I am not in any way inclined to defend Barnes, don’t get me wrong. As a former officer and one-time friend of Barnes, I knew him very well and worked closely with him in the SBCLP, and I was also one of the handful of people who actually took the initiative and went to look at the court file to be sure the story against him wasn’t fabricated before I formed an opinion. It amazed me at the time how many people publicly expressed opinions, usually defending him but not always, without checking the facts.

I know more than most people about about this situation, and I can say this much: There is absolutely NO evidence that Barnes has molested any children sexually since his conviction in the late 80s. None.

I can’t say that I know for certain he IS repentant since I’ve not talked to him directly since April, but I hear from others who are still in contact with him that he has some remorse. Whether it’s remorse because he’s sorry for his actions or whether it’s remorse for getting caught, only he knows. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and say that remorse over this incident is remorse and leave it at that.

I agree that Barnes, were he still in the party, should not be in a position to have contact with children at party events. Even apart from the obvious ethical reasons, there are liability reasons for the officers of the party at every level if someone were to get the bright idea to bring a lawsuit against them since they’re now aware of his situation.

Your opinion of whether or not he’s repentant, however, doesn’t really matter since his membership has already been suspended by LPCA, subject to a ruling on the appeal by the judicial committee.

So long as engaging the kids doesn’t mean exposing them to unrepentant pedophiles like Matthew Barnes.

Social Security Favors Trophy Wives Over Poor Single Moms

My standard reasons for opposing Social Security are of course 1) that it is monumental inter-generational theft from young non-voters by voting seniors, and 2) that it socializes the retirement savings industry and thus reduces the nation’s savings rate and ultimately its standard of living.  A recent Cato Institute article reminds us that the Social Security status quo is also unfair to minorities, poor single moms, gays, and couples in which both spouses need to work:

The overwhelming support for the status quo from the political left is shocking, and should be appalling to members of the Democratic Party or anyone who holds [its] liberal values.  [Democrats seek] to protect a system that systematically discriminates against core constituencies of the Democratic Party, a system that disproportionately benefits white women who have never worked a day in their lives over all other groups. Is that a status quo that the Democratic Party wants to be associated with?

The article is a good summary, but for the full extent of Social Security’s inequities you have to read the entire statement of  the Urban Institute’s Eugene Steuerle before the House Ways and Means Committee last month.  He details how Social Security is unfairly stingy to

• minorities with shorter life expectancy;
• non-working spouses who get divorced one day shy of ten years;
• single heads of families, whose spouse can abandon them without any effect on the future benefits of him or his next spouse;
• dual-earning couples (compared to couples with the same household income earned by a sole breadwinner);
• unmarried couples, such as gays or co-habiting heterosexuals;
• people who marry a lower-earning spouse after a ten-year marriage with a higher-earning spouse;
• people who work for more than 35 years;

while being unfairly generous to

• divorced people whose former spouse dies early;
• trophy spouses whose high-earning spouses are much older; and
• people with multiple ten-year marriages (who thus get to multiply the survivor benefits paid on their behalf).

For more on Social Security, see Cato’s socialsecurity.org.

Well here is something on urban transit from a report, TCRP49, published by the National Academies. While the entire report is something like 100 pages is goes into specifics as to who is harmed by the lack of adequate transit services. Please note that the report mentions women, specifically part-time working mothers and elderly women. I haven’t looked for it on the web recently but it is probably still around.

“The lack of personal mobility has economic, social and human costs, such as higher unemployment, reduced tax revenue, greater welfare and medical costs, and limited social potential.” Source: TCRP report 49, 1999

“Almost half those without an automobile are persons 65 years or older, and of these, 81% are women.” Ibid

“gender: 23% of full-time working mothers and almost 60% of part-time working mothers have non-traditional work hours. This reduces a women’s ability to join carpools or find appropriately-scheduled transit options.” Ibid

Someday maybe the LP will get around to developing brochures designed to appeal to women. This information may help in that case.

First, admit (as you have effectively done) that Carolyn was apparently wrong in claiming that 1) our “shame” didn’t admonish the male troll and 2) we called troll-feeders by their first names merely because they are women.

Second, monitor the linguistic practices of the Troll Police for actual gender bias.

There’s nothing sensible or sensitive about demanding a pound of flesh from the Troll Police for a crime you admit the Troll Police didn’t commit.

It’s unfair that you accuse only the Troll Police of “keep hammering” the argument here. If the Troll Police issue N responses here, it’s because our detractors have issued >=N criticisms of us. N is chosen by our critics, not by us. As we said, the critics of the Troll Police can have the first word or the last word, but not both. To say you have a problem with that is to convict yourself of the very crime you accuse us of. You and our other critics could choose to just state your best possible case, let us state our best possible defense, and let the matter rest. If you choose instead to continue the debate, don’t complain that your choice is somehow the fault of the Troll Police.

You seem to have this universe confused with one in which the Troll Police should let themselves be browbeaten, using insults and false charges and flashing one’s gender-victim badge of authority, into changing (what you even admit is) a gender-neutral linguistic practice.

In this universe, we Troll Police are going to continue to refer to our acquaintances by their first names, no matter their sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation.

In this universe, sometimes troll-feeders are women, sometimes troll-feeders are our acquaintances, and at least once, troll-feeders were both.

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

@ TP 53 You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink.

You say “Either the Troll Police are lying when we dispute Carolyn’s assertions, or we aren’t.”

But more importantly, what will you win if you keep hammering your side of that argument?

You can easily adjust your policies and procedures as Ms. Marbry suggests even if you are telling the Lord’s own truth – and I fully believe you are being honest when you say you are. Does anyone lose if you do that?

Consider, on the one hand you can (verbally) beat your chest and assert your position until no one else replies to you, and so you “win,” but it seems to me that is just the type thing what Libertarians do which tends to drive off most women – and not a few men.

I’m sure you are familiar with the term “pyrrhic victory.” Libertarians win lots of those in arguments with each other and with other people. (If anyone else reading does not know what a pyrrhic victory is I highly suggest looking it up – it’s a concept that explains a lot about what’s wrong with people in general).

You say,
“In what possible universe is your advice to us not simply addled?”

The one where peace, friendship and cooperation are more important than being the last one standing in an argument. Does that sound like the type universe you live in?

LG @ 54 is right on the money.

55 and 56 make good points as well.

Mary Ruwart’s book Healing Our World makes a good effort at making libertarianism come off as more compassionate. We need that in shorter, more accessible formats, while also being more down to earth and practical at the same time. Loretta Nall down in Alabama does real good at making libertarian views resonate with everyday common working people and those coming towards libertarianism from a left-liberal perspective.

Outreach pieces at 58 and 59 are a good start. We need a lot more in many different formats.

Steve Linnabary makes good points at 60, although as with Michael Seebeck at 46, the gratuitous dig at Troll Police mars an otherwise good comment. I think Troll Police is someone who is fundamentally good, honest and trying to make things better, and is probably not aware off what is bothering all these other folks here about the way the TP is walking the beat.

I don’t think comments which challenge TP or try to put TP on the defensive help things. At that point the fight or flight reflex, sublimated into rationalization and the quest for verbal dominance, kicks in.

But I think we can reasonably ask TP to do the sensible, sensitive thing and adopt the policy changes Ms. Marbry suggests without claiming any police misconduct.

Lake: there are strategies! In southern california they threw money at them. A sweet, sharp, intelligent voice on the telephone claimed to be that of the San Diego County Candidate coordinator.

Lib Males: ‘Hey Lake, take it or leave it, it ain’t our fault. Miss Nice Nice: got around to offering to write a check to pay for the chapter’s mistake on a news letter. Night and day ………

Regardless, I find this a fascinating topic, and I wish I could contribute to it positively, but I simply do not have any ideas for bringing women into the party. A lot of people here seem to understand WHY women don’t participate in the LP, but can’t seem to figure out HOW to change this. I’m at a loss myself.

How about we make some pamphlets pink?

Seriously though, I think it is important that we look at other trends as well. It is no secret that minorities and young people are also lacking in the LP, yet the Ron Paul faction of the GOP doesn’t seem to have this problem.

Knowledge is power, and perhaps if we could overcome this hurdle of not being able to attract women, minorities, gays, and young people to the LP, then maybe outreach programs and events would be much more active because there would be a much more diverse presence. Not to mention the continued perception of libertarians just being another arm of conservatism would finally end as well. A party of old white men doesn’t sound like a party that people would want to join.

Sorry, Troll Police, but I’m afraid Mr. Linnabary has got you on a technicality. Guilty.

Correct.

Me, I never see women at work as I am either surveying the side of a mountain or babysitting construction workers. Last summer I had a project on a university campus. I couldn’t help leering the first day or two.

It seems most Libertarians are computer nerds that rarely see women except in pictures.

And none of this is an excuse. Our actions have consequences. And the consequences we have brought upon ourselves is that women are not comfortable around us.

It doesn’t help that people like “Troll Police” think it is an opportunity to be a troglodyte.

At least I recognize my own shortcomings. I wish Ms Marbry success in her quest to change the neanderthal culture of Libertarian Party members. It’s long overdue.

PEACE

And the rack card I designed can be printed full-color in quantify for only 5 cents each:

And our team claims to be computer literate.

I do not believe this is intentional . I think most of them HAVE NO CLUE HOW TO ACT AROUND WOMEN. i mean , lets face it , there is no Rico Suave in the LP .I think most of the men probably rarely dated ,they probably didnt socialize around women too much in school or the workplace and if they did , they never had confidence to approach them .
The “harassment” by men is clumsy at best and a annoyance for sure ,but like I said , it reminds me of kids who dont know how to act as opposed to methodical ,intentionally condenscending harassment.

Brad immediately pointed out that Carolyn’s assertions may not be true. The Troll Police quickly confirmed that they were false.

Either the Troll Police are lying when we dispute Carolyn’s assertions, or we aren’t.

If we’re lying, then you’re investing screenful after screenful of advice trying to get us to admit we are sexist liars.

If we’re telling the truth, then you’re telling us we should cave in to Carolyn’s false assertions because she is a woman and because Libertarians should get out of the habit of tirelessly insisting that they’re right (as Carolyn herself has been doing).

In what possible universe is your advice to us not simply addled?

P.S. Your toilet-seat epiphany is old news here at our Police Station, where the Troll Police pee sitting down.

I agree that Mr. Seebeck makes many excellent points at #46. Unfortunately, he undermines them just a little with his unfortunate opening one line paragraph, which has not a thing to do with the rest of the essay, near as I can tell:

“OK, enough of this manure from whatever Troll Police is, which appears to be a cross between a trailer-park trash Miss Manners wanna-be and an idiot.”

If anybody is trailer park trash around here it’s me, although many of us upstanding mobile home community residents don’t much like being called “trash” by those with non-mobile homes.

My wife is more the Mrs. Manners in our family, she’s taught me a little bit of manners by a great deal of patience and trial and error, but some folks say having just a little bit of manners, kind of like having only a little bit of knowledge, can be a dangerous thing.

Now as for idiots, that’s just downright insensitive. I have a lot of idiots in my family, idiot friends, idiot neighbors, and I’m often an idiot myself. Just ’cause you’re smarter than us it don’t make it right to look down your nose at us idiots, Mr. Smarty-Pants.

This comment I just made is a good illustration of why sensible folks don’t often stick around the Libertarians, on account I spent several paragraphs expressing disagreement with only one sentence, while only briefly stopping to note that the remainder of the essay was excellent.

Roll Tide and I’ll see y’all after work.