Dick Cavett on Ayn Rand

Elon Green interviewed Dick Cavett. The famous talk show host shared this story about the silly demands made by Ayn Rand. The libertarian author would not appear on Cavett's show if all her demands were not met.

CAVETT: Oh, well, that’s so, too. You can piss away valuable hours of your life reading Ayn Rand—her wretched appeal to the young, her wretched writing, her wretched person.

She was supposed to be on my show; I was kind of sorry she wasn’t, because I was kind of laying for her. I did not succumb, as a kid, to being enthused by Ayn Rand, and that sense of power, as every kid was at one time until they outgrew it. The old bag sent over a list of fifteen conditions for appearing with me, or for appearing with anyone, I guess. One of them was, “There will be no disagreeing with Ms. Rand’s philosophy.”

GREEN: You’re kidding.

CAVETT: No! I wrote at the bottom of the list, to be sent back to her, “There will be no Ms. Rand, either.”

I find the demand of "there will be no disagreeing with Ms. Rand’s philosophy" to be hysterical.

That is the way television journalism should be done. TV journalists should ask people of all political stripes tough questions. Chuck Todd thinks his job is to bring John McCain on and have the Senator run through his laundry list of stale talking points.

Quote of the Day: Ron Paul Edition

"I was always annoyed with it in Congress because we had an anti-war unofficial group, a few libertarian Republicans and generally the Black Caucus and others did not—they are really against war because they want all of that money to go to food stamps for people here."

Ron Paul, in an interview with Lew Rockwell.

Ron Paul served in the House of Representatives. He could walk down the hall or pick up the phone to find out why the Black Caucus is against wars. Of course, that would require actual work on his part.

You know why Ron Paul had a racist newsletter? The reason is Paul has some incredibly racist views. This is what Paul told the Dallas Morning News in defense of an article he wrote for his newsletter.

“If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”

This guy is horrible.

Photo of the Day

Photo by Tina Dupuy.

I wish libertarians would think for themselves and stop getting economic policy ideas from horrible fiction writer, Ayn Rand. We are not about to base scientific policy on the Harry Potter books. Why a small group of individuals take Rand's musings seriously is beyond rationale comprehension.

Conservatives Really Don't LIke the Fire Department

The kids at Angry Films Production did a parody of the health care debate. They argued fire departments need to be privatized. The fucked up thing is the Randal O'Toole argued forest fires give the Forest Service "a blank check" to put out fires. The fiscally reckless conservative Cato argues $14 million is too much to spend on putting out fires. O'toole makes the irresponsible argument that people should stay in their homes during fires.

Most civilian deaths from wildfire take place during evacuations, not from the fire itself. Homes that are designed to withstand wildfires are known as “shelter-in-place” homes because the residents will be safer in the homes than trying to evacuate.

O'Toole goes on the argue it would be economically wiser to let fires burn. O'Toole seems more worried about the $14 million used by the Forest Service than the potential billions in property damage.

Simple: money. The Forest Service gets a blank check for putting out fires but almost no money for helping people fireproof their properties. So it continues to spend billions on fire suppression, mainly to protect people’s homes, when a lower-cost strategy is readily available.

There is no house that is 100 percent fire proof. Is there a person whom would stay in their home during a major forest fire? O'Toole is arguing against human survival instincts. There are many things that taxpayers find wasteful. Putting out forest fires doesn't top the list. The Cato Institute represents the madness of libertarian ideas.

When Wingnuts Collide: Redstate.com vs Ron Paul Supporters

Via Pam Spaulding: How I love when wingnuts fight. Redstate.com has banned Ron Paul supporters.

Effective immediately, new users may *not* shill for Ron Paul in any way shape, form or fashion. Not in comments, not in diaries, nada. If your account is less than 6 months old, you can talk about something else, you can participate in the other threads and be your zany libertarian self all you want, but you cannot pimp Ron Paul. Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.

Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I'm guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don't understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once.

This smacks of cencership and Republican bloggers attempting to keep themselves in the conservative bubble. This is why the major pro-Republican blogs (Instapundit, The Corner and Power Line) The major conservative blogs that do allow comments are either screened have the Little Green Footballs brigade that will attack any dissent. Redstate.com has the right to moderate their forum to their liking.

It is ultimately their call if they will allow Ron Paul supporters to comment or post. I find it hysterical they are so bothered by a candidate that has no chance of getting the GOP nomination. Perhaps the Red Staters don't want to be bothered the those pesky facts of what a cluster fuck the Iraq war has become.

HB 7033: Only a Libertarian Could Love

I wrote previously about HB 7033. Florida is strapped for money to build new roads to meet growth demand. The problem is asphalt is made with petroleum. Fuel costs made road project costs have skyrocket. The Republicans in the House had the answer of having private contractors handle toll booths.

It is the intent of the Legislature to strengthen the state's transportation system by providing the department with innovative financing techniques, including, but not limited to, public-private partnerships, toll facility leases, and user fees. In response to increased congestion, population, and market demands...

Republicans in the legislature love this to help the pro-business lobby. I truly believe they are that jaded. The telecommunications service bill allowed phone companies to increase rates by up to 20 percent. That bill was wriiten by the lobbyists.

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel has a good editorial on why this bill is a bad idea. Money quote.

The bill also allows firms to hike tolls beyond inflationary limits as directed by bond documents and other covenants.

Republicans are never fiscally conservative when it comes to private contractors.

The only people who would think this is a good idea on merit are libertarians To understand what this you have to watch libertarian Megan McArdle argue to Jonathan Chait that raising the minimum wage will hurt poor people by shipping jobs to other copuntries. Then she argues that Democrats should support free trade. Such as outsourcing of jobs. McArdle tells Chait that the Democrats changing on these issues woulkd draw more libertarians. Chait correctly points out that Democrats won't win elections backing a libertarian platform.