The April 2007 state convention of the California Libertarian Party went well for antiwar libertarians. The previous leaders made a point of avoiding the war issue, but the newly elected Executive Committee has far more antiwar members.
One of their first acts was to appoint me as editor of California Freedom, the state newspaper. June 2007 was my first issue.
Antiwar libertarians were thrilled, pro-war libertarians less so. The former Orange County chair even shot off a missive saying that California Freedom had become a "blame America first" publication. (Which is code for "If you ever criticize America, or its government, you're anti-American." -- and how is that a libertarian, or even a rationale, perspective?)
I'd promised to show all sides as editor, but it's hard to find libertarians who want to go on record as "pro-war." Most insist that they're "pro-defense," and waffle when asked to submit pro-war pieces ("I certainly don't support the way the war is being fought").
Even so, the August issue will have some pro-war pieces. I suspect the pro-war crowd won't be entirely pleased, despite that. They'd rather the war issue be entirely avoided.
I can understand that. The status quo is that there's a war on, and silence supports the status quo. Any debate and discussion can only benefit the antiwar faction.
And there will be debate and discussion. California Freedom will be fair, but it will not avoid the war issue, not while I'm editor.
When a Banyan Tree Hides the Secret to a Korean Enigma - About a hundred miles north of Bangalore, India, in the village of Thimmamma Marrimanu grows an eponymous banyan tree. There are all kinds of records for t...
3 hours ago