leftlibertarian.org

Sexuality for the Masses

Sin in the Second City: Madams, Ministers, Playboys, and the Battle for America’s Soul
Reviewed by Gwen Masters

Doing It Yourself — a Short Handbook for Guys by Jaie Helier

If you’re looking to have a satisfying session of self-love, then you should check this guide out!

Pornsaint Ashlynn Brooke by pornopapa

I Come in Peace by M. J. Woo

The Strange Credibility of Polyamory by Pepper Mint

I currently practice polyamory (i.e. I have the freedom to be involved in as many romantic-sexual relationships as I feel comfortable with), and I find it to be a very worthwhile lifestyle. I am only really deeply in love with one person right now, but that could change. I don’t really think I’d have the energy or time for another deep romance right now though.

Dolphin Sex by Comrade Cripple

Yeah, you read the above right

End the American Empire!

Red in Tooth and Claw: American Terror, Then and Now by Chris Floyd

Chris Floyd recounts the CIA’s legacy of atrocity.

A Bogus Libertarian Defense of War by Sheldon Richman

Remembering America’s Forgotten Vietnamese Victims by Nick Turse and Tom Engelhardt

The Empire That Must Be Obeyed
What Gives the US the Right to Claim a Moral Monopoly Over the World? by Paul Craig Roberts

McCain and the Militarist Mentality
His electoral comeback is an ill omen by Justin Raimondo

Under Curfew, This Is No Life by Ahmed Ali and Dahr Jamail

Pathetic Arguments for Foreign Intervention by Sheldon Richman

Economics for the People

Capitalism V. The Free Market by Wendy Mcelroy

Anarchy vs Limited Government

In which I fail to be Reassured by Charles Johnson (Rad Geek)

Charles Johnson points out that evasion of unjust government laws — in some cases — has been more successful than lobbying efforts that aim to get the laws off the books.

Objectivism and the State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand by Roy Childs

This is Roy Child’s classic attempt to convert Ayn Rand to libertarian anarchism. I’ve pondered trying to write a piece that argues for mutualist anarchism on the basis of Rand’s defense of ethical egoism. I currently consider myself to be an advocate of egoism, and I find Rand’s defense of selfishness (properly defined) to be wonderfully life affirming.

The Next American Electoral Spectacle

The Danse Macabre of US Style Democracy by John Pilger

The Era of Dynastic Politics, Where Nothing Ever Changes
President Hilary by Paul Craig Roberts

Is Liberalism Fascistic?

Goldberg’s Trivial Pursuit by Austin T. Bramwell

The above is an interesting review of Jonah Goldberg’s book that attempts to link liberalism with fascism. I actually believe that certain policies promoted by particular left-liberals today are supported by fascist philosophical premises, but the review doesn’t indicate that the book makes a good argument for this. I also don’t really care for the politics of Jonah Goldberg. He is published in the odious National Review.

Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ‘72 is the latest member of my Big Pile of Books that I’m Currently (Sort of) Reading. Some of you might know that Thompson held libertarian and anti-authoritarian leaning views all of his life. Thus, even though Thompson followed the 1972 presidential campaigns as a quite enthusiastic supporter of George McGovern, you can find gems such as the following in his account of the campaign and its surrounding issues:

That’s the argument… and it’s probably safe to say, right now, that there is not a single presidential candidate, media guru, or backstairs politics wizard in Washington who honestly believes the ‘youth vote’ will have more than a marginal, splinter-vote effect on the final outcome of the 1972 presidential campaign.

These kids are turned off from politics, they say. Most of ‘em don’t even want to hear about it. All they want to do these days is lie around on waterbeds and smoke that goddamn marrywanna… yeah, and just between you and me, . . . I think it’s probably all for the best.

I neither smoke that goddamn marrywanna nor do I have a waterbed, but I’m a proud member of the youth non-vote. And that is my marginal contribution to the US primaries from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Hope you appreciate it.

Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ‘72 is the latest member of my Big Pile of Books that I’m Currently (Sort of) Reading. Some of you might know that Thompson held libertarian and anti-authoritarian leaning views all of his life. Thus, even though Thompson followed the 1972 presidential campaigns as a quite enthusiastic supporter of George McGovern, you can find gems such as the following in his account of the campaign and its surrounding issues:

That’s the argument… and it’s probably safe to say, right now, that there is not a single presidential candidate, media guru, or backstairs politics wizard in Washington who honestly believes the ‘youth vote’ will have more than a marginal, splinter-vote effect on the final outcome of the 1972 presidential campaign.

These kids are turned off from politics, they say. Most of ‘em don’t even want to hear about it. All they want to do these days is lie around on waterbeds and smoke that goddamn marrywanna… yeah, and just between you and me, . . . I think it’s probably all for the best.

I neither smoke that goddamn marrywanna nor do I have a waterbed, but I’m a proud member of the youth non-vote. And that is my marginal contribution to the US primaries from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Hope you appreciate it.

From the view from below:

The next time you get caught in some relatively minor bureaucratic nightmare, consider the case of Paul House. House is very literally rotting away on Tennessee’s Death Row for a crime he didn’t commit.

read more | digg story

Two posts from RadGeek I’d urge not be missed…

Take the A-Train

Avoiding points of conflict between anarchists and minarchists means either studied silence or mumbling prevarication on issues that ought to be absolutely central for any anarchist worth her salt — among other things, the right of (state, local, neighborhood, individual) secession, the moral illegitimacy and practical futility of appeals to the Constitution, the arrogance and abusiveness of monopoly police forces, the illegitimacy of any and all forms of taxation, the fundamental problem with any form of government military or intelligence apparatus whatsoever, etc. Devoting your time and energy to a political organization whose messages are specifically adapted to be compatible with the minarchist program on these issues means frittering away a lot of energy fighting what goes on in the palace — while leaving untouched the pillars that hold the damned thing up. I would certainly agree that market anarchists should be willing to work together with coalition partners on particular issues of concern — the drug war, corporate welfare, the war on Iraq, etc. — whether those coalition partners are minarchists, or state Leftists, or whatever else. But who you’ll work with in issue-based coalitions is a different question from whose movement you’ll participate in, or what formations you’ll make the primary venue for your broader organizing and activism. I think it is long past time that we stop shelving our anarchism and indefinitely deferring our explicit anti-statism in order to fit in with limited statists in organizations like the Libertarian Party or Chairman Ron’s Great Libertarian Electoral Revolution.

In which I fail to be reassured

Meanwhile, limited governmentalists are just full of suggestions for how anarchists can help the cause of anarchy by … not talking about anarchy, and spending their time and energy on building up limited-government organizations instead. Apparently wanting to work on promoting your own cause, rather than other causes with fundamentally different ideas about ultimate goals, is a sign of a self-destructive fetish for purity.

It's a great day for America because Giuliani is out of the Presidential race. Unfortunately, so is John Edwards; I don't have anything nice to say about him but I was hoping he'd stick around in case Obama or Hillary would self-destruct. He could have been a spoiler and made things interesting.

If McCain is the Republican nominee, apparently the immigration issue isn't as important as we thought. McCain's been the biggest supporter of Bush's policies in Congress.

A Clinton-McCain election would cement George W. Bush's legacy, because it means both parties had nominated their most warmongering candidates. It makes one almost want an Obama-Romney race. At least there would be new blood, and while no one has anything nice to say about Romney, at least he's not a complete idiot in the mold of Bush and McCain. Besides, it might be nice to actually have a successful businessman in the race, instead of a failed one like Bush.

My main hope is that Ron Paul's run will lead to a larger movement for smaller government, leading to growth of organizations such as Downsize DC. But I might be biased.

It's a great day for America because Giuliani is out of the Presidential race. Unfortunately, so is John Edwards; I don't have anything nice to say about him but I was hoping he'd stick around in case Obama or Hillary would self-destruct. He could have been a spoiler and made things interesting.

If McCain is the Republican nominee, apparently the immigration issue isn't as important as we thought. McCain's been the biggest supporter of Bush's policies in Congress.

A Clinton-McCain election would cement George W. Bush's legacy, because it means both parties had nominated their most warmongering candidates. It makes one almost want an Obama-Romney race. At least there would be new blood, and while no one has anything nice to say about Romney, at least he's not a complete idiot in the mold of Bush and McCain. Besides, it might be nice to actually have a successful businessman in the race, instead of a failed one like Bush.

My main hope is that Ron Paul's run will lead to a larger movement for smaller government, leading to growth of organizations such as Downsize DC. But I might be biased.

The next time you get caught in some relatively minor bureaucratic nightmare, consider the case of Paul House. House is very literally rotting away on Tennessee’s Death Row for a crime he didn’t commit. House was convicted of the 1985 rape and murder of Carolyn Muncey. House was sentenced to death because he was convicted of both rape and murder. He was convicted of rape because forensic testing revealed that semen found on Muncey’s clothing was consistent with House’s blood type. He was convicted of murder because blood stains found on a pair of House’s pants was Muncey’s blood.

Sounds all neat and tidy, right?

Everything is not always as it appears on the surface, of course. DNA testing later revealed the semen belonged to Muncey’s husband, not House. (This alone should have been enough to at least review House’s sentence, since he was only sentenced to death because he was convicted of rape and murder. Furthermore, the state argued in the original trial that the rape was the motivating factor for the murder. Since House did not commit the rape as first thought, it calls the whole case into question.) Numerous questions arose around the handling of the evidence in the case. While the blood found on House’s clothing did belong to Muncey, it apparently arrived there after the clothing was confiscated due to leakage or spillage of some of Muncey’s blood onto House’s clothing taken into evidence.

Finally, there are the questions surrounding Muncey’s husband, a man described by several acquaintances as a heavy drinker who threatened and physically abused his wife. Witnesses have stated that Mr. Muncey admitted to accidentally killing his wife during a drunken argument. These witnesses were all available to testify at the original trial, but House’s court-appointed defense attorney neglected to call any of them to testify.

While all of this was being discovered, House was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. His physical condition has now deteriorated to the point where he must use a wheelchair for mobility and can no longer feed himself.

After years of legal wrangling, House’s case eventually made its way to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002. In a 7 - 4 decision, the court ruled that Tennessee courts should examine the new evidence presented since House’s conviction. The State of Tennessee waited two years before “respectfully declining” the Federal Court’s mandate.

In June, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case and ruled that “the central forensic proof connecting House to the crime — the blood and the semen — has been called into question, and House has put forward substantial evidence pointing to a different suspect.” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote House had “sufficiently demonstrated his innocence” and “no reasonable juror viewing the record as a whole would lack reasonable doubt.” The Supreme Court then sent the case back to federal district judge Harry S. Mattice, Jr. Mattice then gave the State of Tennessee 180 days to either release House or give him a new trial.

One would think the next steps for Tennessee would be simple: Either give House a new trial, or — and this would seem to be the more sensible thing — release House and try Hubert Muncey for murdering his wife. One would be wrong. Tennessee Attorney General Bob Cooper filed an appeal of Mattice’s ruling, and then asked Mattice to stay his 180-day order. Cooper claimed that releasing House would pose a “danger to the community.” Keep in mind that House can neither walk nor feed himself. (Mattice has not ruled on this request as of this writing.)

Paul House has spent over 20 years on Tennessee’s death row for a crime he didn’t commit. Even the United States Supreme Court agrees that no jury would be able to convict House today based on the evidence presented at the original trial. The only reason House remains imprisoned is that the state of Tennessee refuses to admit it made a mistake.

Furthermore, a sickening sort of politicization is at play here. Death penalty advocates refuse to accept the state could have made a mistake, because they are afraid doing so reinforces the arguments of death penalty opponents. The exhaustive efforts made to exonerate House are seen as nothing more than legal shenanigans aimed at freeing a guilty prisoner. Following is a sampling of the absurd comments I have seen in various online forums discussing the case:

“Just because the semen found on Muncey’s body and clothing don’t match House’s doesn’t mean he didn’t try to rape her.”

“I refuse to believe the police would have been dumb enough to transport the vials of Muncey’s blood in the same container as House’s clothing.” (Forensics experts have stated the blood on the clothing is consistent with “splashing” and likely occurred after the clothing was confiscated. Also, the police took four vials of Muncey’s blood, but only two and one-half vials made it to the FBI lab for analysis, and one of the vials appeared to have leaked.)

“There was a full trial with a judge & jury that heard this case in 1986. They found the man guilty. He is guilty. He needs to die. Get over it!”

“I trust the decision of the first jury, and I hope they eventually fry Paul for what he did to that poor woman.”

“This is just another case of a bunch of liberal lawyers wasting a lot of taxpayer money on appeals for a guilty man.”

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen should do the practical, humane and just thing and issue a pardon for House, but Bredesen has stated that he prefers to let this case be resolved through legal channels. The only problem with that recourse is that while this legal tug-of-war continues, House remains imprisoned for a crime he didn’t commit.

For additional information, see:
Tennessee Coalition to Abolish State Killing (TCASK)
“Paul House should not be on Tennessee’s death row” by Peter Irons
“Criminal Science: The Paul House Case” by Simon Cooper (pdf)