Bush-Clintonism Forever

It's kind of odd - why is Bush suddenly governing like a low-tax fiscal conservative, and only on the issue of health care for kids?

Don't get me wrong - I oppose new spending programs and tax hikes (this bill will increase cigarette taxes to $1 a pack - on the plus side, pay-as-you-go is a lot more responsible than deficit spending.) If I were President, I would veto it because further federal funding only increases the costs of health care for all. But then, I also wouldn't have started the Iraq War, signed the Prescription Drug benefit, or increase funding for the Dept. of Education. There would have been lots of things I wouldn't have proposed that Bush did propose, and I would have sought to cut or eliminate a whole bunch of programs.

Considering he is a fiscally irresponsible, Big Government Republican, what is Bush doing here but creating another issue Hillary could beat Republicans over the head with? Considering how close his father is to Bill Clinton, does Bush want Clinton to win?

It's possible. Here's what I think may happen. Republicans know they'll go down in 2008. (Elizabeth Dole will be the GOP V.P. choice, to keep the streak of a Bush or Dole being on every Republican national ticket since 1976.) Jeb Bush will be the Vice Presidential choice in 2012 as Republicans lose another one to Hillary, but will then be the front-runner for the 2016 nomination.

By that time, the next generation of Clintons and Bush's will be old enough to be President.

The Anti-American Ruling Class

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The Ruling Class succeeds when the masses are both economically comfortable and economically vulnerable, where they are addicted to the consumerist lifestyle but their finances are in a precarious state. If they are too poor, they might revolt. If they are economically self-sufficient, they would be free to walk away from their jobs to chase their dreams – instead of being cogs in The System, they would be able to create their own systems and do their own thing. And this would threaten the economic and political power of the Ruling Class. As it is, however, the people will tolerate unwarranted government searches of their person and property if that is what it takes to preserve the conveniences of air travel and the Internet. And they will remain wage slaves for the secure income and health insurance. Economic and national security crises must be created every now and then to keep the people fearful and protective of what they have, even if it means surrendering more of their civil liberties and economic freedom to the Ruling Class.

Self-Sufficiency Harms the Economy

You have a small garden, and with it you grow some of your own food. You don’t sell any of it to anyone else.

This gardening activity, however, means that you do not purchase as much food from others as you would if you didn't have the garden. It is sensible, then, for the government to have you figure out how much produce you grew, figure out the cash value of it, and pay taxes on it.

Furthermore, this gardening affected interstate commerce. Your selfish insistence to grow some of your own fruits and vegetables influences the local market, and the local market affects the statewide market, and that affects the national market. Congress therefore has the right to prohibit individuals from growing their own food. And it should, to protect jobs.

Indeed, the entire do-it-yourself mentality is terribly selfish, greedy, and harmful to the economy. When you, as you call it, “save money,” you are depriving somebody else of that money. If you like to fix cars as a hobby and you fix your friend's car, that means a professional mechanic couldn’t do it, so he's lost that income. If you cook your own meals, restaurants will go out of business. Paint your house, clean the carpet, do the laundry, move, whatever it may be - there are professionals who are better at it than you, so you are not only hurting them by not hiring them, you are hurting yourself.

The nation would really be better off if each individual focused on doing one thing well, and only one thing. If their jobs become obsolete, they would be allowed to train for something else, but not before that. People should only be allowed to learn other skills if the economy depends on them. I mean, of course people should learn how to drive and use a computer keyboard, because there aren’t enough chauffeurs and typists to go around. Maybe they should even be allowed to prepare some meals at home to keep supermarkets in business - as long as they can’t grow their own food. But the underlying point is the same: generally speaking, self-sufficiency is bad for the economy.

In fact, all of your life choices also affect your economic choices, and that in turn affects the economy. So I don't understand how people can say that the Constitution prohibits Congress from regulating your life. After all, your bad choices will be bad for the economy, and that hurts other people. That hurts the general welfare. Of course Congress should step in.

Indeed, all these people shouting “freedom” or “liberty” are just being selfish. We are free because we live in a democracy.

Okay, the above paragraphs are absurd. But I will never understand the logic of those who concede people should have the right to grow their own food, but don't have the right to grow their own medicine. Or why friends can fix each other's cars, but aren't allowed to give medical help without a license. Or why some people creatively interpret the Constitution to give the government broad powers over some aspects of our lives, but then protest when the same creative interpretation is used by other people to empower the federal government over some other aspects. Or why they value democracy more than personal freedom.

Gold Standard

Precious metals will always be the world's reserve currency. Even though nations do not define their currency by their by their worth in, say, gold, individuals will still buy gold to protect themselves from inflation. The more money a nation's central bank pours into the economy, the less valuable the dollar is, which means the price of everything else rises. Seeing that the dollar is cheap, many individuals start to distrust the national economy and instead of investing in dollar-making opportunities like business expansion, they will buy gold. Unlike paper dollars, gold isn't that easy to find or produce. When the central bank prints so many dollars as to be nearly worthless, those who are able will start to use gold as their currency.

A gold standard would seemingly prevent inflation and a dollar collapse; more dollars would be printed up only as more gold is found. Greater production through the division of labor would cause prices of goods and services to fall, which makes them more affordable to more people, which expands markets. Each dollar we earn would make us wealthier, and each dollar we spend would get us more stuff.

I don't know how we would restore a gold standard. Do we just start using the current world market price - a dollar is worth 1/730th an ounce of gold? What if that price is actually too low, and there's not enough supply of gold to meet the demand at that price? If you had $730 and wanted to buy an ounce of gold, but all the gold was already bought up, then gold is really worth more than $730/oz. This wouldn't be a gold standard, it would be gold price-fixing.

And it does appear the price of gold is too low relative to supply and available currency. What if we divided the current supply of gold in Fort Knox and other U.S. government-owned gold, and divide it by the total number of dollars in circulation?

Let's round the numbers and say the U.S. has over 8,000 metric tons of gold. That's around 17,500,000 pounds, and around 280,000,000 ounces. There are around $12,500,000,000,000 U.S. dollars in the world. That's around 45,000 U.S. dollars for every ounce of U.S. gold. Giving myself wide latitude for rounding numbers, any way you look at it gold would be worth tens of thousands of dollars per ounce, not $730.

Let's consider instead all the gold ever mined, 125,000 tonnes. That's about 15 times more than the U.S. stock alone, so measuring the standard by the world supply would lead to about $3000/oz - four times the current market price.

No wonder mainstream politicians aren't interested in going back to the gold standard. There's a tremendous discrepancy between the value of gold in the market, compared to the available currency and gold supply. While gold standard advocates say that our paper money is worthless, this isn't really true as long as almost everyone relies on it. If anything, going to the gold standard would destroy the dollar in fact; prices could "correct" themselves by rising 400%, 1200%, or more.

If there is a smooth way to go back to the gold standard, I'd go for it. Short of that, government budgetary policy should a) prevent inflation, and b) make owning dollars more desirable than owning gold or other hard asset. Even if it remains a fiat currency attached to nothing but the faith of the people in it, it is still in everyone's interest to value the dollar. If we see the gold price go down, we will see greater investor confidence and a stronger economy.

Please, Please Let This Be the Last Straw

I'm talking about the Blackwater shootings. Let it motivate the Iraqi government to ask the U.S. to end their occupation.

This would a) establish the Iraqi government's independence of the U.S., which is important from an internal political perspective; b) tell the American people that the Iraqi government is ready to provide for its own security, making the war that much more pointless.

At least negotiations for a withdrawal could start, including discussions on the safety and status of Iraqi collaborators. Unless we ditch all our equipment, a withdrawal is going to take several months anyway.

I don't think an exit will be so bloody in any case. Perhaps a million Iraqis have already been killed in the war, and as Lew Rockwell says, "It is also striking how the further geographically you move from US troop activity, the more peaceful the area is."

U.S. politicians are stuck; they claim Iraq will get even worse if U.S. troops leave, so they keep the troops there because they don't want to be proved wrong. But pulling out gives them the opportunity to get the credit either way:

- If the U.S. leaves over a nine months' time and relative peace follows, they can say that they created the conditions for peace and Iraq becomes a "victory." Mostly b.s., but everyone would be better off.

- If full-fledged civil war ensues,that would only underscore that the U.S. wouldn't have been able to keep a lid on the violence forever. To truly support the troops, then, would be to pull them out. But our politicians could still point out that Saddam was removed and democratic elections were held, and that our intentions were noble. Complete B.S., but if such face-saving rhetoric is necessary to get the troops out, so be it.

Charge People for the Crimes They Actually Committed

Rev. Eddie Thompson of Jena, LA has an excellent article on the Jena Six. The article covers a lot of ground, but I want to focus on this: It looks like the second-degree murder charge was another example of what Vache Folle calls overcharging, charging people with more serious crimes in order to extract plea bargains from them and avoid jury trials. Thompson asks the D.A., "Why charge those black students with attempted second-degree murder if you intended to adjudicate lesser charges against them all along?"

The problem isn't just about race; whites get over-charged too, though probably not as often or as severely as blacks are. Which do you think is the best way to make the criminal justice system more equitable:

1. Overcharge whites to the extent blacks are now overcharged?
2. Overcharge blacks only to the extent whites are now overcharged?
3. Stop the practice of overcharging?

"Colorblind" conservatives may favor #1, whereas progressives may favor #2. Perhaps #3, the just solution, is not "practical," as the justice system has too many cases to process. The problem is, innocent people and others who refuse to plea would get the Genarlow Wilson treatment.

The problem of the overloaded justice system is that there are too many laws and too many crimes. If actual crimes against person and property were prosecuted, and laws against mere vices were repealed, the cops and the courts would do a much better job.

And race relations would be better.

Islam & Immigration

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Brief excerpt:

An English-speaking, highly-skilled immigrant with a clear criminal record may want to become a permanent resident of the United States. Just the same, if his beliefs are hostile to our social systems and our laws – if he would overturn them if he could - it makes little sense to admit him, or others with the same beliefs.

Peace and Harmony

Claire Wolfe is retiring.

I'm not sure if Las Vegas has an over-under for the date of her comeback. But I say that the longer she goes without feeling compelled to write out political freedom issues, the less likely she ever will.

I certainly understand where Claire is coming from:

But I've changed. After a whole lifetime of being "political," I'm just not anymore -- as I think has been apparent for quite a while. I've always stressed that freedom begins with mindset. Now I see a deeper aspect of mindset: freedom is spiritual. I may write about that.

Personally, I've felt the same thing lots of times: one person can be in chains externally yet still be free internally, while another can bribe anyone or buy anything externally but be in chains internally. Sometimes this enlightened feeling goes on for days, but usually it goes on for a few hours in the evening, and in the morning it's gone; I read about some outrageous incident of injustice, and the old emotions swell back. And then there's my political bi-polar disorder: half the time I hate the State, the other half I imagine ways the State can be run well: what is the best form of government, what is the best foreign policy, what is the best form of taxation, etc.

But the problem of hating the State is the same as hating marriage/family, or hating organized religion. The real problem isn't the injustice or unworkability of the institution you rail against, it is your own personal hatred. Hatred is the antithesis of peace and harmony.

It seems to me that what just about everyone wants is peace and harmony. Values such as prosperity, justice, and freedom are derivative. "Peace" in the way I conceive it, means tolerance, and "harmony" means "working together for good." Peace is the precondition of life, of growth, so for the sake of peace one must tolerate even that which is disharmonious. If conditions are peaceful, error and disharmony will extinguish themselves eventually. Those who would use coercion to extinguish error and disharmony undermine peace, which extinguishes life itself. If we don't make peace the priority, we will enjoy neither peace nor harmony. The threat to peace among nations, and within nations, is that harmony is held in higher regard than peace. Going to war against allegedly dis-harmonious elements is valued more highly than life itself.

The ideal of Peace & Harmony has an internal element, in which mind/thought, body/heart/soul, and spirit/intuition are in alignment and have the same intentions. That is, a life free of guilt about the past, and free of doubt about the future. It also has an external element, in which the world outside oneself is aligned with one's values. If your internal system isn't creating the life you want, it certainly isn't creating the external conditions for the life you'd want. The one must precede the other.

Just as government doesn't make people virtuous, so it is that the external reality doesn't transform the inner life. Rather, the inner life transforms the external reality. If values are in conflict internally, they will create discord externally.

What this means is that if you're unhappy with your own inner life, you'll never be satisfied with external conditions; you will always find reasonable grounds to find fault with them. So the real revolution for freedom is internal: finding the means to make yourself a happier person is the best way to make the world a better place.

Kidnapping?

The crimes O.J. Simpson is already accused of are serious enough: armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon. But kidnapping? Yes, it is in the nature of armed robbery to "detain somebody against his will" for as long as the robbery takes place. But I thought kidnapping was abduction. I thought kidnapping was not stealing from a person, but stealing the person. Not, "Don't move, or I'll kill you," but rather "come with me, or I'll kill you." According to the new definition, apparently every armed robbery is also a kidnapping.

You learn something new every day. Either that, or the Las Vegas prosecutor isn't interested in justice, but in piling on charge after charge to encourage O.J. to plea bargain. The guy who convicted O.J., wouldn't that be something! If that is the case, the prosecutor's probably a greater threat to the public than O.J. himself is.

The Colombian "Terror Threat"

I was disgusted when I heard that Chiquita was fined $25 million for the "crime" of protecting its employees in Colombia. Apparently, the right-wing paramilitary group they were paying protection money to is labeled a "terrorist" organization by the U.S. government.

It'd be one thing if Chiquita was paying off Al Qaeda. But how are these Colombian thugs a terror threat to the United States? Why should they be considered an enemy of the U.S.?

Don't such groups exist largely because of the political instability in Colombia caused by the U.S.'s War on Drugs? Weren't the dangers Chiquita's operations faced in Colombia a result, then, of U.S. policy?

Would it have been better if Chiquita let its employees get killed? Or if it ran crying to the U.S. government to protect its interests on the taxpayer's dime? Or if it hired its own mercenaries to fight back and create further instability in the region?

How is something that happens in Colombia a crime in America?

We should tell American citizens and businesses that if they want to travel or do business beyond U.S. boundaries, they do so at their own risk, and must be responsible for their own security. Just like Chiquita.

Maybe Chiquita is a big, bad, exploitive multinational corporation. Maybe it should be criticized for a number of things. But I don't see how they did anything wrong here.

Partisanship is what you make it

In a story announcing Bush's new choice for Attoney General, I was amused by this:

There had been rampant speculation that Bush might turn to former Solicitor General Ted Olson for the job, but key Democrats on Capitol Hill said they believed Olson too partisan a figure and indicated they would fight his nomination.

So, Democrats would be partisan just because they view Olson as partisan?

We Democrats oppose Olson!
Why?
Because he's a polarizing figure.
What makes him polarizing?
He's polarizing because we Democrats don't like him.
Why don't you like him?
Because he's polarizing!

It seems to me that what makes Olson "too partisan" is that Democrats would choose to be partisan in opposing him.

I'd understand if they said Olson was too ideologically biased in favor of the Executive. Or that he was unqualified, or incompetent. But the "partisan" charge could stick to any prominent figure with several years of experience in D.C.

Of course, there's the possibility they believed Olson was nothing more than a political hack and Bush lackey. But that doesn't quite mesh with Olson's reputation, as I understand it.

If You Asked Me

If somebody asked me what a libertarian was, my brief answer - without getting abstract or philosophical - is that I consider myself a libertarian because I believe:

1. Vices are not crimes (Sheldon Richman and Lysander Spooner got me thinking about this again.)
2. The only just use of force against another person is to defend someone's life and property from attack, and the only just war is to defend against actual or clearly imminent attack or invasion.
3. Individuals have the right to do with their own person and property as they wish, provided they don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

What this doesn't really settle is what property is exactly. Differences in the definition of property (in land, in patents and copyrights, etc.) reveal differences of opinion among libertarians.

Also, there is a large variety of opinion on the best means to downsize the State and advance the three values stated above. Smooth transitions? Incremental change? Grand reforms? Abrupt change? All carry risks and unintended consequences.

That's why people who lean libertarian can be found all over the political map, from anti-political anarchists to supporters of whomever they believe is the "lesser evil" among front-running major-party candidates.

9/11 Six Years Later

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Unfortunately, since 1941 Congress has declared war by not declaring it. The Constitution invests in Congress alone the power to declare war, and does not transfer the power to start wars to the President. But because Congress doesn't declare war anymore, the "authorization to use force" is a de facto declaration of war: it is the signal that there is a war, even if the President insists diplomatic avenues are still available, or doesn't plan on attacking for many more months.

The six-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks was two days ago. The world is more dangerous now than it was then, but how so? A week after the attacks, Congress passed an Authorization to Use Force:

"the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

This resolution means potential war against just about any country in the world.

Social Conservatives

I was recently made aware of a Methodist pastor who had a sex change operation, going from "Ann Gordon" to "Drew Phoenix." The question is whether he should be able to keep his ordination and his job. (I believe President Bush is a Methodist.)

[An aside . . .Drew? This guy should be stripped of his ordination right there - for poor style. Why would a lady change into a dude only to become Drew? Sure, there was football hero Drew Pearson, but then there's Drew Barrymore. I once was acquainted with an engaged couple whose names were Chris and Drew. I could never remember which one was Chris and which was Drew. If I saw on the church sign that the pastor's first name was Drew, I'd still assume the pastor was a woman.]

As time goes by, the less these things matter to me. I don't find the issue perplexing, because I just don't care. I don't know what it is, perhaps because it is hard to agree with social conservatives on anything anymore.

The ongoing sexual revolution has supposedly been bad for "the family," a mythological institution that supposedly reached perfection in 1950's suburbia. As the family goes down, the argument goes, so will the country, and then civilization itself.

Yet even before the 1960's, when America was still a "Christian" nation and bourgeois values reigned supreme, there was plenty of rotten stuff the country did. Sure, Christians were leaders in opposing slavery, but other Christians defended slavery. The same could be said for Jim Crow. Protestant Christianity and fervent nationalism went hand-in-hand in exterminating the American Indian, establishing imperial colonies, and getting involved in World War I. The darkness in our nation's soul was there long before Hugh Hefner was even born.

And America seemed to reach its apex around 1988-2001 - 15 years after Roe v. Wade and more than two decades after the sexual revolution, subsidies for out-of-wedlock births, etc. were established. And if America is falling apart now, that seems less to do with the sexual liberalism than with the breakdown of our political and legal institutions. And who was behind that?

- Who cheers militarism and endless war - the transgendered, or social conservatives?
- Who endorses torture of "suspected" terrorists - people in gay marriages, or social conservatives?
- Who corrupted our system of justice by passing victimless crimes, and created a stacked deck that forces innocent people to plea-bargain - pornographers, or social conservatives?
- Who defends warrant-less wiretapping - feminists, or social conservatives?

It is social conservatives, not the "libertine left," that is aiding and abetting America's outright slide into a totalitarian, Big Brother, Police-State dictatorship. They are the ones behind the country's collapse.

After the invasion of Iraq, I found it hard to respect the pronouncements of any Christian leader who supported it. If the Church can't recognize a pointless, unjust war when it sees it, the sex and sexuality of its pastors won't make any difference.

Rooting for Goliath

I heard on the radio that soccer's Women's World Cup tournament is going on, and that team USA fought South Korea to a 2-2 draw. It's already been eight years since the media decided to make a big deal out of the Women's World Cup. Sports Illustrated even christened the American championship team as "Sportsperson of Year" - ahead of Lance Armstrong, who overcame testicular cancer to win the Tour de France.

But America doing well in international competition - any international competition - should come as no surprise. Because we are so populous, even an obscure sport has enough aficionados and participants here that a competitive team could be formed. For instance, since the U.S. has thirty times Sweden's population, the U.S. would only need 1/30th of the participation rate of Sweden in a particular sport and still find a similar pool of talent.

And it makes me wonder. The Iron Curtain has fallen, and professional athletes are allowed to compete in the Olympics, so why should Americans cheer for the USA? It's like cheering for the big school over the tiny one in Hoosiers. The United States is at least 2-4 times larger than almost every one of our sporting rivals, with sufficient wealth to have first-rate facilities. Until the Chinese and Indians climb out of poverty, the U.S. should have the most medals at not only the Summer Olympics, but the Winter as well. And they should do well in most other international competitions. It is hard to believe the U.S. is the "underdog" in anything.

It would be more interesting if the states had their own teams in international competition, just as Scotland and England do in the World Cup. That would make international competition far more interesting.

Who Would the World Elect?

Here is a Presidential poll open to anyone in the world. Vote totals are broken down by country. While Ron Paul is in the lead so far, if you take away U.S. votes (which are most of them) Barack Obama seems to be the world's choice. Paul is clearly #2 almost everywhere, and no other candidate is even remotely close. If Hillary's totals are any indication, the world is not hoping to return to the "good old days" under the Clintons.

This does suggest that of non-Americans who follow American politics over the Internet, Ron Paul is well-known. It seems a significant segment of the world is no longer looking for the U.S. to "lead," but would rather the U.S. mind its own business. Obama's popularity is also an indication that the rest of the world - that is, the real and potential victims of U.S. foreign policy - is ready for a fresh face and a new start.

It is still perplexing that of all the candidates, Ron Paul - a supposedly marginal candidate with negligible support - dominates the online and post-debate polls. If Paul's supporters "spam" such polls (an allegation often made but always unfounded), why aren't other candidate's supporters doing the same? If just 20% of "major" candidate supporters are as internet-savvy and enthusiastic about their guy as are Paul's, then Paul should be left in the dust. He is not.

Clearly, Paul's support is larger than what the traditional media's polls indicate. And clearly, it is smaller than what Internet polls would also suggest. Where it is exactly, it seems nobody knows.

Likely Republican Voter

I think it's interesting how there are polls of "likely Republican voters." Am I a likely Republican voter?

- if Ron Paul is still in the primaries by the time my state holds its primary, I will register as a Republican and vote for him.
- if Ron Paul is the Republican nominee, I will vote for him.
- if the GOP nominee is not Ron Paul, this nominee will have to reverse his position on Iraq and some other issues to get me to even consider voting for him. No chance of that.

So I am a "likely Republican voter" in the primary, and an unlikely Republican voter in the general election.

Because the Democratic race is pretty much over for antiwar Democrats (i.e., Gravel, Kucinich, and Richardson supporters), I could see many crossing the line and voting for Paul in the Republican primaries. That is the best way they will get their antiwar point across.

There are "likely Republican voters," and then there are Ron Paul supporters.

Abolish Corporate Income Taxes

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. I write it from a progressive, pro-Big Government point of view to emphasize how unnecessary and counter-productive these taxes really are, considering how it's the shareholders who ultimately pay the tax anyway.

Seinfeld on the Prairie

It is my duty as a humanitarian and former resident of Saskatchewan to recommend Corner Gas, which will debut on the WGN Superstation next week. You can see some preview clips here.

I credit the courage of WGN execs who signed off on this. Hopefully, this show will click with a good number of Americans. PBS stations air far less intelligent British sitcoms, riding on the myth that if it's British, it's not only funny, it's smart. (The evidence is in: if it's British and it doesn't have John Cleese or Judy Dench in it, it's crap.)

Corner Gas has already run four seasons in Canada (although their tv seasons have fewer episodes than American network shows do). Having watched 2 1/2 seasons on DVD, I can tell you that aside from the first episode, first-season closer and second-season opener, all the shows are self-contained. There are no continuing story lines or romantic tensions. You won't be lost or confused by missing an airing; each episode stands on its own. In that sense, it's a "show about nothing," taking place in the middle of nowhere, even though each episode has a general theme, is sometimes intricately plotted, and is a "comedy of manners" in that it exploits gaps that otherwise normal people have in knowledge and wit. It is like Seinfeld on the Prairie. Or Garrison Keillor meets Comedy.

Mainstream Media Attention for Ron Paul

The headline was on my Yahoo main page. I'm pasting this in its entirety just to make sure I believe my own eyes. In a few hours time, this will all be taken down or modified:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/ap_on_el_pr/republicans_debate

Republicans, Paul clash over Iraq war

By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer 23 minutes ago

DURHAM, N.H. - Republican presidential contenders voiced support for the Iraq war Wednesday night despite a warning from anti-war candidate Ron Paul that they risk dragging the party down to defeat in 2008.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor," shot back former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, "and that is more important than the Republican Party."

Huckabee was in the majority, Paul very much in the minority on a University of New Hampshire debate stage when it came to the war. The politically unpopular conflict has emerged as the dominant issue of the 2008 race for the White House.

The issue flared near the end of a 90-minute encounter in which all eight men on stage welcomed former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson to the race with barbed humor and pointed advice.

"This is a nomination you have to earn," said former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. "Nobody's going to give it to you. Nobody's going to grant it to you."

The debate unfolded several days before Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to deliver an assessment of President Bush's wintertime decision to commit 30,000 additional combat troops to the war.

Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Giuliani all stressed support for the war, at times even competing to show their commitment.

"The surge is apparently working," said Romney, referring to the increase in troops.

That brought an instant rebuke from McCain, who said, "The surge is working, sir, no, not apparently. It's working."

Alone among the contenders, Paul, a veteran Texas congressman with a libertarian streak, made the case for withdrawing troops. That drew a sharp challenge from Chris Wallace, one of the debate questioners, who asked whether the United States should take its marching orders from al-Qaida.

"No! We should take our marching orders from our Constitution," Paul shouted back, pointing his pen at Wallace for emphasis. "We should not go to war without a declaration" by Congress.

Occasionally interrupted by applause, Paul doggedly stuck to his point. "We have lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan, in Iraq and plus the civilians killed," he said during his exchange with Huckabee.

"How long — what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing, is saving face. It's time we came home," Paul said.

There was no debating whether it was important to cut taxes and spending, although McCain and Giuliani defended their refusal to sign a pledge not to raise taxes.

"I stand on my record and my record is 24 years of opposing tax increases," said McCain.

Giuliani said he had a strong record of cutting New York City taxes. "I only think a man or woman running for president ought to take one pledge and that is a pledge to uphold the United States Constitution.

The debate ranged over familiar issues, and each of the men on stage looked for moments to appeal to their target constituents.

Huckabee, eager to win the support of social conservatives, said he supports a "human life amendment" to outlaw abortion.

By contrast, Giuliani supports abortion rights and Romney favors allowing states to decide on their own whether to permit or ban them.

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rep. Duncan Hunter of California called for the resignation of Sen. Larry Craig, the Idaho Republican who pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in an airport men's room in an undercover police operation.

"It's important that the party stand for family values," said Brownback, although as recently as last week, he pointedly avoided recommending that Craig step down.

Brownback also drew boos from the audience when he called for passage of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "I understand there is a divided audience," he said.

Giuliani responded to questions about his personal life by confessing to imperfections.

"I'm running as a human being who has been very successful as a leader," he said.

Giuliani's son has said he didn't speak to his father for some time. Giuliani and their mother, Donna Hanover, had a nasty and public divorce while Giuliani was New York's mayor, and he has since remarried.

The debate occurred roughly four months before New Hampshire holds the first primary of the 2008 race.

Thompson clearly hoped to upstage the event — airing the first advertisement of the campaign on Fox News during a commercial break, and formally announcing his candidacy on NBC's "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" after the debate.

He was not disappointed. Brit Hume, the debate moderator, opened up by asking each of the eight candidates to respond to the newcomer's presence.

"I was scheduled to be on Jay Leno tonight, but I gave up my spot to somebody else because I'd rather be here in New Hampshire," joked Huckabee.

"Why the hurry? Why not take some more time off?" Romney said humorously.

The war was a recurrent theme for the debate, in which New Hampshire voters outside the hall were allowed to pose questions to the candidates.

One man, Mark Riss, chastised Romney for comparing the service of men who have fought in Iraq with his own sons' support for his campaign.

"I know you apologized a couple of days later ... but it was wrong sir, and you never should have said it," Riss said.

"Well, there is no comparison, of course," Romney agreed.

Do Benchmarks Mean We Stay or Go?

I forgot: were the benchmarks for the Iraqi government supposed to be incentives to get the U.S. to stay, or to leave?

If the goals were met:

- that proves the American military strategy is working and therefore we must stay and maintain the new stability, or
- we've won and it's time to go home.

If the goals were not met:

- that proves all the more that we need to stay and finish the job, or
- it just goes to show that the Iraqis are pathetic and no longer deserve our help; we must pull out.

Somehow or other, I think President Bush will manage to find a reason to stay. If the next President pulls the troops out, Bush and his die-hard supporters can blame him or her for the "defeat."

Abolish Justice

The Justice Department, that is. The small-government movement can point to a lot of unnecessary agencies and departments in the federal government. There are the Special Interest Departments: Commerce, Labor, Agriculture. There are the Social Engineering Departments: Health and Human Services, Education, Housing and Urban Development. There are departments that fall in between like Energy and Transportation. Most of their duties go far beyond the powers the Constitution delegates to the United States government. And those few scattered agencies that actually do constitutional things can all be put into the umbrella of the Department of the Interior.

Most of the time, however, the worst that these agencies do is waste the public's time and money. The real damage done to America is done by the Departments that advocates of limited government would retain: State (our interventionist foreign policy creates more problems than it solves), the Treasury (think of the IRS or the national debt), and Defense (with its undeclared wars and massive waste)

And then there's the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice exists almost exclusively to attack our basic rights and freedoms found in nature and/or protected by the Bill of Rights. Real crimes - attacks on persons and their property - is a police issue that the Constitution leaves to the states. Victim-less crimes, such as drug possession or gun-dealing, are "unenumerated rights" protected by the Ninth Amendment. They do not affect the foreign and instra-state relations the Constitution was created to address. This means the federal government has a Constitutional responsibility to leave individuals alone. If what individuals do is "immoral" or a "threat to the public," that is an issue best left to the States.

So get rid of Justice. Whatever few necessary functions it serves could be put in the Department of the Interior. Yes, there can still be an Attorney General to serve as top legal counsel for the United States, but his rank would be the equivalent of an Under-secretary.

Oh yes, I almost forgot: scrap Homeland Security as well because, like Justice, its only purpose is to violate our rights. But that probably goes without saying.

Necessary There, Illegal Here

An ABC news report tonight featured two doctors from Baylor and some other American doctors who were in Lesotho providing care. There's just one pediatrician per 133,000 children there, as opposed to one per 940 in America. With AIDS and so many problems there, the Americans say much of their time is spent training local people to provide care.

Which is all to the good. I admire them for going there to take on this challenge.

So, when there is a genuine crisis and a genuine shortage in Africa, it is permissible for doctors to train laypersons, even without the schools, textbooks, degrees, and tuition, on an ad-hoc basis. But are MD's allowed to train people in America outside of accredited medical schools? Can Americans practice medicine without a degree and a license? Wouldn't this make medical care more accessible to more people, and drive down the price?

Apparently, we can't have that in the U.S. because Americans deserve the quality care only a licensed, advance-degreed doctor can provide. If we can't have that, we shouldn't be allowed to have any care at all.

Funny how what is necessary in Africa is illegal in the U.S.

Live by the Police State, Die by the Police State

Roger Roots has a great piece on now ex-Senator Craig at LRC. Craig's tenure in Washington coincided with the expansion of the Police State - much of which Craig supported - and it is this very Police State that entrapped him and forced him to enter a possibly false guilty plea. Craig was hoist by a petard he had part ownership of.

It is frustrating Craig is forced out for a non-crime - not for supporting the war or any of dozens really "unforgivable" votes.

I'm reminded of Alberto Gonzales getting run out of the Attorney General office for the perfectly legal activity of firing U.S. Attorneys - not because of torture memos or warrant-less wiretapping.

The political class gets upset over the wrong things and has no idea what's important.

By the way, the "unforgivable" link above to Mitch McConnell's opinion of Craig's non-crime also mentioned this:

McConnell was being honored for steering $2.5 million in federal funds to the law school for a program that places students in summer internships to help prosecute drug-related crime.

Steering pork-barrel, unconstitutional spending to the insane War on Drugs - that is "unforgivable." That is what is wrong with America, not the fact that a Senator wants anonymous gay fellatio.

Mitch McConnell ought to be ashamed of himself.