Wednesday, June 28, 2006

... or center fizzle?

Unity08 just held its second "conference call for bloggers" (here's my take on the first one). I have some thoughts on the group's prospects, but first I'm going to pay for my ticket by publicizing their current effort:

Declare Your Independence -

Unity08's "Declaration of Independence" is a familiar, but well-presented political gimmick. The goal is to get 10,000 signers (more on that in a bit) saying the same thing, and to brandish it versus the political targets as a threat, and to the public as a badge of credibility ("we have support"). If you agree with it, sign it.

I don't agree with it, so I won't be signing it. But that's just me. Your mileage may certainly vary.

Now, let's dig into the prospects: To put it bluntly, things are looking pretty dim for Unity08 at the moment. They may catch fire, but they haven't yet.

The first sign of this on the conference call was when a participant asked the obvious question: Why seek only 10,000 signers for the "Declaration of Independence?" The response (I think it was from former Maine governor Angus King, but I have a problem telling voices apart) was to refer to boilerplate political technique -- paraphrased, "always hire a hall too small for the crowd you expect -- that way when it's standing room only, you can claim to have exceeded your expectations."

The second sign was when I asked about Unity08's overall number number of declared supporters as evidenced by response to their web form. The response (this time I think it was Doug Bailey) was that they don't plan to share those numbers until early 2007. Once again, of course, accompanied by good reasons why.

Good answers. Smooth answers. But let's face it -- it's really just putting the best face on less-than-stellar results.

Here are some facts that anyone can find -- facts, in other words, that Unity08 can't stonewall on:

Alexa ranks Unity08's site the 3,047,820th most popular site on the Internet. It carries Google Page Rank of 0.

For the sake of comparison:

Libertarian Party: 27,128th on Alexa, Page Rank 7
Green Parties Worldwide: 287,401st on Alexa, Page Rank 7
Communist Party USA: 511,696th on Alexa, Page Rank 6
Pansexual Peace Party: No Alexa ranking (hosted by Tripod), Page Rank 5

Hell, I'm fairly certain that Kn@ppster isn't creeping up on Yahoo! and MSN just yet, and I can't even get an Alexa ranking (it defaults to Blogger.Com's), but my Google Page Rank is 6. Page Rank is largely a function of how many other sites link to yours (but the exact formula is, I believe, rather secret). My own new (and very niche) project, freedomSLUT, launched since Unity08's site, is still at zero with respect to Page Rank, but already about a million and a half up on Unity08 at Alexa.

who links to me shows 19 sites (via MSN search) linking to Unity08, and Technorati finds seven blog posts linking to it in the last 21 days.

Unity08 is just not reaching people via the Internet (and it is substantially, if not wholly, an Internet and campus effort at this point); those whom it is reaching don't seem to be hopping on the bandwagon with enthusiasm or intensity in any great numbers.


Let me emphasise that: Yet. Something could change. They may have a great media plan up their sleeves, or a million bucks stashed away for the "big push," or whatever.

But I'm just not seeing it right now. That bugs me a little, because they've certainly gone out of their way to generate "blog buzz," and just for doing so they deserve more than they're getting. Their plan and agenda deserve to be examined, even if ultimately rejected.

As I note above, the Internet isn't the only front on which Unity08 is working. They claim to have established a presence on more than 100 college and university campuses as of last week. That could energize the effort come fall ... if they can get some oomph into it now so that students come back to school pumped up behind the idea. But that's a big if, and they have about two months to deliver on it.

The emerging Unity08 agenda probably deserves a post of its own, and may get it.

Technorati Tags: ,
IceRocket Tags: ,

Henley un-hypes it

Check out Bloggasm's interview with Jim Henley of Unqualified Offerings fame.

Nice point here:

Simon Owens: As the election season gears up, do you think that the major political blogs will have more political clout than usual?

Jim Henley:
Well, there's no "usual" yet. It's only the last election cycle or two where blogs have had a chance to play a significant role, either on the editorial or advertising side.

Ah, rarity of rarities: Common sense.

My own question isn't whether or not bloggers over-estimate our own political influence, but how much we (and some credulous journalists and politicians) do so.

No, I'm not saying blogs don't play a role, or that that role isn't a growing one. But 2004 was the first election in which we played more than a bit part. 2006 may -- or may not -- be a breakout. It's not our world premier at Mann's Chinese Theatre. It's the audition for lead role in 2008 ... and I won't be terribly surprised if Denzel gets the nod instead.

Technorati Tags: , , ,
IceRocket Tags: , , ,

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

BlogProps: Tomlin on Palestine

David Tomlin has a new piece -- "Truth, myth and the struggle for Palestine" -- up at Rational Review, in response to my own Context is everything. Teaser:

Tom's article contains so many inaccuracies that it's impossible to properly rebut all of them in a post of reasonable length. In this post I will address what I believe is the most important issue. This is Tom's apparent acceptance of the myth that, in the military operations of 1948, the Arab governments intended and attempted a Nazi-esque extermination of Israel's Jewish population.

Thanks to David for taking the issue by the horns. I will, of course, respond in kind and in time.

Technorati Tags: , ,
IceRocket Tags: , ,

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Sounding off like they've got a pair

The Libertarian Party's latest press release is going to torque some party members off. That's fine. What it says needs to be said, over and over (and louder and louder):

The Republicans will trade dead soldiers for November votes. The Democrats will trade dead soldiers for November votes. With the Libertarian Party solution, all of our troops would have been home by now.

Let's get the heartburn out of the way right now. LP members who support the war are free to do so, but they should keep three things in mind:

1- The Libertarian Party opposes the war on Iraq and advocates ending it.

2- The Libertarian Party opposes the war on Iraq and advocates ending it.

3- The Libertarian Party opposes the war on Iraq and advocates ending it.


Some LP members are pro-life, but the LP's platform is pro-choice.

Some LP members support restrictions on immigration, but the LP's platform opposes such restrictions.

Some LP members support the war on Iraq, but the LP's platform clearly and unambiguously places the party in opposition to that war. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.

Since the war remains a key -- possibly the key -- American public policy issue, the LP's public communications must address it ... and the parameters within which those communications must address it are found in the LP's platform.

Since before the war began, pro-war LP members have agitated on behalf of the notion that the existence of dissent within the party trumps both the platform -- which has been ratified multiple times, including once in the run-up to the war and once since the balloon went up, by representative national party conventions -- and the requirement that a political party communicate its positions to the American public.

I'd be lying if I said that I didn't believe that that agitation has been -- at least occasionally and partially -- effective, to the party's detriment.

It's good to see the muzzle come off. It's good to hear the dog bark. Sic'em.

Technorati Tags: , , ,
IceRocket Tags: , , ,

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Platform shoes

Those readers who are active in the Libertarian Party are likely familiar with various "platform reform" efforts.

The most active such effort aimed at securing changes through this year's national party convention in Portland, Oregon, is the Libertarian Reform Caucus. I was briefly a member of LRC and a participant in its deliberations, but recently left the organization for reasons that aren't especially important to this post. It seems likely that there's going to be a bit of a dust-up in Portland between LRC "reformists" and their various opponents. I can't predict what the fallout from that fight will be, but I've been considering the issue of "platform reform" and want to offer a single proposal of my own.

First, a little background:

- One of the staples of outreach and recruitment by the LP and other libertarian groups is the Advocates for Self-Government's World's Smallest Political Quiz. While I have reservations about its accuracy in terms of political classification, it's a neat little tool at any rate. It's engaging, catchy and easy to use.

Engaging. Catchy. Easy to use. Keep those things in mind. They're important.

- While I've engaged myself in the "platform reform" debates for some time now, one thing I hadn't done in a long time was take a "from scratch" approach. That is, I hadn't really given much thought, recently, to how I would put together a party's platform from the ground up rather than simply revise an existing one.

This morning, while doing some household chores, I was thinking (yes, I do household chores; yes, I think), for some reason I've already forgotten, along precisely along those lines. When I reached a stopping point, I sat down at my trusty computer to take a shot at a "ground-up" platform, with the Green Party's approach -- "Ten Key Points" -- in mind as a guide.

I knocked out my first "Key Point" quickly and easily. And then I sat, considering which point should come second. And then I sat, considering, some more. And then I sat for awhile. And then the bolt of lightning hit me.

That first key point is catchy. It's engaging. It's easy to use. Sort of like the World's Smallest Political Quiz. Furthermore, in my opinion, it is an accurate summation of the bare minimum which any party claiming the label "libertarian" should stand for. It's "big tent" insofar as it does not specify an anarchist or minarchist end state, nor does it preclude either incrementalism or "giant steps."

Why do we need ten, or even five, "Key Points," let alone sixty-odd separate planks, when one simple statement will get the job done, fit easily into damn near any "sound byte" length, and leave the party free to address issues with relevant, short program points and resolutions addressed to the issues which Americans actually care about in each election cycle? Believe it or not, the Moon Treaty is unlikely to be a hot issue this November.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you The World's Smallest Political Platform:

The [insert name here] Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.

One sentence, folks.

Next time: A revised Statement of Principles in limerick format.

Technorati Tags: ,
IceRocket Tags: ,

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Party favor

A number of Libertarians have expressed interest in moving a resolution for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney at the Libertarian Party's upcoming national convention in Portland, Oregon. Of course, in order for a resolution to be moved, it first must be written. Here's my initial proposal (which has not, as of this writing, been adopted for promotion by any group):

Whereas, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have twice entered onto the offices of the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States respectively, and have twice taken corresponding oaths binding themselves to preserve, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States; and

Whereas, in numerous and diverse cases pursuant to their execution of those offices, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have flagrantly violated those oaths, that Constitution and statutes duly enacted pursuant thereto; and

Whereas, the crimes of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have resulted in numerous wrongful deaths, illegal searches and seizures, illegal imprisonments and other violations of inalienable and constitutionally secured rights, said violations punishable under the United States Code, Title 18, Sections 241 ("Conspiracy against rights") and 242 ("Deprivation of rights under color of law"); and

Whereas, the crimes of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney clearly rise, on both common sense and precedent, to the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" specified as grounds for impeachment in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States;

Therefore, be it resolved that the Libertarian Party, duly gathered in national convention this (date) of July, 2006, on behalf of the party's members and in solidarity with all freedom-loving Americans, calls for the immediate resignation from office of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney; Or,

Failing such resignation, passage of Articles of Impeachment on the aforementioned grounds by the US House of Representatives, and conviction on the charges included in said Articles by the US Senate; and,

Further, following said resignations or impeachments, referral of all relevant charges to a duly empanelled grand jury for consideration of criminal indictments.

I decided to forego offering a bill of particulars for several reasons, although one could easily be inserted.

Tear it apart and make it better.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,
IceRocket Tags: , , , ,

Friday, June 16, 2006

Anthem for the Know-Nothings

I'm not a poet
And I know it
My writing shows it
After all, who the hell writes sonnets about immigration?

Writer's block continues, and I've resorted to bad pro-immigration poetry in the hope that the Vogons will respond with an offer of transportation. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Anthem for the Know-Nothings.

That which in welcoming freedom once rose
And countless minds and empty bellies fed,
Walled off becomes a frozen moral close
In which we languish bleeding, dying, dead.

For what's the death and deadness of the dead,
If not in isolation hence to toil,
Forsaking breaking of the common bread
To claim a pious solitude of soil?

Can there be found accepted native oil?
Then crack the shutter on the lighted lamp!
And vigilant, shine wide around to foil
Those huddled swarming masses from our camp.

Let this, our damp and lonely hermitage,
In quarantine commence its final age.

(It's supposed to be a Spenserian Sonnet, but I wouldn't recognize iambic pentameter if it reared up and bit me in the ass. Well, hey -- after eight days, I blogged something, and that's, um, something.)

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Seven days in June?

It's been a week (please apply windage -- Blogger has been giving me fits for a day or two) since this piece of filth appeared on Instapundit. In the interim, it's been the subject of some comment (I've followed it quietly via Matthew Barganier's posts here and here on the AntiWar.Com blog). After a week of skulling it, I'm ready to have my say.

I'll cut to the original money quote from Peter Ingemi's letter to Glenn Reynolds. There's been more water under the bridge since, but it remains the center of the matter:

The real danger is that we who support the war will reach the point that we say "we might as well be taken as wolves then as sheep." At that point the left can celebrate that they have made our military and those who support it the people they claim we are. Once that happens however any compunction about respecting them will be gone, and remember one side is armed and one is not.

This is one of the most refreshingly honest descriptions of the War Party mindset I've yet seen -- or half of that mindset, at any rate: The "depressive" side. For the sake of completeness of record, here's the "manic" side:

We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

When the appropriations are being handed out and the tanks are rolling and the ragheads are obediently dying, these guys are on top of the world. Rock stars. Demi-gods, maybe. But when the shit hits the fan, when they start to look bad, when it looks like there may be actual penalties for their stupidity (even if someone else has to pay those penalties) well, they're just an oppressed minority bein' picked on by The Man. Nobody likes us, everybody hates us, guess we'll eat some worms ... unless, of course, we decide to shoot y'all.

I trust the Prozac I mailed has reached Ingemi by now, so perhaps we can talk about this in real-world, rather than bipolar, terms. There are most definitely a few things we need to get straight.

First of all, I don't know which "side" Ingemi thinks is "armed," but if he thinks it's only the War Party side, he's got another think coming (if he's ballsy and stupid enough to test the proposition).

Not all opponents of the war on Iraq are pacifists by a damn sight. Last time I noticed, there were allegedly 70 million gun owners in the US, with 210 million small arms at their disposal. One out of three American males (myself included) is a veteran with military training. And a majority of Americans (and probably American gun owners, and probably American veterans, and probably American troops) want this war over, and a substantial percentage want the war criminals at every level brought to account. If the War Party wants to play "wolf" on American soil to suppress that sentiment, they'll find out most ricky-tick why that species nearly went extinct. And yeah ... that is a threat.

Secondly, here's how it is:

If you're lucky and smart, you'll pray that the Bush administration gets the troops home as quickly as possible, then muddies the waters enough that nothing gets resolved and nobody "important" pays; that the War Party (R) administration and Congress will be replaced by a War Party (D) administration and Congress (which is pretty much bound to happen no matter what you do); and that most of America will sit down, sing Kum Ba Ya together and try to pretend the whole thing never happened. Until next time, of course.

If you're not lucky and not smart, you'll egg on the dragging out of the farce and the inevitable accompanying atrocities. More of the peons will pay with sentences at Leavenworth and maybe a few of the higher-profile ringleaders will find themselves in orange coveralls trying to explain themselves before their vacations at Club Fed, or in court defending their fortunes against civil claims by their victims.

If you're stupid enough to advocate pushing it to the brink, and if you get your way, then things will take a truly ugly turn for your first-string lineup. After proper criminal and civil trials, the personal fortunes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, the members of Congress who enabled them, and the assets of the corporations which colluded with them, will be disbursed to damaged Iraqis as restitution. George and Dick and the congresscritters won't need those fortunes anyway, since they'll be lined up on gurneys at Terre Haute awaiting the same kind of intravenous drug fix their spiritual sibling Timothy McVeigh got, to be followed by cremation and the scattering of their ashes -- half over Hiroshima, half over Nuremberg.

And if you've got a problem with that -- if you decide to get all wolfy and stuff on the premise that "your" side is armed and that the rest of America is one big herd of sheep -- no problem. We'll shoot you down like rabid dogs in the street, or maybe just brand each of your foreheads with a big red F for "Fucktard" and shun you until you get despondent enough to off yourselves. More in sorrow than in anger, of course. Think of it as the "collateral self-damage of neoconservative stupidity."

So you might want to re-think taking a chance on that shiny coup d'etat what's behind Door Number Three.


Technorati Tags: , , , , ,
IceRocket Tags: , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

You can tell because their lips move

I've been wondering about this all day, and Richard Winger's Ballot Access News seems to have the scoop:

Despite having promised to remain in New York's gubernatorial race as the Libertarian Party's candidate whether or not he won the Republican Party's nomination as well, William Weld is dropping out.

I'm not going to play holier-than-thou on this: I didn't condemn the New York LP's decision to nominate Weld. I wasn't hog-wild about it, but I thought some good might come of it. So no "I told you so" from this corner. It's easy to forget Rules Number One and Two of early 21st Century American Politics. I forgot them, and so did a majority of delegates at the LPNY's nominating convention.

Rule Number One, of course, being: Republicans are liars.

And Rule Number Two, of course, being: Republicans who claim with straight faces to be libertarians are Clintonesque liars -- the kind of congenital tall-tale-tellers who'll throw out a whopper in full (and, unfortunately, often justified) confidence that their audience will swallow it without question.

Libertarians are smart, but we're too naive and trusting. We gotta get over that.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,
IceRocket Tags: , , , ,

Blame Canada

Jim Henley is in Montreal on business, and I'm honored to be among the guest bloggers he's chosen to keep Unqualified Offerings fresh in his absence. Here's my paltry offering.

Monday, June 05, 2006

Blast from the Past: Context is everything

This piece was originally published as "Context is everyting: American libertarians and Israel" in Rational Review. I've gone back through and corrected a couple of spelling and punctuation errors, but have otherwise left the piece exactly as written, despite noticing one tiny error of factual description (the Shia are not and were not an "ethnic or religious minority" in Iraq), in the interest of honesty/continuity.

Why re-publish it now? Three reasons: I'm involved in a couple of discussions to which it is relevant; I recall that at least one libertarian offered, some time back, to debate the subject of Israel v. the "Palestinians" and figure this is as good a place to start as any if he's still interested; and, after more than two years, I'm starting to think about writing the promised second part. So, enjoy.

Context is everything: American libertarians and Israel, part 1

Libertarians are by nature a contrarian lot, and I've yet to see a real-world issue that we can't mangle beyond recognition with a little debate. Nonetheless, the question of the Arab-Israeli conflict holds pride of place among vexatious issues that divide the freedom movement.

In a recent article, published in Liberty For All, Carol Moore makes a valiant attempt to frame the Arab-Israeli conflict -- and, more importantly, the implications of that conflict for the United States and for the freedom movement in the United States -- in terms of universally applicable libertarian principles. My intention with this article is not to argue the validity of those principles. I stipulate to them. Instead, I intend to attempt to place the Arab-Israeli conflict in context, both with regard to the principles themselves (part one of this series) and to the practical application of those principles by an American freedom movement and, more specifically, the Libertarian Party (coming soon).

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Ask and ye shall receive ...

As a sophomore in high school, I fell madly in love with a popular, attractive junior. I even screwed up my courage toward asking her out on a date, but she started laughing at me before I got the proposition stammered out. It wasn't derisive, mean laughter -- just kind of a giggle at the hard time I was having saying what I was obviously trying to say. So, I went away, but I didn't go away mad, if you know what I mean. We were friends, sort of -- different circles (like I said, she was popular and attractive; in my pre-Marine-Corps days, I was second captain of the geek squad), but occasionally fate brought us together on a friendly, but not intimate, basis.

None of which has anything to do with anything, expect that since then, only one woman named Kirsten has asked me for anything, and I can't help but get all sentimental and want to fulfill said request.

Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the "male version" of the freedomSLUT ad:


P.S. I couldn't find any stock photos of nekkid guys with flags. At some future point I may just go bare-ass myself to create a more closely parallel ad. If you want to see that, send money. If you don't want to see that, send money.

Touch that dial!

If you think you don't like libertarian talk radio, you've probably been listening to Lester "One drop of Negro blood in your family could push it backward 3,000 years in history" Maddox's old speechwriter. Can't say I blame you -- if I had to listen to him, I wouldn't think I liked libertarian talk radio either.

You need to tune in to some libertarian libertarian talk radio. In no particular order (okay, okay, they are in a particular order -- a randomly chosen one other than the first two, which I believe is only fair given my connections with those two), here are some recommendations:

Free Market News Network e-radio -- several shows, various topics. Hell, I'm on there occasionally.

Freedom Rings with Kenneth John broadcasts live (radio and net) from Elgin, Illinois every Monday morning. Lots of cool guests and topics!

Radio Free Liberty is a fairly new show out of Springfield, Missouri. The LPers down there are great guys. Nuts, but great guys. Give'em a listen.

The Sloan Ranger is now afternoon drive-time host at St. Louis's WGNU, and richly deserves his recent promotion from late-night hell. Lloyd Sloan is a former Missouri Libertarian Party chair (and, although he finally ditched his formal membership in the party until it gets rid of "the pledge," he still gives freely of his time and effort on its behalf), a personal friend, and a downright fascinating guy.

Free Talk Live seems to be one of the fastest-growing libertarian shows around -- in addition to Internet broadcasting (live and pod), it is carried on a number of stations around the country. Florida-based and well worth the time.

Liberated Space just ... well ... kicks ass. Being of leftish libertarian sensibilities myself, I find its perspective a refreshing change from standard suit-and-tie conservatarianism.

I'm not sure exactly what Scott Horton, a/k/a Philip Dru in a previous incarnation, has been up to lately, but I see a podcast archive from as recently as May 9th, so I'm not going to leave him out. I suspect that his penetrating and wide-ranging interviews will be major source material for a future history of the libertarian movement in the early 21st century. Check out Scott's blog, too.

I can't figure whether or not Charles Goyette has a broadcasting gig right now, but if he doesn't, he should.

I'm sure I'm missing several shows that should have been here, but hey -- it's damn near 2 a.m. I'm sure I'll do this again some time. After all, friends don't let friends listen to Boortz.

Technorati Tags: ,
IceRocket Tags: ,

Friday, June 02, 2006


To: Matthew C. Kraner
General Manager
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Dear Sir,

I note with regret that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch can't spare the drive space or bandwidth to include all of Missouri's US Senate candidates in its online poll.

There are three, not two, established political parties in Missouri. Only two are represented in the poll.

Neither of the two candidates your poll lists are the uncontested nominees of their respective parties -- Jim Talent faces four opponents in the Republican Party, and Claire McCaskill faces one opponent in the Democratic primary. They are the likely winners, but unlike the Bush administration, the Post-Dispatch should have the good grace to let the votes be counted before declaring them so.

Only one candidate will, beyond any shadow of a doubt, appear on Missourians' ballots this year: Frank Gilmour, who is the single, uncontested candidate for the Libertarian Party's nomination -- and he is nowhere to be found in your poll.

The Post-Dispatch has a very mixed and disturbing record in its treatment of Libertarian candidates. A couple of your columnists (Jo Mannies and Bill McClellan) occasionally give Libertarians their due, and the main news section gives Libertarians a column inch or two in the final "candidate profile" edition underneath the half-page sections given to the other guys ... but that's IT.

Libertarians consistently receive less coverage in the Post-Dispatch (and, to be fair, in most other media) than their vote totals merit. Most Libertarian candidates get at least 1-2% of the vote, while receiving, on average, less than one TENTH of 1% of election press coverage. This isn't about "equal time" by any stretch of the imagination. Even getting 1% of partisan political coverage in the Post-Dispatch would be a massive improvement for Libertarians.

Never mind that St. Louis area voters elected their first Libertarian public official (former Greendale City Marshal Tamara Millay) a couple of years ago.

Never mind that the Libertarian Party played a significant role in defeating the proposed St. Louis County smoking ban that came before the County Council last year.

Never mind that only a couple of months ago, Libertarians played a significant role in replacing the mayor and half the city council of Sunset Hills, as well as one alderman in Ballwin.

The usual media line is that you'll start covering Libertarians when they achieve successes. But if you won't cover the successes Libertarians achieve already, how are they supposed to attract the attention to achieve more, and bigger, successes?

Joseph Pulitzer declared in 1907 that the Post-Dispatch would "always fight for progress and reform." Which two parties represent the establishment? Which party represents change? And which parties is the Post-Dispatch fighting for?

Pulitzer promised that the paper would "never tolerate injustice or corruption." How just is it that there are three established political parties in Missouri, but that only two are mentioned in your paper's pages?

Pulitzer pledged to "always fight demagogues of all parties." How do you fight demagoguery by featuring it and ignoring its enemies?

Pulitzer said the paper would "never belong to any party" and that it would "always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers." Which two of the three parties does the Post-Dispatch belong to? Republicans and Democrats run the state, county and local governments. If there are any public plunderers to be fought, they necessarily come from one or both of those parties ... and yet are treated AS a privileged class by the Post-Dispatch, to the exclusion of their opponents.

Please -- reconsider your paper's policies with respect to political coverage. Your current policy of ignoring 1/3 of the state's political parties damages the Post-Dispatch's credibility and does a disservice to its readers.

Best regards,
Thomas L. Knapp
Normandy Township Committeeman
St. Louis County Libertarian Party Central Committee

Technorati Tags: , , ,
IceRocket Tags: , , ,