Wouldn't it be much easier to reduce the amount of carbon we pour into the atmosphere than to set humanity adrift on massive floating pontoons? Geez. clipped from www.commondreams.org At first glance, they look like a couple of giant inflatable garden chairs that have washed out to sea.But they are, apparently, the ultimate solution to rapidly rising sea levels. This computer-generated image shows two floating cities, each with enough room for 50,000 inhabitants.Based on the design of a lilypad, they could be used as a permanent refuge for those whose homes have been covered in water. Major cities including London, New York and Tokyo are seen as being at huge risk from oceans which could rise by as much as 3ft by the end of this century.The ‘Lilypad City’ would float around the world as an independent and fully self-sustainable home. With a lake at its centre to collect and purify rainwater, it would be accessed by three separate marinas and feature artificial mountains to offer the inhabitants a change of scenery from the seascape.

by SAF staff

The Chicago Tribune’s call for repeal of the Second Amendment following the historic Heller Decision is an “unconscionable attack on the entire Bill of Rights and the freedoms it protects,” the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

In an editorial published on the day after the Supreme Court handed down its 5-4 ruling, the newspaper called the Second Amendment an “anachronism” that should be repealed. The newspaper supported its argument by falsely claiming that a 1939 case, U.S. v Miller, established the amendment as a “collective right” that applied only to service in some type of militia.

“The Chicago Tribune’s editors have demonstrated an appalling short-sightedness,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “If they are so willing to abandon one civil right for an entire class of American citizens, what’s next? Perhaps they would strip some citizens of their First Amendment rights to free speech or religion. Heaven help us should the Chicago Tribune editorial board one day decide that they don’t care for the editorial slant of their competitors at the Sun-Times, and call for a restriction on that newspaper’s freedom of the press.

“Once you make it acceptable to destroy one civil right,” Gottlieb observed, “it does not take a very big leap to embrace limitations on, or the abolition of, another civil right.

“Not once, in all the years that gun rights organizations have been vilified in the editorial columns of the Tribune and other newspapers did anyone from the firearms community suggest we should repeal the First Amendment,” he stated. “Unlike elitist newspaper editors, gun owners understand that the Bill of Rights is an all-or-nothing document, not a civil rights buffet from which we can pick and choose the rights we want to enjoy and those for which we have no stomach.

“We have always known the Second Amendment affirmed an individual civil right, and a truly objective reading of history by the Chicago Tribune would - if they had any notion of objectivity - lead them to the same conclusion,” Gottlieb concluded. “A generation of parents and grandparents of those now writing such nonsense in the Tribune risked, and all too frequently lost their lives to defend all of the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Tribune editors may as well just spit on their graves.”

 

Copyright © 2008 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.

Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
Email: InformationRequest@saf.org
 

Recently checking his website I discover that Bob Barr's campaign has reached its July 4 goal of $88,000 (they stood at something like $91,000 a few minutes ago).

We know, of course, that this will be followed by the next fundraising objective....

While it's unlikely in the extreme that the Barr/Root ticket is going to raise the $35 million or so Bob predicted at the national convention, a few million will undoubtedly come his way, primarily from former Ron Paul supporters or the conservatives who've ditched Senator John McCain.

Likewise, despite all the news of infighting and ballot-burning, the national Libertarian Party is constantly asking for my bucks to support ballot access.

Meanwhile there are literally hundreds of Libertarian candidates around the country running for local and State offices with barely two dimes to rub together.

Michigan Senatorial candidate Scotty Boman has just clawed his way to $3,000.

North Carolina gubernatorial candidate Dr Mike Munger raised $5,000 on the first day of his two-day Money Hand Grenade.

Others, like Jason Gatties (running for Lake Michigan College Board of Trustees), Jan McKay (running for NC State Senate in District 15), or Thibeaux Lincecum (running for the US House of Representatives in Maryland District 4) obviously can't afford the investment necessary to raise serious campaign donations.

As with McKay, many of our candidates haven't got websites up and running yet, and thus don't have any mechanism for even accepting online donations.

So I've got, as Jonathan Swift would say, A Modest Proposal.

It has two major parts:

Part One; Stop giving money to the Barr campaign.

I'm serious. Bob Barr is going to collect far more from disaffected conservatives than Libertarians could ever donate. Moreover, it is Barr who benefits most directly from every dollar you send to National for ballot access.

Part Two: Adopt a Libertarian candidate in a local or State race, and commit to a minimum monthly donation for the next for months.

If you were to send $100 to Barr/Root, you would join a legion of people (admittedly much smaller than the Obama or McCain legions, but still) ... or you might just be purchasing an air conditioning unit.

But if--like Shirley Vandeventer (the Delaware Curmudgeon and a fine weekend biker, food-porn-loving libertarian)--you decided to send $25/month to Jan McKay, you can be sure that she'll remember you as she prints campaign fliers she could never otherwise have afforded....

What's at stake here are two different views about building the Libertarian Party.

In one view, every four years we have the opportunity to place a presidential candidate in front of the American people to educate them about the ideology of Liberty, and when that candidate garners 400,000, or 4,000,000 votes we do what? Go home and congratulate ourselves that we have affected the national discourse?

In another view, we use our limited resources to improve the campaigns we can run at the local and State levels, and actually do the tough work of building a political movement from the bottom up, that gains momentum as people across the country begin to realize that our candidates actually do what they promise to do.

Especially this year, when our own presidential candidate is controversial enough within our own ranks that many Libertarians (like me or Tom Knapp) have found themselves unable to support him despite their best efforts, we have to think about making chicken salad out of chickenshit.

Think about it this way. My incredibly bad guesstimate is that the regular readership of the major Libertarian blogs is no more than 500-1,000 people, tops. I doubt that most Libertarian candidates for local offices are reading these blogs--if they are actually running campaigns, they probably don't have the time.

But if 1,000 Libertarians each agreed to find $25/month over the next four months for an adopted candidate (in or out of their own home states), we'd raise $25,000 a month for local and State races--$100,000 in all.

What could Jason Gatties, Jan McKay, or Thibeaux Lincecum do with an extra few hundred bucks?

Somewhere out there is a Libertarian candidate in the right district, in the right race, who could actually win with our support.

Forget Bob Barr. Forget donating to National.

Adopt a Libertarian candidate this month and start to make a difference.

It's twenty-five feet long, with tenticles the size of human legs....

Not recommended to wear at the airport....

The UK is learning: The Scottish Ambulance Service confirmed today that a package containing contact information from its Paisley Emergency Medical Dispatch Centre (EMDC) has been lost by the courier, TNT, while in transit to one of its IT suppliers. The portable data disk contained a copy of records of 894,629 calls to the ambulance service's Paisley EMDC since February...

Click on image to enlarge.

He is low on my list of likable ex-Senators. A cultural conservative to the max. But I do give him credit for putting the kabash on the proposed Reagan-Ford co-presidency proposal. I once met a female former ex-lobbyist who told me "Back in the day Jesse Helms was the biggest ass pincher in Washington." She alleged to be one of his pinchees. I wish I had something good to say about the man, but I don't. I'm sorry for his passing. I suppose the fact that he died on July 4 will play as a "sign" from the Almighty among the cultural conservatives. More about Senator "No" and the person President Reagan called "a thorn in my side" can be found here. clipped from en.wikinews.orgFormer United States senator from North Carolina Jesse Helms has died today at the age of 86 after a long batter with vascular dementia.Helms was born Jesse Alexander Helms, Jr. on October 18, 1921 in Monroe, North Carolina. He was a five term senator for N.C. and was also a former Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman. He also became the first U.S. lawmaker to speak in front of the United Nations Security Council. "Jesse Helms was one of the most consequential figures of the 20th century. Along with Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, he helped establish the conservative movement and became a powerful voice for free markets and free people," said Ed Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation.

... but Becky beat me to it. Um, well she beat me to it, but I mean that in a purely journalistic sense, not that I'd like to be beaten or anything. Not with a paddle. Don't. Stop. Don't Stop. Don't stop.

Ahem. Anyway.

Have a Happy Libertarian Fourth of July and do something--any small thing you can think of (donating to a Libertarian candidate who is not Bob Barr would be nice)--to stick it into the eye of the State.

The picture above, of course, is from Just a Girl in Short Shorts.

The banner below is from Jason Gatties.

This is a weird statistic: Some of the largest and medium-sized U.S. airports report close to 637,000 laptops lost each year, according to the Ponemon Institute survey released Monday. Laptops are most commonly lost at security checkpoints, according to the survey. Close to 10,278 laptops are reported lost every week at 36 of the largest U.S. airports, and 65 percent...

They flew this flag during the Revolutionary War. I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids—She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.—She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.—As if anxious to prevent all pretentions of quarrelling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenceless animal; and even when those weapons are shewn and extended for her defence, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal:—Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.—Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America? (Ben Franklin) It's the flag I fly on July 4th to remember those revolutionary soldiers and partisans who, against all odds, brought a conception of government that would in time inspire the world. It is in this beginning, in the sacrifice of these brave souls, in the strategic and cagey brilliance of its citizen generals (e.g., my favorite Francis Marion), in the theoretical and rhetorical genius of many of its founders and philosophers, and in the unsung thousands of sacrifices of ordinary citizens to secure and establish the new nation that my patriotism lies on this July 4th. While we rightly celebrate liberty on this day, do not forget that the first self-evident truth declared by our founding document reads "that all men are created equal." Celebrate and strive for equality as well.

Mike Munger reports that the first day of the Money Grenade has garnered 150 donations and topped $5,000!

For a Libertarian gubernatorial candidate (who is now polling 5%) this is outstanding--possibly unprecedented.

As he says, if you are so nerdy that you are reading this on the 4th of July, hit the link and make a donation today. (I did.)

And remember all those other deserving Libertarian candidates.

by Brian Irving 

Today is Independence Day. In between the parades, fireworks, BBQs, baseball games and other patriotic festivities, you may have occasion to actually read the Declaration of Independence. After all, that document is what this holiday is supposed to be about. You might even have time to read some editorials and news articles, watch some TV program or hear politicians pontificate about the significance of that document. And you’ll probably here these words:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

But read on, to the part the political class and power elites don’t want you to hear:

“–That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

While the punctuation and capitalization style in the original is strange to modern readers, you can’t deny Thomas Jefferson had a way with words. (I emphasized my favorite lines.) In today’s American English, he said:

“The only legitimate purpose of government is to ensure that no one violates anyone else’s rights.

“Therefore, a just government can only serve those people who voluntarily support it. Whenever any form of government exceeds its legitimate authority and begins destroying the very values it was instituted to protect, it is the right of the people to either change it or abolish it, and to set up a new government designed in such a way that its power is strictly limited to its proper functions.

“Of course, common sense says such drastic steps should not be taken except in extreme circumstances. And, historically, people will tolerate a great deal of oppression rather than change a system with which they have grown familiar and comfortable.

“However, when a long series of abuses, invariably pursuing the same goal, demonstrates a plan to reduce us to virtual slavery, it is our right (indeed, it is our duty!) to reject such government and institute a new system to provide for our future security.” (From A New Declaration of Independence by Timothy J. O’Brien)

Does this sound radical? Does it sound revolutionary? It should, because it is.

Jefferson himself said “The tree of Liberty should be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Clearly, the Founders were not afraid of revolution, violent or otherwise; the expected it. That the United States of America has managed to survives intact for more than 200 years, with only one “unpleasantness” is a testimony to the devotion of Americans to the ideal of liberty, but it is not a given.

John Adams noted that the “American Revolution” actually began well before July 4, 1776. “The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations…This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution” (Letter to H. Niles, February 13, 1818).

We need another Revolution — a revolution in our thinking of the origin of our rights and scope and purpose of government; a revolution in the sense of completing the circle and going back to our roots.

Our rights were granted to us by our creator, if you believe in one, but nevertheless ours by the very fact of our existence, and not given to us by government or anyone else.

Our rights are individual rights, not collective or group rights.

Our rights are numberless. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are just examples.

Our right to pursue happiness does not mean we are guaranteed to attain it — but  government cannot erect obstacles in our way.

The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were written to prevent government from evincing any design for despotism.

If government gets our of hand, we have a duty the get rid of it.

Read The Declaration of Independence on the Library of Congress website.

 

Read more of Irving’s rants at www.libertypoint.org.
 

Not only do I agree with the distinguished professor, but would add that Jefferson's intellectual accomplishments were remarkable. He was a true genius. Now if America, would live up to his heritage, I am confident things will turn out well as we move through the 21st century. If you want some great history, watch the video. Hopefully you will get as much out of it as I did.

What's really intriguing is how different posts get spun at different blogs, even though people usually have the ability to click through and check for themselves.

I've come to believe that probably fewer than 5-10% of readers--especially those who believe in the slant taken by the blog in question--ever click through to determine whether stories are being reported accurately, or if quotations are taken out of context.

Here's my case study for today, based on the interview that occasionally-in-the-public-eye-for-a-few-seconds LP Veep Candidate Wayne Allyn Root gave to Queerty in San Francisco.

Eric Dondero's Libertarian GOPer sandwiches in one Root quotation into this characterization of the interview:

Libertarian VP Candidate Wayne Root blasts Affirmative Action in Interview with Gay Magazine: Calls for Free Market-based diversity

Wayne Root has been accused in the past as having a heluva lot of Chuztpa. He tells it like it is, even if it may not jive with what certain individuals or groups want to hear at the time.

In the latest edition of Queerty, an major on-line magazine for Gay/Lesbian Americans, Root doesn't back down. In response to a question on the issue of special rights for Gays and Minorities, he equates government-forced Affirmative Action to "Big Brother Socialism."...

[Root quotation]

Also in the interview Root outlines the libertarian stance on Gay Marriage, at variance with the liberal Gay Rights Agenda of special rights. Root says, Government should stay the hell out of the issue of Marriage altogether.

That Root must have put it to them queers supporting that liberal Gay Rights Agenda of special rights.

On the other hand, Waldo characterizes the interview like this:

Libertarian veep Wayne Allyn Root, who recently made it onto Bob Barr's website, has surfaced for an interview- of all places- with the blog Queerty. It's worth reading to see how someone acquainted with gay rights asks the right followup questions. Watch Root- like Barr-stake his flag on marriage equality as a states' rights question, reassuring the South they'll never have to deal with it, while oozing his way around why he and Barr don't want a full repeal of DOMA.

Actually, having read Waldo's version first (which leaves Root looking like a faux-Libertarian Dixiecrat), it took me a few minutes to be sure that they were both talking about the same original post.

So how did the Waynster actually deal with gay marriage in the original?

AB: Switching gears here, getting a little more gay, what’s your stance on DOMA?

WR: Well, my stance is pretty simple. First of all, I believe it’s none of the government’s business to decide marriage at all. It’s a private ceremony or a religious ceremony. A church has a right to define it privately and if a church wants to ban - if the Catholic church or the Protestant church wants to say that two people of the same sex can’t get married, they can do that. It’s a free world and it’s a private enterprise. But, then, you have a right as a gay man or a lesbian woman to go and get married in a private ceremony by somebody who will marry you. It’s not a government’s job to license marriage. The government is a busy body. They try to get involved in people’s live and control us. The real answer is that religion shouldn’t in any way be involved in government and the government shouldn’t in any way license or get involved in religion and therefore I would fight to the death for anyone who is religious to practice their religion and I’d fight to the death for anyone who is not religious to not practice their religion. I’m not coming down on anyone’s side. I’m just saying the government should stay out of the process.

AB: Right, but part of DOMA is that the federal government may not recognize same-sex marriages, even if a state like Massachusetts or California does recognize them. What is your stance on that specific part of DOMA?

WR: Well, as much as I’d like government to be out of it completely, I’ve always been a states’ rights person. If you can’t progress on a federal level, at least you can get it inch-by-inch on a state-by-state level. I think it’s basically good for the people, if they have to be decided at all, first of all - like I said, I keep coming down on the side of fewer laws in general and the less government, the better, state or federal - but if it has to be decided, at least let’s get progress on the state level. That’s what I say about gay marriage or medical marijuana or online gambling. If Massachusetts or California and other progressive states legalize gay marriage, I say “great” and you as a gay person may want to go live there and feel more free, that’s great. If someone’s very deeply religious and they don’t want gay marriage and they therefore want therefore to choose to live in Alabama, Georgia or states with a more religious bent who don’t want to legalize it, then I say more power to those people who want to live in Georgia or Alabama.

So does Wayne rebuke that nasty ole queer agenda? Actually, what he seems to do is (a) accept Bob Barr's idea that Libertarianism equates with States-Rights [see Steve Kubby for a thoroughly Libertarian refutation of that particular notion]; (b) and if a state that is progressive [which means not religious to Wayne] wants gay marriage, fine. Just don't come down to good old religious Georgia or Alabama where we keep out negroes ... oops, I mean our faggots ... in line.

So in Wayne Root's America, the majority of voters in any state get to define the rights of American citizens, and if you don't like that decision you can just get the hell out. We'll provide the crosses to light your way.

This, everyone will be pleased to know, is the Libertarian stand on gay marriage--at least according to Eric Dondero, Wayne Allyn Root, and Bob Barr.

So my conclusion from all this (aside from the fact that Wayne should go back to online gambling) is: if Waldo presents a link, you can be pretty sure the original post has been correctly characterized. If Eric Dondero puts up a link--you'd better go check for yourself.

Ask Ed Osborne what he wants and he will tell you. He wants the life he has now. His auto repair shop is situated in the Riverfront area and it is targeted for massive development. His property is, in principle, subject to an eminent domain seizure by the City of Wilmington and not for public use but for private development.

Ed Osborne thought he had achieved what many find allusive in the American dream: his own place of business and doing what he loves best, repairing cars. All that he feels is threatened now by the State Senate's failure to override Gov. Minner's veto of the eminent domain bill.

Ed's plight has struck a deep, responsive chord throughout the state. And citizens are volunteering to make those who failed Ed pay for their votes. I didn't fully understand it until recently. People are roused because they feel the votes and the actions of the City of Wilmington are a frontal assault on one of the archetypal founding values of our nation: the right to pursue and achieve the American Dream. The vote is perceived as an attack on our identity as a nation.  It's the national equivalent of blasphemy. 


Ed Osborne didn't put up this sign on Foulk Rd just north of the intersection with Grub Road. Someone else did. Someone who wants his state senator to know that he won't forget it and he won't take it.

He is not the only one. More repercussions are in the works. More about them as they appear.

Until around late 2002 to early 2003 I watched Fox 'News' "coverage" about equally with CNN and MSNBC. I say "coverage" because my viewing never included any of their talking head shows.

I could never take Bill "A Current Affair" O'Reilly all that seriously, and found the others (like Sean Hannity) cut from his same cloth of bombastic doctrinaire pseudo-patriotism.

When even their "news coverage" devolved into a constant shrill hype-fest for WAR WAR WAR with Iraq I simply tuned out for good and never looked back.

This is not to say I didn't regularly channel-flip through their "programming" (what a perfect word for it) for occasional 5-10 minute (out)bursts of high-pitched nonsense.

They never failed to deliver and have morphed over the last 6 years from propagandizing alarmists to truly alarming propagandists.

Witness their preposterous alteration (distortion) of the images of two New York Times journalists :



This is truly a new low worthy only of the Nazis or Stalinists.

It reminds of the propaganda posters physically caricaturing Jewish people as misanthropic gnomes with large hooked noses and sharp teeth. (The exaggerated nose of a target whose name is Steinberg certainly strikes me as no accident.)

The only thing more disturbing than these indefensible photo forgeries is the fact that millions of people still swear by Fox News and are daily "programmed" by its propaganda trash.

I have, regrettably, never had the opportunity to sit in a court room and watch Waldo as a prosecutor deliver his closing arguments. But I know he learned a lot from Andy Griffith, and when that tall Carolina boy (I mean Waldo, not Andy) stands up and starts doing the "aw shucks, folks" routine, you might as well send a telegram to the guy who puts together the electric chair to get out his screwdriver.

So I read What makes a good president for dealing with the world? Beats me, with a great deal of nostalgia and gentle amusement, while using my metal detector to check for hidden mines....

When Waldo says things like this:

Of the things Waldo ponders here, of things in the public realm, big areas remain terra incognita. Foreign policy, for example, and how to fight wars. DL has a post up about how he prioritizes electoral issues, and high on his list is war and foreign policy. He thinks both McCain and Obama are doofuses in that field, each in his own way, and has written about that a number of times, each worth reading. I like reading his ideas because they make me think differently and teach me things about the things I don't know much- or anything- about.

I leave stuff like that to him, and the more-than-I-can-count-bloggers who have the training and background he does and I don't. I worry about those issues, not just because relatives of mine are over there doing their best in what seems to me a pretty bootless endeavor. But what I would have to offer on strategy and tactics in a desert war theater I could probably sum up on the back of a movie ticket, so I just keep still, and read what others have to say, to my general improvement.

... well, I guess (as the DL of the paragraph) I'm flattered, but I'm also reminded by past experience with my old friend and debating foil that he's sometimes so full of it that his eyes are brown.

After this gentile I'm-just-a-simple-man-out-here-ruminating-by-the-cement-pond-Uncle-Jed opening, Waldo makes two main points:

1) That (especially if you know James Buchanan) prior experience has not in general been a good predictor of Presidential leadership on issues foreign or domestic;

and that

2) There are some good reasons to think Senator Barack Obama might have the requisite leadership qualities despite his lack of resume experience.

I agree with both points, but Waldo (who looks singularly innocent most of the time, right up to the moment when he slips the knife in), has palmed an ace here, if he was referring to my major arguments.

My major concern with Barack Obama and American foreign policy is NOT that he is inexperienced: it is the policy positions he takes and the company he keeps.

(I won't do the links again to previous posts; if you want them, just search Obama's name.)

During this campaign Barack Obama has steadfastly (if often rather tacitly except for the positions on his website that apparently nobody but me much reads):

1) Called for a substantial increase in the defense budget and the size of our armed forces.

2) Accepted major donations and endorsements from literally dozens of retired senior officers who now front for the defense corporations who are selling the very weapon systems that Senator Obama wants us to buy.

3) Has refused to disavow the Bush doctrine of preemptive war.

4) Has threatened (on repeated occasions) to violate the sovereignty of other nations without benefit of notice or declaration.

5) Has affirmed (in the Audacity of Hope) that unilateral US military actions, sometimes against the internal affairs of other nations, is something he might support

6) Has first sent the Palestinians in a tizzy by telling AIPAC that Jerusalem will not be divided (and implying it should always be an Israeli city) and then flip-flopping to tell Hamas that (I can't recall the precise term) he'd been inartful or that the heat of campaign rhetoric had made him do it.

7) Has yet to acknowledge the existence of, or call for a retreat from the massive American overseas military empire

8) Has carefully hedged his position on Iraq to retain (potentially) bases in-country after we have withdrawn, but at the very least to maintain operational bases surrounding Iraq from which he admits he's willing to send in US Special Forces at the drop of a hat whether the supposedly sovereign government of Iraq likes it or not

I don't argue the point that Barack Obama is very likely the single most effective leader currently in the race for President. If he's got a goal, he'll very likely achieve it.

Which means we better pay close damn attention to his goals.

The counter-argument is that Senator McCain's foreign policy outlook (100 years in Iraq! Preemptive war!) is even worse, although the defense lobbyists seem at this point to have chosen to focus their financial support on the Democrat in the race.

And McCain hardly seems these days to be a danger at leading anything, including the rush to the night-time bathroom cabinet to score the "restless leg" medicine.

So there is actually a part of me that says if I have to vote for one of the two of these men (and staying home with a bottle of Wild Turkey that day is looking better and better), I'd best vote for McCain on foreign policy. His goals are equally as problematic as Obama's, but at least I know McCain will be far less likely to pursue them with competence.

My tongue is only partly in my cheek here.

My greatest disappointment in this year's campaign is that both Senators John McCain and Barack Obama are establishment (as in defense establishment) candidates to the point that I don't relish the thought of voting for either.

Aw, shucks, yur honur, it's gittin' to be pig-feedin' time, so I'll leave the rest of the pontificating to the grown-ups.

I really like the approach that The Beacon takes to the ballot access and registration status antics that the State of North Carolina has put Lbiertarian Gubernatorial Candidate Mike Munger, Senatorial Candidate Chris Cole, and thousands of Tarheel Libertarians through:

Imagine the following: someone who opposes government policies wishes to run for office, and he and his party overcome the hurdles necessary to get on the ballot. The candidate is invited to a debate, but then that debate is cancelled and a new debate is scheduled. The opposition candidate is not invited to this debate, though. He distributes and displays campaign material in public places, but government highway workers remove these materials on the grounds that there is no election occurring at the time. Local election officials do not respond to the opposition party’s requests for registration forms and refuse to accept the party’s fees required to put the candidates on the ballot. Members of the party are required to re-register their affiliation, while members of the majority parties are only required to register their affiliation once. The government will not allow the party to hold a primary election.

This is actually happening right now. But where? Is it in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe? The People’s Republic of China? Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela?

None of the three. It’s happening in North Carolina.

In the post yesterday on Libertarian Jan McKay (State Senate Candidate in NC District 15) I quoted her interaction with a local law enforcement officer over discretionary enforcement of motorcycle helmet rules against tinted visors that keep the rider from being identified. It's short enough to repeat as the set-up here:

I spoke with a Cary police detective last week, and told her there are tens of thousands of people who wear full-face helmets which conceal identities. They could all be rounded up, in violation of GS 14-12.7 and .8, the concealed identity statutes, and be sent to trial, facing prison for a year.

She said, "True, but we wouldn't do that."

I said, "Enforcement is arbitrary and at your discretion".

She said, "Yes, so it's okay."

I said, "What do you mean it's okay?! I am not okay about any part of that! That is why the law must change."

Along the same lines I found this contemplation (severely abridged, so go read the original) at Disloyal Opposition:

Yesterday, in the parking lot of the local Safeway, there was a car idling with a stocky guy sporting a flat-top haircut, a porn-star mustache and shades behind the steering wheel. A decal on the bumper read: "Sworn To Protect Your Ass, Not Kiss It." The words circled a stylized tin star emblazoned with "Deputy Sheriff."
OK, I get it. You're a cop and you resent being polite to people.

I know, I know. That's not what the decal explicitly says. But really, that's what it means.

Does anybody really believe that in the many interactions between police and the public, many perfectly polite, but others quite confrontational, that the overriding issue regarding behavior is the public's demand that armed, uniformed officers behave obsequiously? Or is it just possible that, when bad behavior is the order of the day, it's more often on the part of police officers throwing their weight around and demanding subservience from the public?...

Let's consider this... Deputy Flat-Top drives around for a month with his decal, and I drive around for a month with a bumpersticker that reads: "Hey Officer! Keep The Peace -- Don't Be An Asshole!" Let's see which one of us has the most negative interactions at the end of the experiment.

But before we give that experiment a try, I think I'll upgrade my life insurance.

About two days ago I saw (can't remember where, so no link) that some politician as bragging about the fact that he'd supported the increase of the Delaware State Police to 680 troopers. Let's see, Delaware has a population of about 854,000, which means that we have one State Trooper for every 1,256 citizens.

California has a population of 36.548 million. So if California had the same ratio of Highway Patrol officers to citizens as Delaware, it would have 29,027 officers. California actually has about 6,800 sworn officers in the Highway Patrol.

In other words, with 2.3% of the population of California, Delaware has 10% as many State Police.

Sounds like (a) something of a police state mentality going on here in the First State; and (b) as politically unpopular as it may seem, when the next round of budget cuts comes around, maybe we should be dropping in on law enforcement before we go eliminating school services....