Prometheus Award nominations announced

Movie lovers have the Academy Awards, music fans have the Grammys, readers have the Pulitzers. Science fiction fans such as myself have their awards, too.
One of the awards given out in science fiction is called the Prometheus. Its list of 2008 novels nominated for the award was announced today. (Disclosure: I am one of the judges who worked on the list).
The books are:
“Matter” by Iain Banks;
“Little Brother,” Cory Doctorow;
“The January Dancer,” Michael Flynn;
“Saturn’s Children,” Charles Stross;
“Opening Atlantis,” Harry Turtledove;
“Half a Crown,” Jo Walton.
More information here.
The Prometheus, given to science fiction novels that promote the cause of freedom, are not the biggest award in science fiction. At best, it’s like the Golden Globe. The top award, the equivalent of the Oscars, are called the Hugo Awards, and the novel nominees for the award were announced a few days ago.
The Hugo nominees are:
“Anathem,” Neal Stephenson;
“The Graveyard Book,” Neil Gaiman;
“Little Brother,” Cory Doctorow;
“Saturn’s Children,” Charles Stross;
“Zoe’s Tale,” John Scalzi.
I have read all of these books except for the Gaiman and the Stross. I especially recommend the books by Banks, Doctorow, Stephenson and Flynn.
(Cross posted at Jackson Street Beat).

Doctorow's outstanding 'Little Brother'

I've been reading novels that have been nominated for the Prometheus Award, the literary award for science fiction handed out by the Libertarian Futurist Society. I'm on the committee that's charged with sifting through the nominees (13 so far, I think) and coming up with a list of five or so for a finalist ballot that the general membership will vote on.

I've just finished Cory Doctorow's "Little Brother," one of the nominees. It's a really fine book, one of the best books I've read in months, and I recommended it to anyone who wants to read a good novel, learn about Internet and computer technology as it relates to privacy, or is concerned about civil liberties and politics. It was written for the young adult market, but it's really a book for everyone. Everyone else on the committee seems to like it, too; at the very least, I think it's almost surely going to be a finalist.

The book also includes an afterword by Bruce Schneier, who also contributed an afterword to one of my other favorite books, "Cryptonomicon" by Neal Stephenson, which was a finalist for the Prometheus some years ago.

Doctorow at his Web site is his usual mix of rampant egomania and breathtaking generosity. He has a post urging everyone to nominate him for the Hugo Award for his latest batch of fiction. He also has free downloads for "Little Brother" and a new book of essays, "Content," which I'll tackle when I finish the various Prometheus Award nominees.

Prometheus Hall of Fame nominees announced

About a year ago, I joined the Libertarian Futurist Society, a group that exists mainly to present two annual literary awards for science fiction works concerned with liberty: The Prometheus Award, for the best novel published the year before, and the Prometheus Hall of Fame Award, for a classic.

During last year's awards, I simply voted for the nominees in each category, but for 2009, I've been allowed to serve on the two judging committees. The Prometheus Award nominees won't be announced until next spring, but the Hall of Fame panel has finished its work and come up with six nominees.

They are:

• Falling Free, a novel by Lois McMaster Bujold (1988);
• Courtship Rite, a novel by Donald M. Kingsbury (1982);
• "As Easy as A.B.C.," a short story by Rudyard Kipling (1912);
• The Lord of the Rings, a three-volume novel by J. R. R. Tolkien (1955);
• The Once and Future King, including The Book of Merlyn, a novel by T. H. White (1977); and
• The Golden Age, a novel by John C. Wright (2002).

I think it's a strong batch of nominees.

There are three works that weren't on the ballot last year, and I really like two of them, including Courtship Rite, about a planet with few natural resources that practices cannibalism and group marriage. Sounds off-putting, I know, but it's a very interesting and original novel. The John Wright is a kind of far-future libertarian utopia; the conflict comes from a struggle by the hero to build and pilot an interstellar spaceship. His peaceful society believes establishing colonies on other star systems could reintroduce war. Wright is a very philosophical writer, with a style obviously influenced by Jack Vance. The Bujold, also new to the "Hall of Fame" ballot, isn't terrible, but it's not particularly interesting, either.

Official announcement is here.

Who's our man (or woman) in 2012?

The Libertarian Party desperately needs a good candidate in four years, so perhaps it isn't too early to start talking about who that person should be.

Over at Reason's Hit and Run blog, Nick Gillespie has tried to get the discussion rolling by mentioning two people: Michael Munger, a Duke University political science professor who ran for governor of North Carolina this year, and Angela Keaton, identified as a Libertarian Party activist. Both seem initially more attractive to me than Wayne Allyn Root, who already is running for the nomination.

At first blush, Keaton seems to be kind of a performance artist candidate. I haven't seen any sign of a real organization. Then again, she works for the folks at Antiwar.com, so she seems likely to be strong on the peace issue, which will likely be an asset in four years, when the antiwar crowd has had time to become disillusioned with Barack Obama. It's really too early to express an opinion, but I've "friended" her on Facebook. A campaign Web site or blog would be a nice sign of seriousness.

As for Munger, I followed Nick's link to a Reason article about him and found that Munger said he was aiming for a final result of 3 percent to 4 percent of the statewide vote. He finished at 2.85 percent.

This is a big deal, because it bespeaks a Libertarian candidate who actually understands politics -- a 3 percent showing is GOOD for a Libertarian. He's also intelligent and well spoken.

Munger is currently planning to run for the North Carolina state senate in 2010, but his blog seems to refute the idea that he's running for president; in this post, he mentions the Reason post but says Gillespie is "having a little fun." I wrote to Munger, and he confirmed that he's not a candidate for president until at least 2016, and maybe not then. Still, he bears watching.

Libertarian vote up for grabs?

Before I forgot, I wanted to link to this post a few days ago by Cato's David Boaz, which posits (among other interesting points) that the libertarian vote is up for grabs between the two major parties: "A candidate in either party who presented himself as a product of the social freedom of the Sixties and the economic freedom of the Eighties would be tapping into a market that both parties have yet to nail down." (Given the Libertarian Party's latest failure to attract a significant number of votes, I wonder if some libertarians might be searching for an alterative.)

I also like this comment about the Republicans and educated voters: "If conservative Republicans continue to respond to the loss of educated voters by declaring themselves proud to be 'real Americans' who don't care much for book learning and Darwinism and elite stuff, they will only accelerate the process."

We're in Reason!

I joined the Libertarian Futurist Society a little less than a year ago, entitling me to vote for the Prometheus Award and the Prometheus Hall of Fame Award (I've been reading SF like a fiend for months as a result, particularly because, to my surprise, I was allowed to join two different committees, which come up with the nominees for the two awards.)

Reason magazine has just published a rather good article by Katherine Mangu-Ward on Tor books, the five nominees for the Prometheus Award this year (all were Tor books), the LFS and the Prometheus.

Of the five nominees this year, I loved two: Jo Walton's "Ha'Penny" and Ken MacLeod's "The Execution Channel." Harry Turtledove's "The Gladiator" is also very good. "Fleet of Worlds" by Larry Niven and Edward M. Lerner is a quite readable "Analog" novel. The only one I really didn't like was "Ragamuffin" by Tobias Buckell. Very violent, but little of literary or ideological interest. Obviously, I must have some kind of blind spot, as other LFS members must have really liked it.

My Bob Barr interview

I interviewed the Libertarian candidate for president, Bob Barr, along with two other reporters, when he spoke at Oberlin College last week. For anyone who is interested, large excerpts from the interview are here.

Selling libertarianism

The new issue of Reason magazine has a David Weigel interview with Bob Barr (not online yet, as far as I can tell) which includes a great Barr quote on how Libertarians should talk to the unconverted:

"Every citizen in this country, I believe, has some area of their lives — whether it's their personal behavior within their homes, whether it's how to educate and discipline their children, whether it's about how to run their business, their political thought, their religious practices — where they want to be left alone. The Libertarian Party, I think, needs to recognize that and appeal to that and draw that out from the American public and the American voters, rather than talk just generally about great philosophical principles."

George Washington, traitor

When you read debates about the Iraq war, it's striking to see which opinions are considered respectable and which are considered beyond the pale.

Here's a quote from an isolationist kook who sounds like Ron Paul: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible." Here's another from the same guy: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them."

As you can guess from my headline, both quotes are from George Washington (the 1796 farewell address.)

Megan McArdle knows what to do with people who oppose roaming the world looking for wars to get into -- dismiss them. On her blog, she concedes that the people who opposed the war turned out to be right, but then warns that many such weren't the right kind of people: "Other peoples' opposition was animated by principles that may be right, but aren't really very helpful: the pacifists, the isolationists, the reflexive opponents of Republicans or the US military. Within the limits on foreign policy in a hegemonic power, these just aren't particularly useful, again, regardless of whether you are metaphysically correct."

Note the presumption that if you have doubts about the wisdom of hegemonic power, you aren't useful. As Thoreau writes at Unqualified Offerings, "If the most thoughtful critics of a disaster, the ones with the best track record of predictions, are also the ones with ideas that fall well outside the status quo, well, maybe that means something!"

Meanwhile, over at Instapundit, Charles Martin weighs in on a depressing choice: Who is more libertarian, McCain or the two Democratic front runners? Martin writes, "I can see a libertarian case against McCain, but you go to an election with the candidates you've got. Does Matt [Matt Welch] really think McCain would be *more* of a libertarian disaster than "It takes a village"/"We're doing it for your own good" Clinton or the "it would be a mandate, but it's a *voluntary* mandate" Messiah of Change?"

Well, Charles, it's arguable that McCain is the biggest disaster of all, because he's the least likely to do anything about the war machine and the ongoing slide into a National Security State.

Prometheus Award nominees listed

The Libertarian Futurist Society has announced the following nominees for the Prometheus Award:

RAGAMUFFIN, Tobias S. Buckell

THE EXECUTION CHANNEL, Ken MacLeod;

FLEET OF WORLDS, Larry Niven and Edward M. Lerner;

THE GLADIATOR, Harry Turtledove, and

HA'PENNY, Jo Walton.

Winners will be announced at Denvention 3 in August.

The Hall of Fame nominees this year are A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, Anthony Burgess; "As Easy as A.B.C.," Rudyard Kipling; THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH, C. S. Lewis; THE LORD OF THE RINGS, J.R. Tolkien, and THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING, T. H. White. (Kipling rendered differently here because it's a short story, not a novel.) The latter award may cause me considerable soul-searching; I love the Tolkien, but I'm not convinced yet of its Libertarian bona fides.

The Hugo nominees came out recently too; you can keep up with all this stuff at the Science Fiction Awards Watch blog.

Five years in Iraq

At the five-year anniversary of America's invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Cato Institute's Justin Logan, associate director of foreign policy studies, has posted a tough, well-worded comment on the disaster that deserves to be quoted here:

"Five years ago, few predicted that the Iraq war would turn out this way. (My Cato colleagues were notable exceptions.) The war's supporters, like Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, issued endless false assurances to the American people before the war that 'we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time.' Senator Hillary Clinton could not be bothered to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before voting to send U.S. troops into battle. The bipartisan foreign policy community in Washington that urged the American people to support this war has studiously avoided introspection over its consequences. Al Qaeda has been strengthened, Iran's regional stature has grown, our allies have been alienated, and our adversaries have rejoiced.

"Today, Senator McCain chortles about staying in Iraq for 100 years. The American people shrug their way to the next Britney Spears story. The sad fact is that until the American people demand more from their political leadership, there is no hope for a meaningful change in policy. In all likelihood the tenth anniversary of the Iraq war will come with U.S. troops patrolling Iraq. Perhaps that anniversary will precipitate a genuine change in policy."

More on Iraq from Cato, at the organization's home page, located here.

Libertarians for Obama

I've noticed quite a few Libertarians lately expressing sympathy for Barack Obama.

A couple of examples: Over at Antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo argues that the peace issue outweighs all others:

"In an emergency, it is necessary to focus on the immediate issue at hand: if your car is parked on the railroad tracks, and the train is barreling toward you, everything else must be put aside in the interest of survival. There's no time to think of the fate of the car, which you still owe money on, or whether your insurance will cover the damage. There's certainly no time to make a phone call, or to finish listening to your favorite song on the car radio. You must instead focus on the immediate priority, which is hightailing it to safety.

"That is the situation we face today."

It wouldn't be a Justin Raimondo post if it didn't have a moment of looniness; this time, he claims, apparently with a straight face, that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, "the Internet will be reined in." Still, his column is mostly reasonable and well-argued and worth reading in full.

Reason magazine's blog recently ran a post about Freedom Newspapers CEO Scott Flanders endorsing Obama: "Flanders reasoned that Obama is the best candidate to work on four top libertarian reforms: 1) Iraq withdrawal, 2) restoring the separation of church and state; 3) easing off victimless crimes such as drug use; 4) curtailing the Patriot Act."

Not a bad argument. I'd like to see the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, win this fall, although I also hope the Libertarian Party will come up with a reasonable candidate.

Ron Paul link removed

I've taken down my link to the Ron Paul campaign. That's what you get for supporting an anti-war politician, I suppose. You can probably guess why the link is gone, but if you've missed the news look here.

Also here.

Elevated discourse from the blogosphere

Not on board yet with the received wisdom that illegal Mexican immigrants are a dire threat to the Republic? Ilana Mercer says you are a traitor. Or as she writes in her blog post, "Open borders is the litmus test for philosophical treason."

Mercer doesn't oppose ALL immigration. Elsewhere in the post, she says that emigrated from South Africa. Apparently under her policy proposal, immigrants who can submit prose samples proving the ability to sound like Ann Coulter without a sense of humor would still be admitted.

Oh, and the people who don't support Ron Paul for president are "pussies" (same posting.) There's no word yet on whether Mercer is forming a committee of female bloggers for Paul, although I think "Women Against Pussies" has kind of a nice ring to it.

The new revisionism

Noninterventionism -- the doctrine of peace and free trade -- has been the mainstream position of libertarianism for decades. It's the foreign policy position that's always been advocated by the main libertarian political party, the main libertarian think-tank and every Libertarian Party presidential candidate who comes to mind, such as Harry Browne, Ron Paul, etc.

It's easy to see why. At the end of the day, libertarianism (or classic liberalism) is the "mind your own business" doctrine. You can't really say, "I believe in minding my own business, but I support invading countries halfway around the world such as Iraq that represent no threat to the U.S., so that I can kill thousands of people who have never done me any harm."

Lately, there's been a revisionist line that insists that libertarianism is somehow inherently militaristic. That's the position taken by Eric Dondero, chairman of the "Libertarian Defense Caucus," who posted a comment to my Nov. 30 posting.

What do real libertarians believe? Here is a typical posting on the Cato Institute's blog. Here's another, by a different author.

Here is the Libertarian Party's current position on the war in Iraq, which criticizes Democrats for not moving decisively enough to get us out of the war: "The Democrats don't seem poised to do anything which will substantially change our presence in Iraq. It is time for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible in a manner consistent with the with the safety of our troops."