Review of Don Grundmann’s CandleCrusade.org

The following was posted at IPR (Independent Political Report) as a review of Don Grundmann’s website CandleCrusade.org.

Dr. Don Grundmann

Former State Chairman for the California Constitution Party, a 2008 and 2012 Constitution Party presidential candidate, and frequent IPR reader, Don Grundmann operates CandleCrusade.org. It hosts ten pages of documents supporting Grundmann’s controversial thesis that the true agenda of the LGBT movement is the corruption of children, ideally through legalized molestation, to solidify and normalize homosexuality. In IPR discussion, Grundmann often refers to his website as proof for his claims

As a result of Grundmann’s strongly held beliefs, IPR discussions on LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) issues are often contentious and usually descend into name-calling, the lowest rung on Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement. In order to foster a higher level of discussion, I volunteered to make a neutral assessment of the content on CandleCrusade.org.

The Last Stop for Free Speech?

Originally posted at Independent Political Report (IPR)

No visitor retains the right to post on IPR. The owner can manage the site as he pleases. But there is no reason IPR cannot attempt to replicate the free and fair society that its owner, contributors, and followers envision.

IPR currently faces a crisis of conscience. Two years ago, it took the unlibertarian step of banning one good faith commenter.  Now, some on the site are calling for the ban of another good faith commenter.  This reaction is a symptom of a much larger disease affecting the entire United States. Rather than forgiving unfortunate comments and disputing ideas on the highest levels of Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement, some opt to silence voices completely; the IPR equivalent of a ban. In argument, these tactics do not win. As Thomas Dewey expressed in a 1948 GOP presidential debate, pushing disputed views underground only allows those views to fester unchallenged.

Phil Davison Considers 2016 Libertarian Party Presidential Run

Official photo of Councilman Davison

Longtime councilman Phil Davison of Minerva, Ohio has expressed interest in the 2016 presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party. Davison, best known for his inspirational 2010 speech, briefly ran for the Boston Tea Party’s 2012 presidential nomination.

“Would love to run,” says Davison via Facebook, “Think about it every day. Am approached every day about it.”

A self-described “radical,” Davison expressed his libertarian views during a 2011 appearance on Comedy Central’s Tosh.0.  He is pro-choice on abortion, holds relaxed views on marijuana, and is an advocate for free speech.

Should Davison decide to run, he will enter a growing field of candidates for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination that includes perennial candidate Kip Lee, progressive activist Robert Milnes, and writer Darryl Perry.

Video Released of Robert Milnes at 2012 Alternative Candidates Debate

Ken Krawchuk at the podium

Robert Milnes

Andre Barnett

Last month I contacted the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania’s two time gubernatorial nominee Ken Krawchuk about footage of a January 2012 debate he moderated in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania. The debate, sponsored by Democracy Unplugged, interested me because it featured Libertarian presidential candidate Robert Milnes of New Jersey.  At the time, no publicly accessible videos of Milnes were known to exist.  Following my request, Krawchuk posted video of the two hour-long debate to YouTube, enabling me and other viewers to see footage of Milnes for the first time.

Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement

In March of 2008, English computer programmer and essayist Paul Graham wrote a paper discussing the unique dynamic of internet disagreement, entitled “How to Disagree.” Graham discovered that individuals tended to be more disagreeable during internet interactions than during face to face encounters; perhaps the result of a limited mental filter online.  In order to promote online civility and worthwhile internet debate, Graham developed a simple hierarchy of disagreement, encouraging users to aim for the top.

Below is a graphical depiction of Graham’s theory as uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.