Great, more affirmative action. I mean, talk about members of a small, underprivileged minority -- attractive Republican women.

p.s. ;)

How come she wants to be called Libertarian activist?? and then get nominated as GOP babe? So is she GOP or Libertarian? or it doesnt matter?
I guess libertarian is one of those code words meaning that I am too ashamed to call myself Republican and my activism is for the Military Industrial complex to be more powerful.

RC - it's sorta like how, when push comes to shove, most Greens / Socialists fall under the Dem's "big tent".... similarly many (though certainly not all) Libertarians end up in the GOP's...

I think that's a view that's unfortunately pushed by the "two parties or you're voiceless" crowd. It's fine during election time, but elections are a pretty rare occurrence and I think the net effect of millions (billions? trillions?) of social interactions that happen in between (i.e. civil society) are far more important.

I'm a registered Dem but prefer the catch all "progressive" and sometimes label myself depending on the context: libertarian (in the Chomsky sense of the word...not the "Constitution as sacred text" sense), humanist; and individualist. I'm thinking about adding communitarian.

Chomsky might call himself a "libertarian" although most "mainstream" libertarians (if such a construct exists) consider him about as far from their position as you can get.

Chomsky's broadly considered a pinnacle of the left-wing "American power is the root of all evil" school (and there's no question this is on the Dem side of the fense).

Another past GOP Babe of the Week was Leann Tweeden.

I suppose a pretty face comes in handy when you're trying to distract from the profound moral and intellectual failings of your juvenile philosophy.

Libertarianism is a broad category meaning many different things to many different people and is generally abused by those who use it. After all, "mainstream" Stalinists thought they were buidling a "people's democracy".

It's sorta like how, when push comes to shove, most "libertarians" on the right (usually the beneficiaries of the status quo) will try to convince you that unnacountable private tyranny is preferable to government tyranny, or that The Market will always provide goods and services at the equilibrium level, or that contracts will somehow be enforced without any central law, or that democracy and individual rights can be maintained without communal property or common ground, or that being "secure" is the same as being and feeling truly free.

Chomsky calls himself a socialist libertarian, I think. I might have it backwards. Chomsky's views embody a segment of libertarian thought in that he opposes concentrations of state power (although I can buy the argument that he's overfocused on U.S. imperialism to the detriment of looking at abuses by other states).

In any case, my point (put better by M.) is that political terminology is often disputed (and i would argue abused); I recognize that words evolve with usage and people should be free to define and label their own spaces, etc. However, there are very particular ends for which certain political labels are coded in the U.S. today irrespective of the substance of the political beliefs of the people who claim the title. For example, the use of "conservative" by Republicans in the U.S. right now falls outside the traditional parameters of what it has meant to be "conservative" (although not necessarily in an American context). I would argue that, even trying to be neutral (which I'm admittedly not), the strongest domestic Republican agenda today is better described on policy substance by words like "reactionary", "radical", "oligarchic", or "corporatist" rather than "conservative", "supporting small government", etc.

Similarly, the Democrats and the "center left" in the U.S. today is actually pretty conservative. That's why I think it's helpful to move beyond a narrow and relativistic right-left framework defined entirely by what the political parties decide is right and left when we're trying to understand our own political views and those of others.

Check out Political Compass, which is a survey that shows how both parties in the U.S. tend to favor concentrations of power and restrictive of individual empowerment. There's a more nuanced version of the same somewhere on the web, but I can't remember where.

M - you're thinking of Anarcho-Capitalism rather than a more accommodating Libertarianism. And yep - they're a tad out there w.r.t. not giving credit to the state where its due.

I suppose a pretty face comes in handy when you're trying to distract from the profound moral and intellectual failings of your juvenile philosophy.

i suppose it's chic to denigrate attractive women for anything but progressive/dem leanings...

it's so interesting. why isn't there similar snark in the other direction? "her pretty face distracts from her shite liberal stance blah blah blah"

since when does physical beauty require a certain
political orientation? to each their own, high and mighty liberals.

Vinod, I understand that definitions are the last resort of the rascal, so I won't belabor my point (too much). Splitting it any way you want, libertarianism of any color (as springing from Locke, Hume, Smith, Jefferson, Paine, etc.) focuses on and champions among other things: the preponderance of individual and property rights, the rule of law, spontaneous order, limited government, the free market, the natural harmony of interests, and peace. These ideas usually fall apart or become untenable when taken to their logical conclusions or applied to the real world. In the end, arguments over libertarianism are purely academic (and thus boring after a while) because there has never been a purely libertarian state or system in the world, and I would venture that one is not forthcoming. But I respect your beliefs, I'm just weary of young conservatives (and that is my personal failing). This is not intended to be ferocious or a personal attack, but, I hope, a gentlemanly rejoinder.

EOFIA, I think it's interesting that I am unable to find a DNC or Democrat Babe of The Week anywhere online (perhaps I missed it). It seems to me that the issue of looks, when raised at all, primarily surrounds female conservative or Republican "pundits". This is more or less in line with their other standard inflammatory tactics. Or a desperate attempt to manage their image. In some cases, I have to believe it's the only reason a particular conservative commentator is given any attention at all given the paucity of their other faculties (c.f. Ann Coulter)

My point (which you missed) wasn't to denigrate the woman, but to mock the use of pretty faces and "babes of the week" by those with "unprogressives"/republican leanings, particularly (and in this case most ironically) by libertarians. Incidentally, I would apply the same standard to "progressives". Even if she had a face like a wedding cake left out in the rain (which clearly she doesn't) I would find her ideas just as juvenile and frail. I happen to think that the source of an idea is generally insufficient to condemn it, so looks are arbitrary when discussing ideas. The world we live in, however, is another place entirely. I hope that's a sufficiently lowly and unmighty explanation for your tastes.

Yours fraternally,
M.

Govindini, another sucker of the corporate cock. This line of right wing whores include Dinesh DÂŽSouza and Tunku the whiner. They serve as nice brown window dressing for the GOP.

wow, che.

please, don't hold back. your innovative brilliance is exactly what this discussion needed. now that you've used a profane image to insult Govindini, it's all crystal clear; typing the word "cock" illuminates the truth nicely.

you're so naughty, so bad. i want to be as pornographically edgy as you when i grow up. ooooh, wait...i just typed the word "cock" in this comment. guess i'm on my way there! thanks for helping me become cooler and revolutionary-- just like you.

Regarding the comment, "These [Libertarian] ideas usually fall apart or become untenable when taken to their logical conclusions or applied to the real world."

I don't consider myself a libertarian, but this remark is just silly. If you had said "become untenable when taken to a ridiculous extreme" I would have agreed. I've seen plenty of cases of libertarians getting all wrapped around the axle
trying to find a pure libertarian solution to one of those rare problems where socialism has offered a solution that
worked tolerably well. A repeated example that comes to mind is local roads: Having a government body build and maintain
local roads does basically work. Exactly how a similar result could be achieved with purely private efforts is
difficult to see.

But of course, the same thing could be said of liberalism. I doubt a week goes by that I don't hear some liberal
commentator or politician try to come up with a socialist solution to a problem that the free market has solved very well. Like, they're always trying to tell us how medical care would be so much better if only the government took it over completely, despite the fact that most of the problems with medical care today are clearly and obviously caused by the existing government intervention. And I'm sure that not a day goes by that I don't hear a liberal defense of some obviously failed socialist experiment. Like, they keep telling us how public schools are vital to a well-educated etc America, despite the fact that the failures of our public schools are apparent to any parent.

Yes, there are libertarians out there with loony policy proposals. There are liberals out there with loony policy proposals. The difference is that the liberals have gotten a lot of their loony proposals enacted into law.

On the original subject of "Republican babes" and the liberals' sneering comments about them: Are you guys for real? In the last two elections you repeatedly told us that we should vote Democrat because all those sexy Hollywood types said so, and of course acting in a political thriller makes one an expert on politics. Now you get all self-righteous when Republicans make clear that you don't have a monopoly on sex appeal? At least the Republicans aren't saying that you should listen to these women's political opinions BECAUSE they're pretty. They're just saying that they can enjoy the beauty along the way. Which by the way reminds me: Count the number of times liberals make denigrating comments about the attractiveness or sex appeal of prominent conservative women. Not only is it disgusting, but it's rather hypocritical coming from people who claim to be the defenders of women's rights and all that.

Yes, Govindini is a beautiful lady and her husband is a lucky man. My question to her and researchers is did they interview Lt Col Robert Patterson on the facts for this 9/11 documentary? I read his book "Dereliction of Duty" and I will view this docu (if it's shown) with the facts he has printed.
We all know that demoncrats lie-lied and that administration is untrusting when they speak of how they acted. They've been caught in so many lies that when they speak my ears go mime to them.
Remember those famous, truthful words??? "I never had sexual relations with that woman---ms lewinsky" duh huh

hey, che....come out of your shell. it's o.k. you can read and write now. those days when a simple whine would get you all cleaned up and a new diaper are long gone. by the way, take your thumb out of your mouth....it's time to be a big boy.

re: lr...
The last post was months ago.

Time to reheat the Govindini discussion after her appearance on O'Reilly.
It's worth mentioning that on her website anyone whose comments don't fall
in line with the Rove-ian doctrine are censored and banned.