It's Past Noon, Pennington. Where's Your Post?

… And didn’t I tell you to get a frickin’ haircut? What’s up with you, lately?

Yessir. No excuse, Sir. I’ll do better, I promise.

Well, you better. I’m watching you, ya know.

The opening paragraphs in an op-ed in today’s WSJ:

While the number of Americans who self-identify as "libertarian" remains small, a substantial proportion agree with the core stances of limited constitutional government in both the economic and social spheres--what is sometimes called "economic conservatism" and "social liberalism." But if they watched the Republican presidential debate on May 15, many Americans might resist the libertarian label, because they now identify it with strident opposition to the war in Iraq, and perhaps even to the war against Islamic jihadists.

During that debate, the riveting exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul about whether American foreign policy provoked the 9/11 attack raised the visibility of both candidates. When Mr. Paul, a libertarian, said that the 9/11 attack happened "because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Mr. Giuliani's retort--that this was the first time he had heard that "we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. . . . and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11"--sparked a spontaneous ovation from the audience. It was an electrifying moment that allowed one to imagine Mr. Giuliani as a forceful, articulate president.

And the closing grafs…

Still, there are those pro-invasion libertarians who are now following the progress of Operations Phantom Thunder and Arrowhead Ripper. They hope that the early signs of progress in this offensive will continue, so that American and Iraqi forces can achieve the military victory necessary to allow the Iraqi government to assume responsibility for protecting the Iraqi people from terrorists, as well as from religious sectarian violence. They hope this success will enable American soldiers to leave Iraq even before they leave Europe and Korea, and regain the early momentum that led, for example, to Libya's abandonment of its nuclear weapons program.

These libertarians are still rooting for success in Iraq because it would make Americans more safe, while defeat would greatly undermine the fight against those who declared war on the U.S. They are concerned that Americans may get the misleading impression that all libertarians oppose the Iraq war--as Ron Paul does--and even that libertarianism itself dictates opposition to this war. It would be a shame if this misinterpretation inhibited a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote the general welfare of the American people.

Why, yes, now that you mention it, that would be me… I’m not refusing to self-identify with the Libertarian label, I just don’t identify with that nut case Ron Paul. I wish many more Americans understood what Libertarians are all about, and Ron Paul ain’t helping things one tiny bit. And, as Mr. Barnett notes, Mr. Paul’s views, opinions, and stated policy on the war actually HURT the Libertarian cause.

I suppose I better get my flame-retardant underwear out and put it on, coz you know what happens if one mentions the words “Ron Paul” in a blog. They swoop in out of nowhere…like bats in the moonlight. (Associate those last five words in any manner you choose.)

Some encouraging news on the status of Internet Radio (you may read that as “Radio Paradise”):

NEW YORK - Internet radio broadcasters and the music industry appeared to be moving closer Monday to resolving a dispute over a new system mandating higher royalty fees for streaming music online.

Participants described the negotiations as constructive and said they hoped to build on the momentum achieved last week, when both sides promised quick progress on the issue at a closed-door Congressional meeting held by Rep. Ed Markey, D.-Mass.

The talks were continuing past a July 15 deadline, when a new set of royalties mandated by a panel of three copyright judges went into effect. The judges made the ruling in May after the music industry and Webcasters were unable to agree on a new royalty system to replace a previous set of agreements that expired at the end of 2005.

I said “somewhat encouraging,” didn’t I? (ed: No, you didn't. Oh. My Bad.) Well, at least they’re talking…

And then there’s this on RP’s main page:

Thanks to the tremendous outpouring of support we received about the royalty rates that the big record companies were trying to impose on Internet radio stations like RP, the US Congress has intervened and told the RIAA guys that they had to play fair and negotiate a rate with webcasters that won't bankrupt our entire industry.

All of the dust hasn't settled, but it looks like we will continue to pay the highest royalties of any class of broadcaster in the US — but not the absurdly high rates that the record companies had wanted (and that the US Copyright Office had rubber-stamped). For all of the details, see last Friday's edition of Kurt Hanson's RAIN newsletter, or this Wired blog post.

If you’re interested. Me? I’m just glad RP is still alive and kicking playing kick-ass music.