From La Postrel, here and here:

On the old political spectrum, socialism defined the left. That meant that the more you opposed socialism, for whatever reason, the further right you were. On the old spectrum, therefore, classical liberals were on the right, which makes us the right wing of the dynamist coalition.

It matters a lot whether we define our central challenge today as opposing socialism or as protecting dynamism. If we declare “the left” our enemies and “the right” our allies, based on anti-socialist assumptions, we will ignore the emerging left-right alliance against markets. We will miss the symbolic and practical importance of such cutting-edge issues as biotechnology, popular culture, international trade, and Internet governance. We will sacrifice whole areas of research and innovation to stay friendly with people who’ll agree to cut taxes just a little bit, and only for families with children. We will miss the chance to deepen the appreciation for market processes among people who lack the proper political pedigree. We will sacrifice the future of freedom in order to preserve the habits of the past.

A noted historian has resigned from his long-time association with the Carter Center over Jimmy Carter’s Middle East fantasies and lies:

President Carter’s book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook.

A lot of people can argue over who is the worst president, but Carter has to be the worst former President, hands down.

Ilya Somin has some further thoughts on Brink Lindsey’s proposal. In fact he repeats an argument that I’ve made in the past:

Most of those who argue against a libertarian-conservative coalition focus heavily on the issue of civil libeties. It is indeed the case that even most pro-limited government conservatives differ with libertarians on social issues such as censorship of pornography and gay rights. These differences are not going to go away. As a matter of philosophical principle, these differences are very grave. However, they matter less as a matter of practical politics because the ability of government to seriously constrain these kinds of freedoms in the modern world is quite limited. All the efforts of social conservatives over the last forty years have had little impact on people’s ability to consume pornography, nor have they significantly slowed what I think is the natural and inevitable evolution towards greater social and legal acceptance for homosexuals.

Brink Lindsey, on a potential alliance between Dems and libertarians.

Brink’s a smart guy, but I don’t think so. There are too many irreconcilable differences–on guns, on the role of the government, etc.–to put together a workable coalition. In addition, I continue to object to calling collectivists liberals. In many ways, they’re the exact opposite. I’m a liberal.

Taylor Dinerman writes about one of the many unfortunate consequences of a Democrat Congress–renewed (and more effective) efforts to prevent us from defending ourselves against missiles.

Taylor Dinerman writes about one of the many unfortunate consequences of a Democrat Congress–renewed (and more effective) efforts to prevent us from defending ourselves against missiles.

Taylor Dinerman writes about one of the many unfortunate consequences of a Democrat Congress–renewed (and more effective) efforts to prevent us from defending ourselves against missiles.

That’s what Orson Scott Card is with Gary Trudeau and his comparisons between George Bush and Bill Clinton:

“The second president [Clinton] lies about hooking up with an intern.”

Aw, yeah, that’s nothing. Now, if Clinton had sent her dirty messages by IM or email, then he should have not just been impeached, but convicted and thrown out of office. But actually getting her to perform sexual acts on him, and then lying about it — heck, who doesn’t do that with underage sex partners who are in an almost infinitely subservient relationship with the most powerful man on earth?

And the lying — never mind that it was under oath in a court proceeding. Never mind that the lie was not to protect national security in any way, but merely to obstruct his opponent in a personal lawsuit based on previous sexual misconduct. It just doesn’t matter because it’s kind of charming that Clinton’s insatiable sexual appetite could not be controlled even when he was in the White House.

Because that just makes him a “babe hound,” to quote Trudeau’s comic strip. And the Left finds “babe hounds” rather charming. Unless they’re Republicans, in which case they must be hounded from office immediately.

This is the moral universe of Garry Trudeau — and of thousands, perhaps millions of others who subscribe to the Smarty-Pants school of moral reasoning. President Bush, whose actions have obviously been motivated solely by the desire to protect America from a genuine danger from bloodthirsty enemies, is worthy of impeachment for the crimes of (a) not always being right, (b) doing what other presidents have done, and (c) having national media figures hate him so badly that they will happily believe any vile rumor his enemies spread about.

And lest the lefty wingnuts howl about this last, they should read the whole thing, in which their hateful loony rants are preemptively demolished.

Instapundit and Radley Balko have been on the warpath for a while against “no-knock” raids.

They should be, and so am I.

All of the evidence in the London assassinations indicates that Putin is behind it. Means, motive, opportunity.

So naturally, Pat Buchanan thinks that this is proof that Putin is being set up.

It’s amazing to think of how many people voted for this man for president.

[Update at 7 PM EST]

I didn’t read carefully enough. Putin’s not just being set up. He’s being set up by the Jews!