Taking Marriage Private

Stephanie Coontz, an Evergreen State College professor, has written this argument for getting government out of the marriage business. Its nice to see that libertarian ideas are getting some traction.

ABC News Poll - Paul's support triples in Iowa, so does Huckabee's

As can be seen from this ABC News poll Ron Paul's support in Iowa has tripled, from 2% in July to 6% now. But the big news is that Mike Huckabee's support has also tripled, from 8% in July to 24% now. Now only Mitt Romney leads Huckabee.

Paul supporter buys full page ad in USA Today

See this paid political message in support of Ron Paul in today's edition of USA Today. This ad was apparently paid for by Larry Lepard a 50 year old investment manager, using nearly $85,000 of his own money.

NH CNN Poll: Paul & Huckabee gaining - Thompson slipping

According to a CNN poll published on 11/19, in the last two months, Ron Paul has doubled his support in New Hampshire to 8%. Also gaining was former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

The big loser was Fred Thompson, who dropped from 4th place to 6th place in the same period.

But all is not rosy for Paul in this poll. 61% of those polled said they would not support Paul under any circumstance.

Meanwhile a Washington Post-ABC News poll in Iowa shows Barak Obama inching ahead of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards losing ground.

Niche Society

Let us be lovers we’ll marry our fortunes together
I’ve got some real estate here in my bag
So we bought a pack of cigarettes and Mrs. Wagner pies
And we walked off to look for America...

The lyrics of this Paul Simon song came to mind as I read today's op-ed by New York Times columnist David Brooks. Commenting on the fragmentation of the music industry and the death of the so-called mega-group, he laments The Segmented Society. It isn't just the state of the music industry that bothers Brooks. He says,

"It seems that whatever story I cover, people are anxious about fragmentation and longing for cohesion. This is the driving fear behind the inequality and immigration debates, behind worries of polarization and behind the entire Obama candidacy. If you go to marketing conferences, you realize we really are in the era of the long tail. In any given industry, companies are dividing the marketplace into narrower and more segmented lifestyle niches."

Certainly the segmentation of society is not really a surprise. Before 1983 AT&T was the only phone company in town. Now there are dozens. When was the last time anybody referred to GM, Ford and Chrysler as "the big three automakers"? How many networks now compete with ABC, CBS and NBC for TV viewers? Daily newspapers have been steadily losing market shares for years. Google, Yahoo and multiple other web sites now offer "personalized" portal pages. And so on.

Yet in a way there really is something to lament. For baby boomers the music spoke for the generation. From "One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small..." to "I read the news today, oh boy..." to "Stop, hey, what's that sound..." to "What's goin' on?..." to "The answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind..." the music defined who we were. And if there was an anthem of the generation, it was this Youngbloods tune:

Come on people now
smile on your brother
everybody get together
and try to love one another right now

What baby boomer does not know this refrain by heart? What baby boomer doesn't hope, deep down, that someday everybody can get together?

But it hasn't happened. The Woodstock generation gave way to the Watergate generation. The things that tied us together in the sixties drove us apart in the seventies. Foreign policy debacle followed foreign policy debacle. Back home the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The civil rights movement balkanized into the separate movements of several minorities. And we have never been able to reclaim the unity of ideals and purpose that defined "the flower generation."

Conspiracy theorists may blame the Bilderbergs or the Trilateral Commission. But I think, at least as to the music, the seeds of this splintering were there in the beginning. The music that defined the baby boomer generation was a music of rebellion. Both rhythmically and lyrically it marked a significant departure from the music that had come before.

In fact, what we call rock-n-roll was largely a synthesis of different types of music with very different ethnic and religious roots. Blues, bluegrass, country & western and gospel all had a hand in the creation of rock. It was a music that overtly challenged tradition and authority, when both of which had become ossified in the first half of the twentieth century.

But the challenges never stopped and now there is little tradition left. Holidays are now more than ever just days off from work. The celebrations for which these days were set aside are all so much rigmarole that we are more likely pay someone to entertain us than to cook our own meals or create our own activities. According to Brooks very few of today's musicians know the roots of the music they play. Consequently most of it is adrift in a sea of noise, meaningless.

Meanwhile, authority has no respect. And maybe it doesn't deserve any. The unity and sense of purpose that informed World War II has all but vanished from the American landscape. Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II - all of them demonstrated significant weaknesses of one form or other. Both Congress and the Supreme Court seem content to continually whittle away at our constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. Musically, there are no Dylans or Lennons to rely on either.

So, who are we? What does it mean to be an American these days? Even our common heritage as a nation of immigrants is losing its vitality as those of us who are already here wonder whether America is still "the land of opportunity." Now we seem to have this sense of limits, limits on available resources, limits on the way we treat the ecology, limits on the very freedoms on which the country was built.

Consequently, it seems to me, Americans are not so much interested in growth as they are in protecting what they have. And so they divide up into factions, each one focusing on some particular aspect of life that is most important to them, but each one also knowing that this sort of selfishness can never get us together and love one another right now.

Kathy, I’m lost, I said, though I knew she was sleeping
I’m empty and aching and I don’t know why
Counting the cars on the New Jersey turnpike
They’ve all gone to look for America
All gone to look for America
All gone to look for America

Liberty Dollar Seizure turns into battle cry for Ron Paul supporters

Anyone who owns so-called "Liberty Dollars" and "Ron Paul Dollars" should be prepared for a dramatic increase in their collectibility and value.

For about eight years, Liberty Dollars have been minted and sold by a group known as the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act and Internal Revenue Code (NORFED) as a medium for "private voluntary barter" transactions. However, in 2006 the US Mint posted its determination that these coins constituted illegal currency.

NORFED's defense of its activities can be found here. And here is a copy of an amended complaint filed by NORFED seeking an injunction against the US Mint's interference with its business.

But anyone who has spit into the wind knows the results are none too favorable. Last Friday, just as NORFED was preparing to mail out thousands of "Ron Paul Dollars" to customers, the FBI executed this search warrant. According to the warrant, the NORFED's coins were illegal currency and its purpose was to "undermine the United States financial systems." As if.

But that isn't the end of the story. News of the raid spread across the blogosphere like wildfire and legions of Ron Paul supporters are livid. The Washington Post has this story and several posted comments from Paul supporters. Interesting reading.

So, don't count on seeing any more Liberty Dollars for a while. And pay close attention to any you may already have. They are likely to become highly treasured collector's items.

Ron Paul wins straw vote in New York

The results: Mr. Paul, 26 votes; Mr. Giuliani, 21; Mitt Romney, 6; John McCain, 4; Mike Huckabee, 2; Duncan Hunter, 1; Fred Thompson, 1; Tom Tancredo, 0. The story is here.

Another example of the pointlessness of campaign finance regulations

This past summer the US Supreme Court ruled that issue based political ads that were not designed to influence an election were not subject to campaign finance regulations. On its face this may seem an obvious and correct result. But consider the behavior of a newly formed group called the Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America.

As explained more fully in this story the group is now running ads in South Carolina urging citizens to contact Congress to express their support for the so-called Wounded Warriers Act. What's wrong with that, you say?

1. Congress is already in support of the bill, and it is virtually guaranteed to pass anyway. 2. The bill's sponsor, John McCain, is targeting South Carolina for a win in his race for president, and 3. The ad prominently features McCain.

When the legality of this kind of ad was before the Supreme Court McCain's lawyers filed a brief opposing the practice. But the Supreme Court ruled the First Amendment rights of issue based groups could not be stiffled just because they might want to speak during an election. As the story points out, "The decision removed virtually any restrictions on these groups’ ability to advertise, and made nonprofit corporations, with their few disclosure requirements, the tool of choice for big donors looking to influence elections because of their wide latitude to advertise."

Here is yet another example why campaign finance regulations are foolish, and frankly, anti-democratic. They become so complex that lawyers are necessary to figure them out. And no matter how intricate or nuanced the regulations, the First Amendment rights to speak supercede most of them anyway. So what's the point of having them?

The Ron Paul momentum

Today's New York Times has this article that discusses the groundswell of interest that Ron Paul has generated on the Internet. Apparently Paul is as surprised as everyone else about the success of last Monday's internet fundraising drive.

Particularly important, although not explicitly stated, is that Paul's is not a traditional personality driven campaign, as were George Wallace's or Ross Perot's campaigns. While it is true that Paul isn't willing to softpetal any of his principles, it is also true that he is not micromanaging his campaign. Monday's $4 million fundraiser was organized and carried out by two internet junkies living in two different parts of the country, and whole independent of the campaign itself.

Clearly, it is the ideas, and not Paul's personality, that has created the Paul groundswell.

Republicans do not like Libertarian candidate

Washington Poll, an academic research project at the UW, recently included former Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Ruth Bennett in its 11/8/07 poll of Washington voters' preferences for the 2008 governor's race. Even though incumbent Christine Gregoire and former Republican challenger Rossi got the most support, the results are interesting to Libertarians for other reasons.

According to the poll, Bennett appeals most to young non-Republicans (i.e., Democrats and Independents) on the east side of the state. Particularly significant is that few if any self-identified Republican voters on either side of the state supported Bennett in this poll.

These poll results suggest, contrary to the prevailing wisdom of the political pundits, Republicans and Libertarians are not the kindred spirits everyone thinks they are.

Campaign Finance Red Tape - the bane of political action

The libertarian leaning Institute for Justice has just published this report of a study of campaign finance requirements in three states. Result? All participants committed errors sufficient to warrant penalties. Most could not complete even half of the tasks required for full compliance.

Of course, here in Washington the PDC cheerfully provides technical assistance to those who ask. But that begs the question, why are the requirements so complicated that technical assistance should be needed?

Ron Paul in the money

According to an ABC News story Ron Paul raised 3 million dollars in 24 hours. If true, its a record for internet fundraising.

UPDATE: By the end of Monday's drive the Paul campaign had raised 4.2 million, an apparent record for ANY presidential candidate. Go Ron!

Is this the man you want protecting American voting rights?

The battle over Voter ID laws reached a fever pitch the other day when John Tanner, who heads the US DOJ division voting rights section, testified in Congress recently.

In 2004 Washington's gubernatorial race was decided by 132 votes after two recounts. Along the way we learned of massive errors at virtually every level of the election system. Sad to say, this was more evidence of a nationwide problem with election systems, as demonstrated most clearly by the circumstances of the 2000 presidential election in Florida.

Since then Democrats and Republicans have been fighting fiercely over voter ID requirements. Republicans argue, with some merit, that the voting franchise belongs to eligible US citizens only, and not to aliens, felons or dead people, all of whom somehow manage to cast votes in every election. Democrats argue, also with some merit, that the real problem of elections is administrative, and the number of illegal votes cast is miniscule by comparison to the number of miscounted or uncounted votes that often tip the balance of elections.

Of course, the real issue isn't election integrity. Rather, the issue is the competence and wherewithal of the voter pool. Voters who are better educated and well off financially tend to vote Republican. Voters who are poor or otherwise disadvantaged tend to vote Democratic. Obviously a Voter ID requirement will further disadvantage those already disadvantaged, if only for the extra rigmarole that will be required to access the voting booth.

But what happened in Congress was something new. Basically, Mr. Tanner relied on racial stereotypes to justify the administration's support of voter ID requirements. Outraged, the New York Times has called for his termination.

Ignorance is bliss - as long as the administration is on your side.

Today former US Attorney General John Ashcroft published this stupifying op-ed in the New York Times in defense of the telephone companies who cooperated with the Bush administration in illegal wire taps of suspected terrorists.

You will have to read it to believe it. But the essence of it is that the law is irrelevant. If some government official tells you its OK to break the law you are immune from suit.

Really!

Meanwhile, of course, his first successor has no trouble using DOJ for political purposes and the nominee for his second successor has trouble defining torture. One must hope that Bush's successor will have more respect for the Constitution, and for human dignity.