I said earlier that I would examine this paragraph by Dana Garrett in the light of the success of Cash for Clunkers: Great news all around, right? But, reader, if you hear a note of weeping in the national celebration of this program's success, it's those economic conservatives who, for entirely doctrinaire reasons, simply cannot admit they were wrong. A government stimulus program worked—in fact, it exceeded expectations—and that must be denied at all costs. You see, if they admit that a government stimulus program worked here, then they'll have to admit that such programs might work in other aspects of the economy as well. Too bad for them. Reality is rarely kind to dogmatists. A couple caveats first: 1) I would dispute Dana's assertion that economic conservatives reject the idea of government stimulus. The whole argument over the stimulus package found the GOPers arguing for stimulus in the form of tax cuts or payroll tax holidays, which everyone from Peter Orzag ...

I had much higher hopes for the quality of analysis that Dana Garrett would bring to his series on Libertarians than the current installment merits. In it, Dana indulges himself in creating (without sources or direct attribution) straw-man libertarians who think parents have the right to deny their children life-saving medical treatment. My detailed comments and Tyler's have already been registered at the site. Here's a suggestion that Dana probably won't take (I already offered it once): why not start with a genuine attempt to understand the libertarian philosophy from the perspective of the zero-aggression/no force or fraud principle that is one of the few principles held by virtually all libertarians? If you can't take the time to prove you understand that well enough to critique it rationally, then you can't really make a case that you have any understanding of modern libertarian philosophy. But then, understanding Libertarianism isn't actually the point...

... and I welcome it [read my comment at the end of his inaugural post ]. I don't expect Dana to like a lot of what he finds about Libertarians, but I do expect he will subject the philosophy and its political incarnation to some serious scrutiny. That's good. I intend to link to each of the posts as he publishes them, because I suspect very few Libertarians will make his progressive-liberal blog regular reading (which is a shame, because as much as we disagree we are good friends and learn a lot from each other). A point of personal privilege, however: I suspect Dana will ruffle a lot of your feathers with his opinions. If you want to take issue with him on the issues, or the accuracy of his interpretations, feel free... he's a big guy and can stand up for himself. If, however, you feel the need merely to rant about being mischaracterized by someone you consider a Statist progressive, please do it here rather than there. I'm posting his links on this issue so that ...

Chronicling the visit of some human rights activists to the White House , where they discovered that the new President is mulling a policy of completely unconstitutional preventive detention for terror suspects [which you should read in its entirety], Dana closes with a paragraph that proves his intellectual integrity: Imagine their shock. Here they thought that at a minimum they would be talking to a President who wouldn't be as insensitive as George Bush on the human and legal rights of the detainees, only to confront a President who is considering creating a policy (and a political legacy) of disenfranchising these detainees of their rights in perpetuity. The differences between Obama the candidate and Obama the President are so vast they make one's head swim. That sort of intellectualy consistency is why Dana Garrett represents the progressive conscience of the Delaware blogosphere.

Dana Garrett was an outstanding and gracious host, and we had a great discussion. George Donnelly says I say, "Ahhh" too much, which is certainly true. Half an hour is not a long time, but the Children's Theater of Delaware was waiting in the wings. You can listen to it here . My only real regrets: not mentioning the Libertarian Party of Delaware's great candidates like Mark Parks and Tyler Nixon, but, hey, Tyler was on a competing radio station at the same time, so he can get his own damn publicity.

Not to compete with Tyler, but Libertarians seem to hit the saturation point tonight, as I will be appearing on Progressive Voices on WVUD 91.3 [listen online here ] at 6:30pm. Thanks to Dana Garrett for the invite.

... that Dana Garrett and I have been having over several posts, and that I thought deserved a better audience than you generally get in the comments section. I said Obama objected to Iraq as the wrong war, not to the concept of unilateral military inteventionism which he espouses in his speeches and in The Audacity of Hope. To which Dana responded: What is wrong w/ unilateral military inteventionism if it is done as a preemptive measure against a known planned attack on the US or if it is done for human rights purposes (e.g. to stop genocide)? As long as he doesn't adopt a preventitive stance like Bush, he's different from Bush. Dana raises two specific points here: 1) Unilateral military intervention as a preemptive measure against a known planned attack on the US 2) Unilateral military intervention for human rights purposes (e.g. to stop genocide) Let's tackle that known, planned attack on the US , sometimes referred to as the Pearl Harbor doctrine--the idea that FDR w...

At Delaware Watch , Dana draws our attention to a post from CommonDreams.org (not a place I would have gone without his prompting, I admit) regarding US military atrocities in the Korean War. Everybody--every American should read this post, now . Here's what Dana says: This can't be true because everything the US does is good by definition. Why, it's tautological: the USA equals good. The US committed war crimes? That can't be. Only the enemies of the US commit war crimes because the US says so and as we all know, the US never lies. He's right, but I think he misses the point--partly. Wars--no matter who fights them--are the repository of murder, mayhem, and atrocity. A Just War is at least theoretically possible, a Good War in the sense of honorable conflict without barbarism is simply not possible . It hasn't been possible in any war America has ever fought. What is thoroughly reprehensible is that American foreign policy makers have internalized a lesson...

Love him or hate him, over at Delaware Watch Dana Garrett shows integrity by calling out Senator Barack Obama in no uncertain terms regarding his wilt on the FISA bill. That fact that Obama has disappointed Dana on this issue will not change his support for the presumptive Democratic nominee, but I wouldn't expect a single issue to do so. I've tried to set a similar standard here: say the good and the bad about the candidates when it's merited, so I appreciate him doing the same. Here's my whimsical challenge for you, Dana. You've done several posts critical of John McCain's personal life (the infamous c**t episode, etc.). I agree that there's plenty there to criticize . But how about reading about McCain's adoptive daughter Bridget , and letting us know what you think about that aspect of his life? I certainly wouldn't expect it to change your position on his politics, but I also don't think it hurts to take a break from the partisanship ...

. . . as hard as that may be for some of you to believe. Check out When You Need Revenue, Just Turn Up the Screws . I'm not posting this to accomplish some sort of cheap shot against Dana Garrett, who's a social democrat and favors universal health care via single-payer and other publicly funded solutions with which I vehemently disagree. I'm posting it because it raises the point that we often forget in America: that we are a complex people, with beliefs that do not rigidly hew any particular ideological line in the face of things like, say, clear conflict of interest or casual abridging of the due process of law. Unfortunately, we spend far too much time in name-calling and sound-bites to remember that the commonalities that unite us are more significant than the political opinions that divide us .

Perhaps it was too be expected that Dana, at Delaware Watch , would find a pro-government, anti-private enterprise lesson in the current Texas Charter Schools controversy. Here's the gist of the story as Dana reported it: Nearly One-Half of All Charter Schools in Texas Have Bilked Taxpayers for $26 Millions .... More news of success from the barely regulated, semi-private and "superior" education system.... "Nearly half" in Texas is no small number. It's "93 of the 211 charter operators," 20% of which, apparently, took the money and ran.... Why did these charter schools rip off the taxpayers?... Perhaps a more fruitful question is why have so many of the Lone Star state's charter schools found themselves frequently distressed. Unsurprisingly, one explanation happens to be one of the reasons that many politically active misers find attractive about charter schools. Cheap labor = inexperienced labor.... It appears that charter schools in Texas ha...

. . . will never be tried, according to one of John McCain's potential running mates. Recently Dana and I traded arguments over the new statistics that showed the US leaping ahead of China in terms of percentage of the population in prison. Now Florida Governor Charlie Crist (often mentioned as a possible Republican VP candidate) has declined to review Florida's draconian penalties for drug possession. This by way of Drug War Rant : There's a must-read article by Marc Caputo in the Miami Herald today: Crist wants to maintain drug penalties Check out the well-constructed lede: Though he has admitted to smoking marijuana, Gov. Charlie Crist said he still favors Florida's tough drug laws and doesn't support legislative plans to review whether to lessen penalties for some crimes such as non-violent drug possession. There's an incredible amount of meat in that one sentence -- the hypocrisy of Gov. Crist, the fact that Florida's drug laws are tough, the fact that...

Over at Delaware Watch, Dana has an interesting post on The Spreading Totalitarianism of the Private Sector , which I recommend to you. I agree with many of his observations, if not necessarily his conclusions. After detailing the kind of enforced groupthink ceremonies at MBNA that George Orwell appeared to describe in 1984, he concludes [edited for brevity not to distort; go read the original]: I am not making a case for smoking or obesity. I'm arguing that in the US we locate the fear of authoritarian control over our lives in the wrong sphere of influence. We fear it's the public sector that primarily threatens our liberty when, in fact , it's the workplace in the private sector that is undermining our liberties.... Some mistakes are so elementary that one must resort to uttering truisms to make the point: Totalitarian control is totalitarian control whether it occurs in the public or private sector.... But we mustn't control the private sector democratically throug...

Today Dana thanked the teachers at Ann P. Mote Elementary School and publicly came out in support of the upcoming Red Clay Consolidate School District referendum . One of the things I actually like about school financing is that the districts have to ask the voters for each tax increase. When a district has had financial problems, like Red Clay, this becomes a dicey proposition. For personal and professional reasons I cannot write here in detail about the reasons why I support this tax increase. Fortunately, Dana Garrett has done it for me. Now, tomorrow (or at least by Friday) he will be back to being a Social Democrat who wants to take all my hard-earned money for crackpot social engineering, and I will be back to being a heartless Libertarian who thinks that his property rights are the excuse to starve poor children while denying them medical treatment. Today, however, we're on exactly the same sheet of music. Thanks, Dana.

Let's see if I can beat Delaware Watch to the punch on this on e, so I can at least deny Dana bragging rights. The Snooze Journal today has the story of Chrysler telling local plant employees that they can no longer park their non-Chrysler automobiles near plant entrances , but now have to place them in a marked-off lot a considerable distance away. [Worse still, the UAW is apparently not fighting this action.] This is an example of non-physical coercion on the part of an employer, and gratuitously mean-spirited coercion at that. The employer is saying, "The salaries we pay you are not yours to expend freely, because if you don't purchase our products we will penalize you." As much as I hate to quote you, Dana, and give you the satisfaction, this is "stealing labor." This is the sort of corporatist, fascist decision-making that gives honest businesses a bad name. And this, after Chrysler has chiseled for years to get tax breaks just to stay in the State.