A couple of articles by Jim Manzi at the NRO that warrant reading.  They’re chiefly on where the paths of Libertarians and Conservatives should cross and why they should not so much time bickering back and forth over “Social Conservatism” vs. “Fiscal Conservatism.”

The first article, and most recent is on the Christian Right’s approach to gay marriage, where he suggests that a better approach to the issue from the “against” side would most definitely be a renewed call for “federalism” as opposed to a Constitutional Amendment.

The second article (written a couple months back) is a general exposition of that concept, or more generally the concept of subsidiarity, which is the principal that nothing should be done by a more complex or larger organization which can be just as easily and efficiently done smaller or simpler organization.  In the case of federalism, that means if issues can be as competently or more competently handled at the State or local level, than it should be.

Although I agree with Mr. Manzi wholeheartedly, I can’t stress enough how hard of a concept it is for the “Big L” Libertarian movement to see eye-to-eye, even on this issue, with the “Big C” Christian movement.

For an even BETTER idea of how hard that is, you need look no further than the Libertarian and Constitution Parties (www.lp.org and www.constitutionparty.org respectively).  Both organizations have excellent platforms, and 96.3 percent of is virtually identical, but they disagree on one minor thing:

Religion and Morality.  The Libertarian party literally has NO position on morality other than that the Government (any Government) should not regulate it, and its position on Freedom of Religion has more to do with taxes than with religion (shocking).  Meanwhile the Constitution Party’s first words in its preamble are: “The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States.”

And since a LARGE percentage of the U.S. population bases a good chunk of its life, liberty, personal interaction, on moral principles, for two “right-wing” political movement to either a) not acknowledge the need for such nonsense, or b) only accept one version of it, means that subsidiarity may not be the easiest approach in and of itself.  First there needs to be some common ground the role, definition, and influence of our public officials (and each other) in the realm of religion and morality.

This is an interesting article about the view of “The Great Satan” as it sends aid around the world within hours of a natural disaster, while the U.N. sits back and criticizes.  Although the author is more than anything ANTICIPATING criticism about our actions in Myanmar last week than he is citing actual examples, he is asking basically for all to give “credit where it is due.”  My favorite example of past criticisms of U.S. humanitarian efforts (back in 2004 when the Tsunami hit):

The resentment that comes from needing the military and economic might of the US translated into the most absurd criticism. Jan Egeland, the former UN boss of humanitarian affairs, cavilled about the stinginess of certain Western nations. His eye was on the US. Former British minister Claire Short was equally miffed, describing the initiative by the US and other countries as “yet another attempt to undermine the UN”, which was, according to her, the “only body that has the moral authority” to help.

Our nation’s moral authority is constantly called into question from within and without, but it’s funny when it comes to taking action in the world, the UN’s moral authority rarely turns into action, and when it does, it’s often U.S. personnel and U.S. resources who bring on that action.

Where did this guy come from? He pops up on CNN yesterday for about 30 seconds (maybe he’s making the talk show rounds, too, but I haven’t been watching those lately), and all of a sudden he’s the frontrunner for the Libertarian nomination (at least based on cash).

I literally looked at the LP site yesterday right after I caught a glimpse of him on the TV at a coffee shop, and there was no sign of him at all. However, today if you look at the LP candidates site, there he is…in 1st place in fundraising. It’s amazing what a little press will do.

I caught a little interview of him on the Village Voice, as well. One of the commenters made an astute observation about his comments on the Defense of Marriage Act:

…So, for example, regarding the “Defense of Marriage Act,” the fundamental, operative provisions of the “Defense of Marriage Act” say that each state makes up its own mind. I think that’s a fundamentally sound, libertarian-oriented position on federalism. With regard to drug usage similarly, these are issues in my view that ought to be left up to the states, based on the principles of federalism.

A couple of readers point out two problems with Barr’s position here. First, one says the Defense of Marriage Act is not a “Federalist” view, meaning it preempts state’s rights instead of preserving them. Another commenter says the Libertarian Party doesn’t really hold a position on Federalism and State’s Rights:

Let us be clear. Barr is not the front-runner in the LP race and he is not a libertarian. He is a conservative. He misstates libertarianism which actually has no direct position on federalism. It is about individual rights and Barr is a believer in the States being able to violate those rights — that is not libertarianism. It is the views of a conservate Constitutionalist not a libertarian.

The first contention (DOMA is not a “State’s Rights” position) is actually not true. The law actually simultaneously preserves a State’s right to recognize and NOT to recognize an intra-sex marriage, and the Federal Government’s NON-right to recognize a same-sex relationship as a marriage for Federal purposes. Thus it is definitely a CONSERVATIVE act, but it’s safe to say that it’s a constitutionally sound one.

The second contention (that the LP has no position on Federalism) is actually true. Now, not surprisingly, neither does the GOP or the DNC, but I would expect that sort of shallowness and lack of attention to our Constitution from two behemoth “catchall coalition” parties. I sincerely expected more from the LP. This, in my humble opinion, is a big chunk of the problem with modern national politics.

The statement that Bob Barr is probably more of a “constitutional conservative” than a libertarian could very well be accurate; however, I would posit that Ron Paul could easily be labeled similarly (as could yours truly). Another term I’ve seen thrown around is: “Traditionalist Libertarian.” Either way…it highlights the real challenge many small-government types had with Governor Huckabee’s campaign: he constantly talked about “vertical politics” which smelled too much like the “Third Way” which is classically a very sneaky and shady way of trying to thread the line between liberal and conservative which essentially means, “All this liberal vs. conservative nonsense needs to give way to smarter people like ME just making all those pesky decisions.”

That’s, of course, not what Governor Huckabee was saying (and hopefully not what Obama was saying), but it scares the bejesus out of Libertarians. Anyone have any opinions on Bob Barr, though?

UPDATE: In all fairness to Libertarians in general and Wayne Allyn Root in particular, the number 2 contender for the Libertarian nomination (and until yesterday, the number 1 contender) has “State’s Rights” as number TWO on his issues list. Go Wayne.

A new(?) non-profit organization, McCain Source, is running “informative” commercials about…you guessed it…John McCain. The latest commercial that I saw was one that informed me that McCain voted not to extend coverage to uninsured children, but I already new this. What was really informative was what was implied: McCain does not care about children! Who actually buys this stuff? I love children, the elderly, the oppressed, deer that accidentally die when crossing the road…To prove this, do I have to provide free healthcare, free education at Harvard, free food, free housing, guaranteed job, and subsidies or tax rebates from all the guilty rich people? BS.

McCain Source is run by Progressive Media USA, a 501C4 issue advocacy organization who informs the public “about the risks of conservative policies and leaders” and counters the “right-wing message machine”. They claim to be non-partisan and I think that is a reasonable claim, don’t you? Anyone know about these folks?

An aside on healthcare: I am certainly not confident in the nominees’ abilities to carry on an intelligent conversation regarding healthcare. As such, I predict that there will be many “health care” ads, articles, and propaganda that pray on the fears of the ignorant.

Many of the illegal immigrants leaving Great Britain are citing lack of sun and poor health care. I can’t think of anything else to add. Read it here.

I thought these were pretty good reading.

Interesting story of how ethanol (the wine of the religion of global warming) will starve the world.
http://www.nysun.com/news/f…eclipsing-climate-change

Another reason why I won’t vote at the 2008 presidential election (we have three pussy democrats running).
http://www.reuters.com/article/mark…2535509420080425

The Bolivian President has enlightened us:

Bolivia’s left-wing president said unbridled industrial development was responsible for the pillaging of natural resources.

Speaking through an interpreter at the UN headquarters in New York, he had this uncompromising message: “If we want to save our planet earth, to save life, to save mankind, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system.”

What an absolutely ridiculous and unproductive statement. Has anyone informed President Morales what the end result is in every country on the planet where capitalism DOESN’T exist? Let’s just ignore the fact that the only path OUT of poverty for indigenous civilizations on the planet has always been capitalism. Are we going to pretend that capitalism “doesn’t work” because of industrialists who pillage the environment? At what point is someone going to point out two very critical facts:

1) Capitalism is not–by its definition–synonymous with raping and pillaging of the environment.
2) Bio-fuels are a bad idea NOT because they are “putting cars ahead of people” but because they are inefficient.

Apparently it is illegal to insult someone. Bridget Bardot is going to trial for making someone feel bad. Awww, didn’t the “victim” know the benefits of being rubber (as opposed to glue) and that sticks and stones…Wait, this is in France, but it could very well be the US.

The capital outlay bill approved by lawmakers each year essentially has been a wish list that leaves decision-making to the governor.

The governor’s office submitted its recommendations for the bill. Lawmakers then added more projects than there was money. That left the governor’s office to choose among hundreds of items to determine which few actually get in line for state dollars. The State Bond Commission must vote on whether to grant lines of credit to projects submitted by the governor, but that vote was seen as a rubber stamp because the commission is packed with the governor’s allies.

Jindal wants the process overhauled to limit the annual construction budget bill passed by the Legislature to five years of projects for which the state can pay. He issued an executive order Tuesday outlining a reworking that includes setting up an evaluation system to review the projects sought by executive branch agencies, lawmakers and local government agencies. It’s amazing that allocating only the amount of money the state can afford to spend is considered a revolutionary idea.

http://www.nola.com/newsflas…storylist=louisiana

Both of these stories were right beside each other in the Post and I couldn’t help but connect them.

First, the Death Penalty for non-murderers is being put to the test in Louisiana:

[O]n Wednesday the court will consider whether a person who rapes a child is different. Louisiana prosecutors will argue that the same societal mores that have persuaded justices to spare certain categories of criminals lead in the opposite direction when it comes to child rapists, demanding an expansion of capital punishment, not a retrenchment.

So, the question here is: Is the death penalty appropriate for someone who hasn’t taken a life themselves? Raping a child is probably as close as it gets, and my first instinct is to say, “Yes.”

Second, of course, is the raid on the FLDS compound in Texas:

[Warren] Jeffs dubbed those chosen for the ranch as the “elect” or “heart’s core,” selected to live in the “holy land,” as he called the compound. The adults were his most loyal followers and the young children were the least “contaminated” by the outside world, former church members say. According to court documents, adherents living at the ranch practiced the most extreme tenets of FLDS doctrine, including forcing girls as young as 13 to “spiritually marry” older men for the purpose of bearing their children.

And the question I have here is: At what point has polygamy and marrying 13-year-old girls been lumped into one bag?

And of course the uniting questions are:

What role does the state play in protecting children from their parents, and how much should our laws value the safety of our children enough to a) take them from their families, and b) punish those that violate their innocence equally to those who take their lives.

I remember a conversation I had with someone about abortion rights. A familiar line came up: “The Government should stay out of our bedrooms.” Hmmm. I wonder.