DOCSLIB.ORG

Carter's Presidential Directive-59, Habermas, and the Legitimation Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Carter's Presidential Directive-59, Habermas, and the Legitimation Of Democracy the Destroyer of Worlds: Carter’s Presidential Directive-59, Habermas, and the Legitimation of Nuclear Secrecy Marc Howard Rich B.A. Christopher Newport University, 2008 M.A. University of Colorado Boulder, 2010 A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado Boulder in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Communication Fall 2015 University of Colorado, Boulder This dissertation entitled: Democracy the Destroyer of Worlds: Carter’s Presidential Directive-59, Habermas, and the Legitimation of Nuclear Secrecy written by Marc Howard Rich has been approved for the Department of Communication ________________________________________ Robert T. Craig, Advisor Communication: Communication theory and discourse analysis ________________________________________ Peter D. Simonson Communication: Rhetoric ________________________________________ Leah Sprain Communication: Deliberation and democracy ________________________________________ Bryan C. Taylor Communication: Security studies and organizational communication ________________________________________ Benjamin S. Hale Philosophy: Ethics and environmental studies Date: Aug. 11, 2015 The final copy of this dissertation has been examined by the signatories, we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standard of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. iii Rich, Marc H. (Ph.D., Communication) Democracy the Destroyer of Worlds: Carter’s Presidential Directive-59, Habermas, and the Legitimation of Nuclear Secrecy. Thesis directed by Professor Robert T. Craig with the significant assistance of Professor John P. Jackson. Abstract: On July 25, 1980 President Jimmy Carter signed Presidential Directive 59 (hereafter PD- 59). PD-59 was an attempt to operationalize the concept of limited nuclear options into United States nuclear weapons policy. This nuclear policy was unique in that the story of its existence was broken by the press and the Carter Administration lost control of the representations of PD- 59. In this study I analyze the events leading up to the creation of PD-59 and its subsequent debate in newspapers as well as secret policy meetings using Habermas’s theory of deliberative politics from a critical rhetorical perspective. This analysis unpacks the complex legitimizing process that functions to legitimize policy that is created outside of the public eye. iv Contents: Chapter 1, Introduction 1 Chapter summary 4 Chapter 2, Habermasian framework 9 Habermas’s corpus 10 Lifeworld and communicative action 16 Systems world 19 Argument and communicative competence 19 Truth and science 21 Discourse ethics 24 Deliberative politics 30 Public sphere and the political sphere 32 Debates on Habermas and rhetoric 37 Habermasian methodological framework 57 Chapter 3, Nuclear weapons and the rhetoric of nuclear policy 66 Literature 66 Deterrence 70 Nuclear weapons and communication 72 Chapter 4, The construction of PD-59 77 Rhetorical perspective of deterrence 77 Discourse of deterrence prior to PD-59 80 President Carter’s countervailing strategy 82 Documents in the construction of PD-59 83 v PD-18 88 Nuclear targeting policy review 94 SCC meeting 96 PD-59 97 Public discussion 103 Political discussion 111 Senate Hearing 119 Chapter 5, discursive politics 125 Initial policy discussions on deterrence 128 Deterrence in the documents 130 Normative claims 134 Public leak 143 Breaking the story 144 …”if deterrence fails”… 148 Procedural legitimacy 153 Post-leak political discussion 163 Senate hearing 167 Conclusion 180 Chapter 6, conclusion 181 Deterrence as discourse 181 Morality and ethics of nuclear deterrence 184 Democracy and PD-59 188 Theoretical implications 193 vi Major limitations 198 Author’s observations 200 PD-59 and the context of nuclear deterrence policy 203 Future studies 205 Bibliography 208 Appendix 1: Newspaper articles cited 223 Beecher, W. (1980, July 27) 223 Getler, M. (1980, Aug. 6) 227 Burt, R. (1980, Aug. 6) 230 Burt, R. (1980, Aug. 7) 235 Austin, A. (1980, Aug. 7) 238 Gwertzman, B. (1980, Aug. 9) 241 Burt, R. (1980, Aug. 11) 245 Gwertzman, B. (1980, Aug. 12) 249 Burt, R. (1980, Aug. 12) 252 Doder, D. (1980, Aug. 12) 256 Oberdorfer, D. (1980, Aug. 12) 259 Burt, R. (1980, Aug, 13) 262 Appendix 2: Beecher, W. (personal communication, 2015) 266 Marc Howard Rich to William Beecher, March 3, 2015 3:41pm. MST 266 William Beecher reply to Marc Howard Rich, March 4, 2015 10:43 am. MST 268 Marc Howard Rich reply to William Beecher, March 4, 2015 3:23 pm. MST 270 William Beecher reply to Marc Howard Rich, March 4, 2015 6:04 pm. MST 271 vii Marc Howard Rich reply to William Beecher March 4, 2015 6:23 pm. MST 272 William Beecher reply to Marc Howard Rich March 5, 2015 2:57 am. MST 272 Chapter 1, Introduction 1 What is not generally appreciated is that these arcane documents have a power of their own to drive budgets, to create both the appetite and the justification for new weapon systems and on occasion to provide the martial drum to lead a nation. As arcane and antiseptic as these documents may seem to be, these studies and papers can be enormously important. ~Hon. Frank Church (Senate, 1980, p. 1) Chapter 1, Introduction On July 25, 1980 President Jimmy Carter signed Presidential Directive 59 (hereafter PD- 59) “Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy” that was a secret policy document intended to give the United States more flexibility in the deployment of nuclear weapons. PD-59 set up the conditions where limited nuclear options could be developed alongside the already established Single Integrated Operational Plan (hereafter SIOP). The doctrine of limited nuclear options that was contained within PD-59 became “one of the most controversial nuclear policy directives of the Cold War” after a journalist named William Beecher broke the story and then portions of the document were leaked to the public by the Carter administration (Burr, 2012). In my study I explore the rhetorical situation that produced PD-59 and the subsequent controversy over the legitimation of the policy. This exploration addresses the broad question of how does government secrecy legitimately operate within a pluralistic democratic society with a focus on the question of how does the public make sense of and legitimate nuclear policy? This study will focus on how the actual practice of government secrecy can inform normative conceptions of democracy. This question is specifically applied to a Habermasian framework that is typically skeptical of anything that will allow government operations outside of the public eye. PD-59 came from and extended a debate over the nature of nuclear deterrence policy. There are several different ways to approach the idea of deterrence; as a military strategy, Chapter 1, Introduction 2 international relations issue, or even a rational claim, however I approach deterrence from a rhetorical perspective grounded in a Habermasian view of language. Using this perspective, nuclear deterrence policy becomes a series of discourses that shape military strategy and international relations by invoking a variety of debates regarding nuclear issues. For this study deterrence policy will be conceptualized as a discourse that is concerned with Habermas’s criticizable validity claims; which are claims of truth, claims of sincerity, and claims for normative rightness. In the discourse of deterrence, various actors use this opportunity to invoke and defend their view of the scientific properties of nuclear weapons, the morality of nuclear weapons, and the sincerity of actors and relations of the nations involved in deterrence. This concept of deterrence as a discourse fits within Habermas’s view of discursive politics, and becomes the foundation for constructing an understanding of how government secrecy may be legitimated democratically. This legitimation occurs through the process of interrogating the validity claims as well as following a procedurally normative communicative process. I use a Habermasian view of democracy as both its analytical structure as well as its normative foundation. Habermas’s theories are particularly well suited for this study because he offers a very complex understanding of society, developed over the course of 50 years of literature. Those theories account for the multiple types of arguments that operate within nuclear discourse and offer a critical methodology for dealing with scientific discourse, moral discussion, notions of power, questions of sincerity, and the democratic process. Habermas’s political theory rests on the assumptions of radical democracy which are; that the citizenry have a voice in the laws that they live under, that there is some institutionalized process that allows the citizenry to have a voice in those laws, and that coercive governmental power is legitimated strictly through the public opinion created in the institutionalized form (Habermas, 2014). These basic procedural Chapter 1, Introduction 3 standards allow for a normative conception of democracy whereby the public is the final authority for government action. From here Habermas’s theory operates through a communicative lens that establishes a postmetaphysical procedural framework for rationality. This normative framework allows for an understanding of legitimacy grounded in correct procedure rather than a particular worldview or historically situated forms of knowledge. A political discussion can be analyzed though this framework to see how a public specifically
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Voters in CA, WA and ID Reject Efforts to Gut Local Zoning and Environmental Protections
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 8, 2006 Voters in CA, WA and ID Reject Efforts to Gut Local Zoning and Environmental Protections Using eminent domain as Trojan Horse fails to fool most voters CONTACT: Alex Goldschmidt, Smart Growth America, (202) 207-3355 x112, [email protected] Washington, DC – Voters in three key Western states Tuesday resoundingly rejected anti-taxpayer measures that sought to hamstring communities’ efforts to manage growth and protect property values and the environment. Foisted onto the ballots with millions from New York real estate mogul Howard Rich and his allied groups, the measures in California, Washington and Idaho would have mimicked a 2004 measure from Oregon, requiring taxpayers to pay landowners when a zoning or environmental protection reduced their speculative profits. If taxpayers couldn’t pay they would have to waive the rules, solely for those landowners. “Voters know their communities need to be able to make sound, local decisions in order to protect our neighborhoods, clean water and quality of life,” said Don Chen, executive director of Smart Growth America. “While our coalition doggedly defends the rights of individual property owners, these measures were really about crippling community planning and creating windfalls for certain speculators.” Only one of the four pay-or-waive measures, Arizona’s Proposition 207, was approved. There, Rich and company deceptively claimed the initiative was limited to restricting the use of eminent domain, and under-funded opponents lacked the resources to unmask the ruse amid 18 other ballot initiatives. Rich poured $1.5 million into the effort to undermine Arizona’s capacity to deal with its rapid growth and protect the state’s military bases from encroaching development.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 Ballot Measure Overview
    2006 BALLOT MEASURE OVERVIEW AN A NALYSIS O F TH E MON EY RAISED A RO UND MEASU RES O N STA TE BA LLO TS I N 2006 By THE N ATIO NA L IN STI TU TE O N MON EY IN STA TE PO LI TI CS NOVEMBER 5, 2007 833 NORTH LAST CHANCE GULCH, SECOND FLOOR • HELENA, MT • 59601 PHONE 406-449-2480 • FAX 406-457-2091 • E-MAIL [email protected] www.followthemoney.org The National Institute on Money in State Politics is the only nonpartisan, nonprofit organization revealing the influence of campaign money on state-level elections and public policy in all 50 states. Our comprehensive and verifiable campaign-finance database and relevant issue analyses are available for free through our Web site FollowTheMoney.org. We encourage transparency and promote independent investigation of state-level campaign contributions by journalists, academic researchers, public-interest groups, government agencies, policymakers, students and the public at large. 833 North Last Chance Gulch, Second Floor • Helena, MT 59601 Phone: 406-449-2480 • Fax: 406-457-2091 E-mail: [email protected] www.FollowTheMoney.org This publication was made possible by grants from: JEHT Foundation, Fair and Participatory Elections Carnegie Corporation of New York, Strengthening U.S. Democracy Ford Foundation, Program on Governance and Civil Society The Pew Charitable Trusts, State Policy Initiatives Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Program on Democratic Practice The statements made and the views expressed are solely the responsibility of the Institute. National Institute on Money in State Politics
    [Show full text]
  • Nixon Now: the Courts and the Presidency After Twenty-Five Years
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1999 Nixon Now: The ourC ts and the Presidency after Twenty-five Years Michael Stokes Paulsen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Paulsen, Michael Stokes, "Nixon Now: The ourC ts and the Presidency after Twenty-five Years" (1999). Minnesota Law Review. 1969. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1969 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Nixon Now: The Courts and the Presidency After Twenty-five Years Michael Stokes Paulsent United States v. Nixon' was, and remains today, a case of enormous doctrinal and political significance-easily one of the five most important Supreme Court decisions of the last fifty years. The decision proximately led to the forced resignation of a President of the United States from office. The decision helped spawn a semi-permanent statutory regime of Independ- ent Counsel, exercising the prosecutorial power of the United States and investigating executive branch officials 2-- a regime that has fundamentally reshaped our national politics. Nixon provided not only the political context that spawned the Inde- pendent Counsel statute, but a key step in the doctrinal evolu- tion that led the Court to uphold its constitutionality, incor- rectly, fourteen years later, in Morrison v. Olson.3 United States v. Nixon also established the principle that the President possesses no constitutional immunity from com- pulsory legal process, a holding that led almost inexorably to the Supreme Court's unanimous rejection of presidential im- munity from civil litigation for non-official conduct, twenty- three years later, in Clinton v.
    [Show full text]
  • How and Why Idaho Terminated Term Limits Scott .W Reed
    Idaho Law Review Volume 50 | Number 3 Article 1 October 2014 How and Why Idaho Terminated Term Limits Scott .W Reed Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho-law-review Recommended Citation Scott .W Reed, How and Why Idaho Terminated Term Limits, 50 Idaho L. Rev. 1 (2014). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho-law-review/vol50/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Idaho Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HOW AND WHY IDAHO TERMINATED TERM LIMITS SCOTT W. REED1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 II. THE 1994 INITIATIVE ...................................................................... 2 A. Origin of Initiatives for Term Limits ......................................... 3 III. THE TERM LIMITS HAVE POPULAR APPEAL ........................... 5 A. Term Limits are a Conservative Movement ............................. 6 IV. TERM LIMITS VIOLATE FOUR STATE CONSTITUTIONS ....... 7 A. Massachusetts ............................................................................. 8 B. Washington ................................................................................. 9 C. Wyoming ...................................................................................... 9 D. Oregon ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Contested Ground: Presidential Power and the Constitution Daniel Farber (Oct. 2019 Draft) As the Title Indicates, This Is a Book
    Contested Ground: Presidential Power and the Constitution Daniel Farber (Oct. 2019 Draft) As the title indicates, this is a book about the constitutional powers of the Presidents and their limits. The plan is for a short book aimed at the general reader (thus, few if any footnotes, informal tone, etc.) I would like the book to be useful for readers regardless of their political stance or viewpoint on executive power. The book begins by laying some foundations, explaining the history leading up to Article II of the Constitution; the language of Article II; and the current battle over the “unitary executive” theory. Many issues that arose in the early years continue to percolate today. These issues include the degree of presidential control over the Executive Branch, Presidential autonomy in foreign affairs, the President’s power to take military actions, and the President’s power to respond to unexpected emergencies. These issues occupy the middle portion of the book. The final part of the book discusses the constitutional checks on presidential power. Constitutional law also limits presidential power in several ways. Courts may intervene either to prevent the President from straying outside of the powers granted by Article III, or to enforce the restrictions that the Bill of Rights places on all governmental powers. Judicial efforts to limit presidential powers encounter constitutional issues of their own, involving matters such as executive privilege, presidential immunity from damages, and possible limits on criminal prosecution of a president. Congress also has the ability to impose checks on the President, such as use of the power of the purse, congressional investigations, and ultimately the power of impeachment.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report, 2018-19
    ANNUAL REPORT 2018-19 FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2019 “We are embarking on a forward trajectory that positions Howard University as a model of excellence, in a contemporary context, across everything we do, from academics to operations to fulfilling our legacy and mission of truth and service. This plan outlines our bold strategy to provide a quality educational experience while also doubling down on our commitment to produce distinguished global leaders.” PRESIDENT WAYNE A. I. FREDERICK, M.D., MBA 1 HISTORY OF HOWARD UNIVERSITY 2 LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN 3 LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT 5 THE YEAR IN REVIEW 13 STUDENT ACCOLADES 21 HIGH-PROFILE VISITORS 29 ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS 35 NEW APPOINTMENTS 39 STUDENT ENROLLMENT 41 FINANCIALS 47 BOARD OF TRUSTEES 48 ADMINISTRATION b HOWARD UNIVERSITY 2018-2019 ANNUAL REPORT HISTORY OF HOWARD UNIVERSITY Since 1867, Howard has awarded more than 100,000 acre facility in northwest Washington and a 108-acre tract of degrees in the professions, arts, sciences and humanities. land in Beltsville, MD. Howard ranks among the highest producers of the nation’s Black professionals in medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, Howard prepares men and women to advance social justice engineering, nursing, architecture, religion, law, music, social and the preservation of human liberty. In each of its 13 schools work and education. and colleges, Howard University seeks to develop technically competent and morally committed individuals. The University’s The University has long held a commitment to the study of library system contains more than 1.8 million volumes, disadvantaged persons in American society and throughout including the Channing Pollock Collection.
    [Show full text]
  • Does the President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions?
    Fordham Law Review Volume 79 Issue 6 Article 2 November 2011 Who's In Charge? Does the President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions? Robert V. Percival Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert V. Percival, Who's In Charge? Does the President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions? , 79 Fordham L. Rev. 2487 (2011). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol79/iss6/2 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHO’S IN CHARGE? DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE DIRECTIVE AUTHORITY OVER AGENCY REGULATORY DECISIONS? Robert V. Percival* Most regulatory statutes specify that agency heads rather than the President shall make regulatory decisions .1 Yet for more than four decades every President has established some program to require pre-decisional review and clearance of agency regulatory decisions, usually conducted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).2 On January 18, 2011, President Barack Obama joined his seven predecessors in expressly endorsing regulatory review when he signed Executive Order 13,563.3 President Obama’s regulatory review program generally emulates those of his two most recent predecessors, relying on OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to review only the most significant agency rulemaking actions.4 Although this form of presidential oversight of rulemaking is now well established, an important, unresolved question is whether the President has the authority to dictate the substance of regulatory decisions entrusted by statute to agency heads.
    [Show full text]
  • © Copyright 2020 Yunkang Yang
    © Copyright 2020 Yunkang Yang The Political Logic of the Radical Right Media Sphere in the United States Yunkang Yang A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2020 Reading Committee: W. Lance Bennett, Chair Matthew J. Powers Kirsten A. Foot Adrienne Russell Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Communication University of Washington Abstract The Political Logic of the Radical Right Media Sphere in the United States Yunkang Yang Chair of the Supervisory Committee: W. Lance Bennett Department of Communication Democracy in America is threatened by an increased level of false information circulating through online media networks. Previous research has found that radical right media such as Fox News and Breitbart are the principal incubators and distributors of online disinformation. In this dissertation, I draw attention to their political mobilizing logic and propose a new theoretical framework to analyze major radical right media in the U.S. Contrasted with the old partisan media literature that regarded radical right media as partisan news organizations, I argue that media outlets such as Fox News and Breitbart are better understood as hybrid network organizations. This means that many radical right media can function as partisan journalism producers, disinformation distributors, and in many cases political organizations at the same time. They not only provide partisan news reporting but also engage in a variety of political activities such as spreading disinformation, conducting opposition research, contacting voters, and campaigning and fundraising for politicians. In addition, many radical right media are also capable of forming emerging political organization networks that can mobilize resources, coordinate actions, and pursue tangible political goals at strategic moments in response to the changing political environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of Legal Counsel
    OPINIONS OF THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONSISTING OF SELECTED MEMORANDUM OPINIONS ADVISING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN RELATION TO THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES EDITOR Nathan A. Forrester VOLUME 26 2002 WASHINGTON 2012 227-329 VOL_26_PROOF.pdf 1 10/22/12 11:13 AM 227-329 VOL_26_PROOF.pdf 2 10/22/12 11:13 AM Attorney General John D. Ashcroft Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel Jay S. Bybee Deputy Assistant Attorneys General Office of Legal Counsel Sheldon Bradshaw Joan L. Larsen Patrick F. Philbin M. Edward Whelan III John C. Yoo iii 227-329 VOL_26_PROOF.pdf 3 10/22/12 11:13 AM OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL Attorney-Advisers (2002) Jonathan G. Cedarbaum Jeffery P. Kehne Paul P. Colborn Jennifer L. Koester Robert. J. Delahunty Daniel L. Koffsky John A. Eisenberg Caroline D. Krass Curtis E. Gannon Martin S. Lederman Rosemary A. Hart Herman Marcuse James C. Ho Nick Quinn Rosenkranz Clare Huntington Leslie A. Simon Gregory F. Jacob George C. Smith Steffen J. Johnson Robert W. Werner iv 227-329 VOL_26_PROOF.pdf 4 10/22/12 11:13 AM FOREWORD The Attorney General has directed the Office of Legal Counsel to publish selected opinions on an annual basis for the convenience of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of the government, and of the professional bar and the general public. The first twenty-five volumes of opinions published covered the years 1977 through 2001. The present volume covers 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Sources/ Credits
    SNAKE, THE PLAIN AND ITS PEOPLE SOURCES/CRED ITS SOURCES/ CREDITS SE LECTIVE BI BLI OG RAP HY AN D SOU RCES OF TH E QUOTATIONS C H. 1: SEE I N G THE LA N D in Idaho," U.S. Geological Survey BlI lletin, I Park," U.S. Geological Survey Profess ional no. 199 (1902); State of Idaho, Dept. of Paper, no. 729-B (1972); CreIghton, D.N;; Alt, David D.,and Donald W. Hynd­ Agri culture, 1989 Agriculture Statistics "Menan Buttes, Southeas tern IdahD, man, Roadside GeologJ) of Idaho (1989) ; (1989); Stearns, Harold T., "Origins of the Rocky Mounta lJ1 SectIon of the Geologica I Arrington, Leonard L "Irrigation SOCiety of America, Centen11lal Field In the Snake River Valley: An H is- Guide, 2 (1 987):109-] 1; Doh erty, D.J., torical Overview," idaho Yesterdays L.A McBroome, and M.A Kuntz, 30 (Summer /Sp ring 1986):3-11 "Preliminary Geologic Interpreta­ ["They thought I was crazy" quote ti on and Lithologic Log of the Ex­ from p . 8]; Bartlett, Ri chard, Great ploratoryTest Well (1 EL-1 ), Idaho Surveys of the AlI1ericall West (1962); National Engineering Laboratory, Buwulda, John P., "A Preliminary Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho," Reconnaissance of the Gas and Oil U.S. Geological Survey Open File Re­ Possibilities of Southwestern and port, no. 79-1248 (1979); Hackett, South-Central Idaho," Idaho Bureau W.R , and L.A.Morgan, "Explosive of Mines al1d Geology, pamphlet 5 Basaltic and Rhyolitic Volcanism of (July 1923) ["unfavorable" quote the Eastern Sna ke River Plain," from p. 10]; Gazin, C.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Libertarian
    FREE LIBERTARIAN Monthly Newsletter of the Free Libertarian Party VOL. 2, N0.1 1 JANUARY 1973 HOSPERS/NATHAN 3RD IN ELECTORALVOTES John Hospers, the Libertarian Party candidate for President, finished third in the presidential election receiving one electoral vote from Robert MacBride, an at­ torney from Charlottsville, Virginia. The one electoral vote FLP-EINDS HOME placed Hospers and his running mate Toni Nathan 16 votes behind Democrat George McGovern of South Dakota. The Free Libertarian Party of New York has finally found a ·permanent home. The party headquarters are moving to: Robert MacBride, a lifelong Republican, stated: "In casting my vote for another can_didate I am trying to tell 15 West 38th St., New York City 10018 (President Nixon) that he has lost his way; that this country should not move to a controlled mercantilistic economy .. " He further stated that he voted for the Libertarians "on behalf where we will have permanent office space, mailing address of the millions in this country who have helplessly watched and telephone listing. The telephone number will be an­ presidential leadership inexorably move the federal nounced in the next newsletter, and hopefully will be listed government in the direction of ever-greater control over the by Ma Bell in the directory. One never knows, but members lives of all of us." are urged to ask Ma anyway. Toni Nathan thus became the first woman to ever receive Anyone with electrical, carpentry, design or other skills is an electoral vote. Several women's magazines are now urged to contact Howard Rich at (212) 299-0686.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Print Viewer 11/17/10 11:27 AM
    Multi-Print Viewer 11/17/10 11:27 AM Oregon, 6 other states blanketed in records bid Oregonian, The (Portland, OR) - Saturday, October 7, 2006 Author: GOSIA WOZNIACKA, The Oregonian SUMMARY: FOIA | A group wants e-mail pertaining to property rights and spending limits, an effort that will cost time and money Close to 500 cities, school districts and state agencies in Oregon, and thousands more in six other states, have been hit with public records requests for all e-mails pertaining to any communication regarding measures on term limits, property rights or limiting spending, an undertaking most local municipalities say will take months and thousands of dollars to complete. A Virginia-based group, Citizens in Charge, is mounting what its Web site calls "a study of public resource abuse" under the name CitizenFOIA (FOIA stands for Freedom of Information Act). Citizens in Charge is aiming its campaign, which also includes requests for Internet and e-mail use policies and their enforcement, at Oregon and other states where groups backed by Howard Rich, the head of Americans for Limited Government and U.S. Term Limits, pushed spending limits or property rights measures this year. Citizens In Charge's president, Paul Jacob, says his group is nonpartisan. "Our goal is basically to find out to what degree public resources are being used for political campaigning and to make sure those resources are not abused," he said. Oregon election law forbids public employees to send, forward, copy or distribute e-mail that supports or opposes a political committee, election petition, candidate or measure.
    [Show full text]