“Churches.” I should have really learned to spell as an undergrad.

Rufus – many of your “goofy” positions are really just value disputes, such as contraception or the drug war. You merely have a different set of first principles; that does not neccessarily make you smarter than them, although you almost certainly are.

Brian – If you are concerned that ads unduly influence campaigns by pushing the dumb voters into one candidate’s camp or the other, then is that not really a critique of democratic elections as a whole? After all, if the only votes that are “pure” are the ones that are cast on intelligent analysis of issues rather than ones based on superficial attack ads, then what could be said about the fact that many votes are cast for reasons of personal appearance or blind loyalty to a faction? Or those perhaps that are cast for reasons of ethnic solidarity? The whole premise of CFR is that only votes that are cast with a pure heart and a clear mind are really worthy, other votes are somehow less worthy, which to me is a dangerous precendent towards a vague mangerial elitism.

But the fact remains that every year 100+ billion USD in contracts is up for grabs at the federal level alone for creative rent seekers, and until this is addressed all of the paper walls Congress passes (the same group that’s “corrupt”, mind you) are meaningless, since the cost of advertising is relaively small and the rewards of pork relatively great. One could even make a Drug War analogy here.

Okay, lets look at money=speech for a sec here. For example, in Egypt and our “good ally” Turkey Christians cannot repair or build new churchs. While there are few limits _per se_ on freedom of faith, and both nations justify their positions on “land use” grounds, it is obvious what the real intent is here.

Same with money=speech. If I can spend 100 dollars in the NYT to say “buy the ‘Monthly Review’” but I can’t use that same 100 dollars to say “Vote for Gus Hall” then clearly the limit is not on expenditure on ads as such but on the political speech content itself. Thus the restriction isn’t anywhere near “content neutral,” which is the relevant criterion the Supremes have established for determining whether or not a restriction on speech is valid.

It strikes me as belonging to the class of ultra goofy positions that includes disbelieving evolution, supporting the war on drugs, thinking the Afghan war was about oil, and being against contraception.

If I’m just missing something, I’d be glad to be told what. But I’ve yet to hear a persuasive argument in its favor.

This is not Minority Report or a bar in Fairfax, VA.

But if McCain comes out against mandatory service, I apologise in advance. I’ve just gotten jumpy over the years.

As for mandatory nation service – I agree with you that its not desirable. I am not as up on McCain’s policy positions as I once was but last I had heard he was simply encouraging national service. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. If I’m incorrect and he is in favor of mandatory national service, you are right, he is wrong, but its also hardly a major break from the Republican party.

So, in other words, limiting people’s ability to speak their minds in the context of a political campaign (of all times) is a libertarian gray area, like abortion or foreign policy? I would not consider it as such, seeing as how political speech is absolutely foundational to a free society.

And then there’s McCain’s backing of so-called “national service.” While this wouldn’t be the biggest violation of freedom our state engages in (that is reserved for our gun/drug wars), it is arguably the sickest since the _whole entire point_ of it seems to be the symbolic negation of libertarian/individualistic ideals as well as the glorification of state-collectivism.