I am a bit ticked at Obama bowing to the Japanese emperor. No question: it was a bow. Now I believe in respect; a handshake would suffice for the matter. But bowing to a foreign leader goes against an American tradition that is actually a good one--one where we let the world know we believe in self rule and individual sovereignty. We don't recognize principalities' by bowing to their lordship. Boo to you Obama. Boo to anyone who would bow to any king but King Jesus.
At Independent Political Report there's been another good discussion of the past, present and potential future of Green/Libertarian electoral alliances, which, imo, are quite promising. (Can't embed the link for some reason, paste function won't work, it's under the recent "Green Constable" post). Any strong views one way or the other here at HL?
I don't much about the "Green" party, but my first impression is that, based on most of the attitudes of so called "green" people I have met, there are essential incompatibilities between the two. Therefore, I see no promise in the concept. However, I am open to learn what they might be.
I am upset that we have slipped into a pre 9/11 mentality. I bring this up because of the massacare at Fort Hood. Daily I hear of reports of all types of red flags on the shooter,Nidal Malick Hassan, but the FBI never talked to the Army. And fellow Doctors who were concerned about his outrageous powerpoint presentations got nowhere because we must be tolerant. The Obama administration won't say the word terrorist if a plane landed on the roof of the White House. I do believe that they are opening the back door for another large scale attack. And I also believe that 13 dead and 27 wounded is plenty enough to qualify as a terrorist attack, especially by an American Officer that has SOA or Soldier of Allah on his business card. One last thing on an Army Base, one of our largest I hear, it took a civilain woman Police Seargent Kimberly Munley to have the balls to take this man down, after she was shot by Hassan. She is a hero.
Grant, well, starting purely negatively, Libertarians and Greens (L&G) share a common enemy, the Democratic-Republican duopoly system of government. There have been effective L&G Party alliances in the past, for instance, in common actions for obtaining ballot access or working toward ballot access reform. There are other such joint efforts taking place every day. Beyond that, it is in the interests of Greens for Libertarians to get elected and vice versa, because it weakens the positions of duopolist ideologues, and puts someone in office who is not a stooge of the entrenched interests. On a different note, consider the Green Party's "ten key values". Many of them are basically in agreement with Libertarian principles: grassroots democracy, non-violence, decentralization, respect for diversity. And there are significant overlaps among the others: equal opportunity, gender equality, personal responsibility.
Daryl- yes, this is turning into a tradition for our current president. It's amazing that a man who can display such self-absorbed egotism here at home has no problem humbling himself enough to bow to foreign leaders when he's not supposed to!d.eris- It seems to me that there are some essential ideological issues at odds between the Libertarian and Green Parties that could hamper a long-term political alliance. In the short term, I think it might very well be beneficial to both of these parties to explore areas of similar policy preferences and use these as a basis for collaboration.Ron Paul did manage to get Baldwin, McKinney, and Nader to sign a four-part statement agreeing on foreign policy, civil liberties, the national debt, and the Federal Reserve:http://www.dailypaul.com/node/61153Dave- I am also floored by the criminal incompetence of our nation's intelligence agencies with respect to Major Hasan, as well as the surprising level of infiltration of "political correctness" into our nation's military. The media response in the aftermath also has me less than thrilled.