New Tammany Awards....

[SEVERUSMAX]

....yes, yours truly is reviving the Tammany Awards, the political equivalent of the Darwin Awards.

Each week, at least one "public servant" (a hell of a euphemism there) gets his ass handed to him on this thread. And political affiliation be damned.

The first award is hereby given this week to: Felix Roque, Mayor of West New York, New Jersey for encouraging his son Joseph to hack a recall election website. Not surprisingly, the mayor was arrested by local authorities, along with his son. What a great role model he was for his son, right? Teaching him to violate the privacy and property rights of this dissident site, not to mention its political freedom.

Yeah, great work, Your Honor. And for it, you've earned a Tammany.

 

[JackLuis]

It's going to be, (already is), a long Election cycle. You'll have a long thread by November.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It's going to be, (already is), a long Election cycle. You'll have a long thread by November.

I'm afraid so, but I also want to note the obscure scumbags and slimballs like Roque, who think that no one is paying attention to their tomfoolery. They need to be called to the carpet, too. Even if no one tells them about Lit and this thread.

 

[Handley_Page]

....yes, yours truly is reviving the Tammany Awards, the political equivalent of the Darwin Awards.

Each week, at least one "public servant" (a hell of a euphemism there) gets his ass handed to him on this thread. And political affiliation be damned.

The first award is hereby given this week to: Felix Roque, Mayor of West New York, New Jersey for encouraging his son Joseph to hack a recall election website. Not surprisingly, the mayor was arrested by local authorities, along with his son. What a great role model he was for his son, right? Teaching him to violate the privacy and property rights of this dissident site, not to mention its political freedom.

Yeah, great work, Your Honor. And for it, you've earned a Tammany.

Would that be classed as a misdemeanour or a crime worthy of a more, erm. . . 'sentenceable' crime ?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Would that be classed as a misdemeanour or a crime worthy of a more, erm. . . 'sentenceable' crime ?

Well, as an anarchist, I would favor a "shunning" approach....social ostracism of criminals for a limited period of time. Nothing permanent, of course. People can feel that quite keenly and it is definitely a punishment. Doubt that? Well, talk to an excommunicated Catholic, Mormon, Amish, etc. some time. People crave approval of their peers, family, and friends. It's the human condition. Disapproval can really bring it home like few things can. Just don't continue it forever.

It worked for the old Norse society, come to think of it.

 

[estragon]

And Captain Boycott of Ireland. He named the whole thing.

 

[topace]

I'd love to give a Tammany to the voters of Alberta for giving the Political Conservatives a 12th straight majority last month - a record for Canada - when they didn't deserve it. Plus they also gave them most of the seats in the Legislature to boot.

But that's typical Albertans for ya - stick with one political dynasty time and time again until that party ticks off too many people.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I'd love to give a Tammany to the voters of Alberta for giving the Political Conservatives a 12th straight majority last month - a record for Canada - when they didn't deserve it. Plus they also gave them most of the seats in the Legislature to boot.

But that's typical Albertans for ya - stick with one political dynasty time and time again until that party ticks off too many people.

That was us with the Dems from '32 to '52 and the GOP from 1860 to 1884 (Johnson was isolated and didn't count for much of a Democrat). And it's been my native state with Democrats in Congress and state government (except Arch Moore, who was a crook himself and Cecil Underwood, a decent man and more of a moderate conservative). And AZ with GOP governors from 1990 to 02. Not that Napolitano was a prize. And Texas since 1994 (granted, Richards had to go, but really, nearly two decades of the same party in the statehouse).

I don't care how good a party might be at the start, by the end, it needs to be voted out. So they don't get a big head. Eventually, even the most patient voters get tired of them.

 

[topace]

That was us with the Dems from '32 to '52 and the GOP from 1860 to 1884 (Johnson was isolated and didn't count for much of a Democrat). And it's been my native state with Democrats in Congress and state government (except Arch Moore, who was a crook himself and Cecil Underwood, a decent man and more of a moderate conservative). And AZ with GOP governors from 1990 to 02. Not that Napolitano was a prize. And Texas since 1994 (granted, Richards had to go, but really, nearly two decades of the same party in the statehouse).

I don't care how good a party might be at the start, by the end, it needs to be voted out. So they don't get a big head. Eventually, even the most patient voters get tired of them.

Glad the problem isn't only in Canada. I'm glad that elections are fixed (sorta) now. I say "sorta" because if a party loses a vote of confidence, the governor general (for the feds) or lieutenant governor (for the province in question) can still call an election to decide the new government - makes for interesting minority governments when they happen.

 

[saucydenise]

I nominate Ken Bennett for a Tammany along with Arpaio. It's a bit distant, but this birther crap looks really bad to this ol' Southern gal.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I nominate Ken Bennett for a Tammany along with Arpaio. It's a bit distant, but this birther crap looks really bad to this ol' Southern gal.

Granted....for this week. He is a prick for doing that. Not every charge is true.

As Julian the Apostate tells the Imperial prosecutor Delphidius in Gore Vidal's Julian (a novel that I highly recommend, btw)...

"How can any man ever be proved innocent, if you must do is accuse him?"

Regardless of what I think of this President, he doesn't deserve this crap.

Living in AZ, it's not distant to me. It's an embarrassment. And it ignores useful issues, like federal monopolization of land use and ownership. It's high time that states, the private sector, and here is a major issue...the reservations, have more say over land use. One more reason why I think that tribal sovereignty has been treated like a convenient phrase for politics, but largely ignored when inconvenient to both parties.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And now....a blast from the past....

...as a sincere act of contrition, a Tammany to the guys who voted to renew the Halliburton contract. A long overdue one at that. This was referenced in Boota's "gang-rape party" thread, on which I went on something of a tangential rant (for which I have now apologized).

In any case, thirty Tammanys to the respective Senators.

 

[oggbashan]

One to the Scottish National Party who have just launched their campaign for devolution/independence for Scotland.

What they do not admit and try to conceal is that part of their policy is to withdraw from NATO but they have no proposals to defend Scotland militarily.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

One to the Scottish National Party who have just launched their campaign for devolution/independence for Scotland.

What they do not admit and try to conceal is that part of their policy is to withdraw from NATO but they have no proposals to defend Scotland militarily.

Yoda says, "If free you would be, plan well you must."

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Ogg's comment has made me reflect on the following questions, which in turn sum up my remaining doubts about my evolutionary anarchist views.

1. If a foreign power invades, could a voluntary association (and its militia) really raise sufficient power and force to defeat the invader?
2. Could it provide veterans of any armed force with well-deserved pay and benefits after said conflict or peace-time service?
3. Could it adequately fund highways and some viable alternative to civil police and other emergency services?
4. Could it deal properly with what Jefferson called the only legitimate functions of the State, enough to replace said State (preventing only such acts as are injurious to one's neighbor)?
5. Could it prevent vigilante justice?
6. Could it handle disputes at civil law?
7. Could it command enough respect to maintain social order without being coercive?
8. Could it replace social services currently provided by the State?
9. Could it handle issues or disputes with neighboring associations?
10. How would it materially differ from a State in its real effects?
11. Would I trust my stepchildren's safety to its measures for preserving public safety?
12. Most importantly, would I trust my wife's safety to its measures for preserving public safety?

These are issues that need to be resolved before any voluntary alternative to the State could be practical. Because, unlike many of my more militant comrades, if presented with a choice between the State as a necessary evil and a Mad Max world, I would reluctantly opt for a continuance of the State. No doubt, some would label me a Benedict Arnold for that. But anarchist philosophy is supposed to be about liberty and I want to make sure that it can last before I take the plunge. Because there is no point if my family and I are dead or victims because we've traded one tyrant (the State) for another (a thug). One can only enjoy one's freedom is one is alive and well.

Okay, end of tangent. Back on topic.

 

[topace]

One to the Conservative Party of Canada for the Robocall scandal that's going on currently.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

One to the Conservative Party of Canada for the Robocall scandal that's going on currently.

Robocalls are such a revolting practice that any party practicing it should be punished at the polls on principle.

 

[topace]

Robocalls are such a revolting practice that any party practicing it should be punished at the polls on principle.

I agree! Too bad it's another 4.75 years til the next scheduled federal election and they have a majority government!

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I agree! Too bad it's another 4.75 years til the next scheduled federal election and they have a majority government!

Does the Right in Canada really have nowhere else to go but those losers?

 

[topace]

Does the Right in Canada really have nowhere else to go but those losers?

Unforunately yes there are no other parties on the right that are good enough or run enough candidates across the board.

The Center is held by the New Democrat Party (idiots who want to turn us into a socialist state) and the Green Party (environmentalists who don't have their facts right). The Left is the Liberal Party (who were the natural governing party of Canada until the Advertising scandal or Adscam knocked them outta office). Oh, and if you live in Quebec, you also have the Bloq Quebecois, who want to make Quebec independant from the rest of the country - idiots and jerks IMHO!

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Unforunately yes there are no other parties on the right that are good enough or run enough candidates across the board.

The Center is held by the New Democrat Party (idiots who want to turn us into a socialist state) and the Green Party (environmentalists who don't have their facts right). The Left is the Liberal Party (who were the natural governing party of Canada until the Advertising scandal or Adscam knocked them outta office). Oh, and if you live in Quebec, you also have the Bloq Quebecois, who want to make Quebec independant from the rest of the country - idiots and jerks IMHO!

Wouldn't the NDP be the Left and the Liberals the Center then?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Btw, the most memorable thing from the 2004 election that produced a Liberal minority government for me (yes, I paid some attention to it, despite living in AZ) was the brief moment of concern and surprise when the Marxist-Leninist Party had a temporary lead for one seat.

Still not sure what the big deal about Quebec is. They seem to be like Puerto Rico in that if they left, there would be a net gain for the treasury.

 

[topace]

Yeah and the country would be split in two (Quebec would separate Ontario and the West from Atlantic Canada) - you guys fought a civil war when the southern states tried leaving your country, remember?

The New Dems are definately in the left, but the Libs tend to lean to the left more often than sticking in the center. Apparently the Greens are right-centralist, except for environmental issues which are far left IMHO.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Yeah and the country would be split in two (Quebec would separate Ontario and the West from Atlantic Canada) - you guys fought a civil war when the southern states tried leaving your country, remember?

The New Dems are definately in the left, but the Libs tend to lean to the left more often than sticking in the center. Apparently the Greens are right-centralist, except for environmental issues which are far left IMHO.

So, you're stuck like Chuck with few choices, if any. Voting Green, then?

The geographical argument, I can understand. If Quebec were located where BC is, you probably wouldn't care as much (except losing a coast).

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

One to former President Bill Clinton, for in breath opposing President Obama's tax policy (gutsy of him) and then in another endorsing him still. If you think that the President's tax policy is awful, why in Jove's name do you want him to still be President? Why, Bill? Or is it just party loyalty above the national interest?