you will read here that the New Hampshire State House of Representatives, one of the largest political bodies in the world, just voted to openly defy the U.S. government on the issue of the "Real ID."

Yes I know about the security arguments I would normally defer to that in the case of illegal immigration but there's no reason why the state's which such licenses can't be responsible and held accountable for the licenses since they are the one's that hand them out. If a state suffered a terrorist attack because of a lack of viligance, hey, it's there fault and they should be held accountable for lack of negligance.

Ultimately the issue of immigration outside of border security is going to have to become a local one to ultimately produce a susatinable solution. Some areas of the country may decide to allow large groups of immigrants for their economy, others may decide not to, but at least local communities can decide for themselves if they can bare such costs or reap such benefits.

But to get back to the FSP, they now have over 7,000 members. It's been a long slog and they may very well not be able to reach 20,000 by 2008, but what they've been trying to do is very difficult and that's to have demographic chnage at warp speed when usually such change takes a long time. If they can become the foundations or the early pioneers for gradual movement of libertarian-minded persons from around the country to New Hampshire over the next 20 to 30 years, then their mission will have been accomplished, just a little longer than maybe they anticipated.

---Sean Scallon

New Hampshire House votes to defy Fed ID
March 12, 2006

Libertarians are celebrating after the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 270-84 to refuse cooperation with the hated "Real ID" act.

Real ID is a Federal mandate which attempts to force states into a standardized drivers license system at taxpayer expense. Freedom advocates argue it would be at the expense of privacy as well, giving the Feds too much power along the way. Federal officials have said it would help them track terrorists and criminals.

"Give me liberty or give me death," said State Rep Neal Kurk, speaking in favor of the bill on the House floor. The chamber roared with applause.

House Bill 1582 forbids all state agencies from participation in Real ID mandates, and asserts that Real ID "is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution..."

The lopsided anti-Federal vote was a shock even to proponents of the bill. Real ID passed the U.S. Senate 100-0 last year and generated little debate. But as states like New Hampshire have taken a closer look at what it will require of them, liberty activists and local government officials have been teaming up to draw a line in the sand between Washington and their own states.

New Hampshire in particular has become increasingly restive since 2003, when it became a migratory destination for "Free Staters," libertarian activists who move into the state to fight for freedom.

HB 1582 next goes to the New Hampshire Senate; if it passes there it will have to be signed by the Governor. In the meantime, Federal pressure will likely mount in opposition to this bill.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Vermont, once again

Boy Vermontnt's on a roll when it comes to beating the powers that be. I'm going to have go through the Free State Projects website for stuff on New Hampshire so we can have equal time. This blurb is from www.politics1.com. The big part of this newstory is the use of instant run-off voting.

-----Sean Scallon


Third party politics are alive and well in the Green Mountain State. In a surprising upset, State Representative Bob Kiss (Progressive) was elected Mayor of Burlington on Tuesday. Kiss was largely a newcomer to city-level politics. Wealthy State Senator Hinda Miller (D) was heavily favored to win, but lost for the open seat. It was also the first time the city used Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) -- and was the first time any US city used IRV in over 30 years to elect a mayor. When the "first choice" votes were counted, Kiss captured 39%, Miller had 31%, City Councilor Kevin Curley (R) had 26%, and two independents split the remaining votes. As no candidate yet had a majority, the IRV system kicked-in. The last-place candidate in each round was eliminated and his/her "second choice" and "third choice" votes were then added to the running tally of remaining candidates. Kiss steadily moved up until he crossed the majority threshold to win the race. Retiring Mayor Peter Clavelle -- a one-time protégé of Bernie Sanders -- was initially elected as a Progressive but switched to the Dems a few years ago.

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Vermont Towns Endorse Move to Impeach Bush

The town meeting form of government is great way to express community sentiments within the framework of the routine business of running the community. Members of the Second Vermont Republic hope to get resolutions passed at 2007's town meetings declaring Vermont's sovereignty.

--Sean Scallon

Vermont Towns Endorse Move to Impeach Bush

FROM NEWSDAY
By DAVID GRAM
Associated Press Writer

March 8, 2006, 5:05 AM EST


NEWFANE, Vt. -- In five Vermont communities, a centuries-old tradition of residents gathering in town halls to conduct local business became a vehicle to send a message to Washington: Impeach the president.

An impeachment article, approved by a paper ballot 121-29 in Newfane Tuesday, calls on Vermont's lone member of the U.S. House, independent Rep. Bernie Sanders, to file articles of impeachment against President Bush, alleging he misled the nation into the Iraq war and engaged in illegal domestic spying.

"It absolutely affects us locally," said Newfane select board member Dan DeWalt, who drafted the impeachment article. "It's our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, who are dying" in the war in Iraq.

At least four other Vermont towns, spurred by publicity about Newfane's resolution, endorsed similar resolutions during Tuesday's meetings: Brookfield, Dummerston, Marlboro and Putney.

In Newfane, the impeachment item came at the end of a roughly four-hour meeting that was devoted mostly to the local affairs of the town of 1,600 located in southeastern Vermont. Among the other items discussed was whether the town should fix some of its 100-year-old sidewalks.

The impeachment discussion took up more than half an hour, reflecting the intense interest in the topic and something of a division over whether the town meeting was the appropriate place to debate it.

"As a teacher I can't say to my kids that what happens on the national level doesn't affect us at the local level," Ann Landenberger told the Newfane meeting. "Would that we could all be in a cocoon, but that is not the case."

Greg Record, a local justice of the peace, criticized the amount of time and attention such advisory votes get.

"We spend more time on these things than on a million dollar budget item," said Record, who said the town is made up of people from the "far left."

Lenore Salzbrun defended Bush, saying she had close friends who died in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"I am so grateful that our president didn't just put his head in the sand ... and did go out and fight," she said.

"How many attacks have we had on the U.S. since September 11?" asked another resident, Carlton Brown. "Maybe some of the terrorists around the world are sitting up and taking notice that we're not going to be patsies."

The Bush vote is not the first time Newfane has used its town meeting forum to take a state or national stand. Last year, for example, the town went on record against the Iraq war.

Sanders issued a statement after the Newfane vote saying that although the Bush administration "has been a disaster for our country, and a number of actions that he has taken may very well not have been legal," given the reality that the Republicans control the House and the Senate, "it would be impractical to talk about impeachment."

Jim Barnett, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, said Sanders should reject the resolution: "We should not be impeaching presidents just because we disagree with them."

Sunday, March 05, 2006

The space between secession and submission: Nullification may be the way to go

I'm a sportswriter by trade and before every event people stand up, turn towards the U.S. flag and sing the "Star-Spangled Banner."

Now imagine them going to a basketball game and after standing up to sing the national anthem, they're were given an announcement saying they were no longer U.S. citizens because their state had seceded from the union.
Huh?

I'm sure that's what their reaction would be, along with bewilderment, disbelief, and anguish.

You mean we're no longer Americans? What gives? Who decided that?

It's something secession advocates should think about as try to make their dreams come true. Really, there are only a few states and regions in the U.S. where a sustained education effort could break the bonds between the state and the union and those are the former nations of Vermont, Texas, California and the Southern Confederacy

But for every where else there is a way, or perhaps best, a place in between secession and submission that states and localities could partake in that could keep country together without the need of a police state.

Read carefully this new resolution drawn up by the Second Vermont Republic, which was the topic of discussion at a weekend convention in Burlington held by SVR.


"Recent actions by the U.S. government including the prosecution of illegal wars, the Patriot Act, the illegal rendition of terrorist suspects, prisoner abuse and torture, citizen surveillance, the suppression of civil liberties, the suspension of habeas corpus, a foreign policy based on full spectrum dominance and imperial overstretch, and a culture of deceit have all given rise to legitimate concern that under circumstances of its own choosing, our government might not rule out (1) the suspension of the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights, (2) the declaration of martial law, (3) the militarization of civilian police functions, (4) the suspension of free elections, (5) the usurpation of individual property rights, or (6) the negation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

"In light of these troubling developments, the State of Vermont hereby reaffirms (1) its right of sovereignty, (2) its right to nullify acts of the central government deemed to be unconstitutional, (3) its right to secede from the Union, and (4) its right to call a statewide Convention of the People to decide whether or not it remains in the Union."



Nullification was a doctrine supposedly left on the trash heap of the old pre-War Between the States America. After all, what kind of state simply refuses Washington's marching orders? And yet, such things happened on several occasions in early U.S. history. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were essentially declarations of nullification on the clearly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts. It was this example that led John C. Calhoun to spell out the theory of nullification in the Fort Hill Address and also led to South Carolina to defy Andrew Jackson and a ruinous tariff in1831. And those who would think nullification as a "southern" theory, it should be pointed out that Vermont passed laws refusing to help slave owners catch former slaves within its boundaries, in short, nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act.

Heck, even today in the same fashion, cities and towns that do not wish its police forces to be on the look out for illegal immigrants or turn them over to the INS, are nullifying our illegal immigration laws. And other localities have ruled that they will not help out federal law enforcement with enforcing the Patriot Act, thereby mitigating or nullifying certain aspects of that law. New Hampshire's Free State Project has nullification as part of its organizing doctrine.

So nullification is alive and well as we speak, it just takes the will to do so. And the more states that take up that will, the more the balance of power within the U.S. will begin to shift away from an authoritarian empire to decentralized confederacy which is what the founding father's intended in the first place. Remember, even within the Vermont Declaration of Sovereignty (who's authors hope to have town meeting votes on by March of 2007), the state will only nullify such laws that are unconstitutional, meaning it is not an invitation to anarchy. But other state's may very well nullify laws that are deemed economically ruinous to a state (as South Carolina did) or affects the citizens of a state (like not allowing a state's National Guard to be sent overseas in undeclared wars or in peacekeeping missions).

There are so many areas in which states and localities can exercise their authority that carry's out the will of the Founding Fathers. Let's hope more and more do before submission to the leviathan becomes not just an option, but a reality.

--Sean Scallon

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Harry Browne, Requiem im Pacem

I've just now learned of former LP presidential candidate Harry Browne's death and I feel not just sad but also embarrassed in a gut reaction as well because I was hard on him in my book which is out now at the time of his death. Remember I did much of the writing in 2004. I felt he was obstinante in thinking the LP could be a major political party and took him to task. But you have to respect anyone who takes on the powers that be and fighs for the lost causes and Browne certainly did in 1996 and 2000. Whatever you though of his views, you can't deny his character and deceny. Reqiuem im Pacem Harry Browne and nothing personal.

I'll let Lew Rockwell do the honors with this memorial from Lew Rockwell.com

--- Sean Scallon

How sad to hear the news that Harry Browne (born June 17, 1933), author and long-time spokesman for libertarian causes, died yesterday, March 1, 2006. He was a man of great principle who courageously and consistently stood up for liberty even when his position clashed with mainstream political culture and public opinion. He was a great writer who worked hard to turn a phrase in a way that would serve to educate people about free markets and the free society. He was a supremely thoughtful man, who read voraciously to educate himself, was not adverse to admitting error, and constantly struggled to say what was true as he understood it.

Harry goes way back in the history of modern libertarianism. His book How You Can Profit From the Coming Devaluation, which came out in 1970, was a blockbuster in its day. He foresaw what would result from Nixon's abandonment of the gold standard. In contrast to legions of mainstream economists, he knew from his reading of the Austrian economists such as Murray Rothbard that an inflationary period was on the horizon and that gold prices would not go down but up. Those who followed his advice did well indeed.

But the book also had pedagogical merit. It introduced the community of readers that buy how-to books on investments to the Austrian School of economic thought. He explained the origin and nature of money, and how the gold standard had been destroyed by governments, not for good reasons, but to provide fuel for the growth of power. He explained how the business cycle results from monetary manipulation by the central bank, a theory that had been originated by Mises. He applied the theory to contemporary events.

Harry was a founder of what was called the "hard-money movement"—that group of writers and consultants who rallied around gold and silver as inflation hedges in hard times. But he differed from many people in this crowd because he was willing to change his advice depending on circumstances of time and place. In the 1980s, for example, he came to advocate a balanced portfolio of mutual funds alongside precious metals. His "permanent portfolio" made money during one of the great stock run-ups of American history.

During the 1990s, he worked tirelessly for libertarian causes. He had never been a big enthusiast for the Libertarian Party but in 1996, he graciously threw his hat into the ring as an aspirant to its presidential nomination.

He won the bid, and proceeded to dedicate himself to educating the American people about government and libertarian principles. His book Why Government Doesn't Work is as good a campaign book as has appeared in the history of American elections. In 2000, he was an effective and dedicated candidate again. He didn't need to make these runs, and he probably regretted it later at some level, but, at the time, he saw this as an opportunity for public service, a chance to do more good and reach more people.

How did his presidential bids do at the polls? About as well as most third-party candidates do in a two-party system. Many people who might have voted for him either stayed home or worried at the last minute that they would be throwing away their votes or helping a candidate whom they feared, by failing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

It is extremely difficult for any third-party candidate to overcome this problem. However: it was also during this period that many people in the two parties began to fear the Libertarian vote on grounds that, as small as it might be, it was enough to make a margin of difference in any race. The LP went from being dismissed to being feared, and this was Harry's doing.

He was exceptional as a public speaker during the campaigns. No matter whether the topic was taxes, education, states rights, war and foreign policy, or the drug war, he took the right position and explained it in a way that allowed anyone to see his point of view. He changed minds, and stuck to principle the whole time. Harry was not tempted to sell out his message for the sake of more votes. He didn't trim or compromise. His energies were spent trying to think of ways to make the core message more marketable and understandable.

Harry went through two ideological permutations that we can look back on with some degree of regret. His second book called How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World conflated libertine choices in personal lifestyle with ideologically driven libertarian political philosophy. This was regrettable insofar as it contributed to the public perception of libertarians as nothing more than people who want bourgeois income without bourgeois institutions and values.

In the early 1980s, he went in the opposite direction, sympathizing far too much with the Republican agenda and even temporarily showing sympathies for Reaganite foreign policy. In this he foreshadowed the sad descent of many current-day libertarians into the miasma of DC policy wonkery and political gamesmanship.

To his credit, however, these were temporary diversions from a lifetime of solid writing and thinking. In his last years, few writers have been as good as Harry on all aspects of the Bush administration. After 9-11, when others fell silent or acquiesced to regime priorities, he stuck his neck out and defended personal liberty against the surveillance state, less government against the homeland-security state, and peace against the war on terror. He never hestitated. He wrote the truth with grace and good humor, and clicked "Send."

As we look back on the history of the libertarian movement, and we think of those who have contributed mightily to making the idea of radical liberty more mainstream and popular, Harry Browne emerges as a giant. He was talented, dignified, sincere, and dedicated, and he showed genuine courage in the face of fantastic pressure to get him to cave in. All lovers of liberty should be grateful for him, his life, his writings, and his legacy. We will all miss you terribly, Harry. May you find the freedom in the next life for which you fought so hard in this.

Catholic hoops in a BCS college sports world

I saw this article online and it had resonace for me being a sports fan and a Catholic. While I went to a state school too (University of Wisconsin Class of 1994), the love of the underdog in me wants to see these schools, even Marquette compete well as the try to beat the Powers that Be in college basketball. Heck, one could say the Big East, with Georgetown, St. John's, Marquette, DePaul, Seton Hall, Villanova, Providence and Notre Dame, has become a virtual Catholic League (sad to see Boston College go to the ACC). I've long advocated that Catholica Colleges form their own conference. You could have those schools plus Xavier, Dayton and St. Louis too. It would be great to see Catholic clannishness once again. Go Catholics!

--- Sean Scallon

Catholic hoops cropper
Frank Deford, SI.com


Today is Ash Wednesday, and if recent history is any guide, once again Roman Catholic colleges will be giving up the NCAA basketball championship for Lent.


It's been 21 years since a Catholic school last won the title, and since then only three Catholic colleges have even made the Final Four. But before then, Catholic schools enjoyed great success beyond their relatively small numbers and resources. Holy Cross, La Salle, San Francisco, Loyola of Chicago, Marquette, Georgetown and Villanova all won championships, and during the heyday of the National Invitational Tournament, when it was a valid rival to the NCAA, 11 times did Catholic schools take NIT titles.


However, this recent hoop drought continues a trend in the diminution of Catholic sports dominion. Only Notre Dame and Boston College even field Division I-A football teams anymore, while in the mid-20th century, Catholic schools regularly competed at the top gridiron level. Would you have any idea, for example, that the following schools once played in major bowls: Duquesne, Georgetown, Holy Cross, Catholic University, Santa Clara, Fordham, St. Mary's and Marquette?


Athletics, you see, were very important to the recognition and pride of Catholic colleges. Most of them had grown up to help educate the emerging immigrant population. Their endowments were small, resources limited and academics modest. No Catholic college was admitted to Phi Beta Kappa until 1938. Especially because so much of the Catholic population was urban, the colleges were invariably downtown -- crowded and spare. When Bill Russell's University of San Francisco teams won two NCAA titles in the 1950s, the Dons didn't even have their own gymnasium. Football became prohibitively expensive for most Catholic colleges.


Because basketball is one of our nation's cheapest games, Catholic colleges could, however, continue to be competitive on the hardwood. Ah, but then the NCAA expanded its field, big television money came in, and large state institutions that had never cared much for basketball wanted a bite out of the apple. The Deep South and Southwest had been strictly football territory. But chomp, chomp ...


Today, all over the country, the members of the football Bowl Championship Series, the BCS behemoths, dominate basketball too. The small schools -- religious and secular -- have taken to calling the NCAAs "the BCS Invitational."


Even the richest Catholic colleges have trouble competing for the best players when the big-time public schools can offer state-of-the-art practice facilities, special team dorms, even chartered game flights. Frankly, it's taken a lot of the fun out of college basketball when the little guys have such a hard time making a fair fight out of it.


This year, though, two Catholic schools are genuine contenders. Gonzaga of Spokane, Wash., is the best team in all the west, with perhaps the national Player of the Year: Adam Morrison. And Villanova, from the Main Line of Philadelphia, plays a four-guard offense that buffaloes most everybody. Also, Villanova is heavy on history. The Wildcats were in the very first Final Four, in 1939, and they were that very last Catholic school to win, in '85. Perhaps at the end of the NCAAs this year, some white smoke will rise above the domed stadium in Indianapolis.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Vermont Soverignty Declaration

The Second Vermont Republic is a group I feature in my book and recently they've put together this resolution that they will discuss in a convention on Saturday in Burlington I believe. You can find more details about the meeting at their website www.vermontrepublic.com. The annual town meeting in Vermont is next Tuesday and I hope a couple of SVR people put this resolution up for votes like they did with the Iraq War resolution that was featured on ABC's Nightline.

The meat of this resolution is nullification and I believe such a doctrine is a good half-way between submission and secession. I don't think people want to just stop being U.S. citizens but at the same time they want something to put a check on the tyranny of the Feds and I believe nullification is the way to go. Hopefully this resolution will get a good discussion this weekend.

I should also let you know another group I feature in the book, the Free State Project, just past the 7,000 mark in terms of membership five years after they started in 2001. I don't know if they'll ever reach 20,000 but if they start a process that leads libertarians to consider New Hampshire as a place to congregate to life the kind of lifestyle they want that within 30 years a libertarian state is created, then they will have accomplished their goals in the long-term. Good luck to them too. Their website is www.freestateproject.com

---Sean Scallon


THE VERMONT SOVEREIGNTY DECLARATION

Recent actions by the U.S. government including the prosecution of illegal wars, the Patriot Act, the illegal rendition of terrorist suspects, prisoner abuse and torture, citizen surveillance, the suppression of civil liberties, the suspension of habeas corpus, a foreign policy based on full spectrum dominance and imperial overstretch, and a culture of deceit have all given rise to legitimate concern that under circumstances of its own choosing, our government might not rule out (1) the suspension of the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights, (2) the declaration of martial law, (3) the militarization of civilian police functions, (4) the suspension of free elections, (5) the usurpation of individual property rights, or (6) the negation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

In light of these troubling developments, the State of Vermont hereby reaffirms (1) its right of sovereignty, (2) its right to nullify acts of the central government deemed to be unconstitutional, (3) its right to secede from the Union, and (4) its right to call a statewide Convention of the People to decide whether or not it remains in the Union.

Vive Le Vermont Libre!

Sorry not to write while I was away

The is the worst time of the year for me to keep this site updated because it is also my busiest with my job as sports editor at the Pierce County Herald taking first precedence.

But I'm back for a brief bit to let you know I'm still alive and my book is still for sale at www.PublishAmerica.com and the world keeps on turning with plenty to talk about from Iraq to U.S. ports.

I didn't mention Paul's Books in Madison on State St. in my book acknowledgements and I should have for a good chunk of my research material came form there. If your interested in old but still good-to-read books from an independent book store, with that indy book atmosphere (tight spaces, old book smell, ceiling to floor shelves) then you should visit Madison and visit Pauls, just a few feet away from the corner of Lake and State Street.

Just a note on the ports issue, I hate issues that come up that divide paleos (libertarian and conservatives) but this one takes the cake. I myself, don't believe its racism to worry about our country's secruity or belive that our ports and borders should be in U. S. hands nor does it have anything to do with economics and the Coast Guard agress with me. Dubai Port is a STATE run company and thus make it much easier for terrorists to infiltrate and potentially cause serious trouble. What I think will happen is Dubai Port will create a U.S. run subsidiary to run the ports which will be closely scrutinized unless some U.S. steps in at the last minute to run the six ports. Congress will not allow Dubai Port as it is to run those ports and Bush II veto threats are so hollow as to be laughed off.

So I disagree with persons I normally agree with on most issues like Justin Raimondo or Lew Rockwell. So what? Disagreements happen and only a fool would let them wreck alliances, freindships or partnerships over one measly issue. As I know all too well from working on my book, the bane of non-major parties are such petty disagreements blowing up into factional fighting.

The workload will get lighter in a few weeks and hopefully I can put more time to selling my book and more time to writing as well.