11 Comments

1. Danimal  •  Jun 17, 2009 @6:34 am
   

   well said, my friend.

2. bw  •  Jun 17, 2009 @9:10 am
   

   Because you don’t support more real libertarians?
   In a world where rampant socialism has made people’s poor personal decisions the taxpayers’ problem, the desire to control people’s personal decisions goes hand in hand with fiscal conservatism. Chicken/egg.

3. Ken  •  Jun 17, 2009 @9:14 am
   

   But what are “real libertarians,” bw, and where do I find them? Unfortunately the people who adopt big-L Libertarian guise are often, to be blunt, nuts. Instead of coming bundled with social conservatism, they come bundled with let’s-blow-up-the-UN craziness or racism. If there were non-nutty small-l civil libertarians who were fiscal conservatives, I’d vote for and support them.

4. Patrick  •  Jun 17, 2009 @9:15 am
   

   The problem with real libertarians, the politicians anyway, is that they have blue skin from years of drinking potions.

5. Linus  •  Jun 17, 2009 @9:20 am
   

   “If there were non-nutty small-l civil libertarians who were fiscal conservatives, I’d vote for and support them.”

   I like to think this is what I am, too. But there’s no way in hell I’d run for office. Part of my libertarian streak is liking my privacy.

6. Ken  •  Jun 17, 2009 @9:22 am
   

   Yeah, Linus, I’m pretty sure you can’t run anonymously. That would be too awesome.

7. Bob  •  Jun 17, 2009 @10:13 am
   

   The Google map for Lake Optima is hilarious. The shape files have the lake, the satellite photos show a forest.

   There appear to be roads going right through the “lake” in the satellite photos.

8. Windypundit  •  Jun 17, 2009 @3:29 pm
   

   It sounds like Tom Coburn is the Anti Barney Frank. Frank is great on social freedoms, but his economic despotism is frightening.

9. jack fate  •  Jun 17, 2009 @4:27 pm
   

   While there is plenty of waste to complain about, I’m not sure this is the greatest example. Where I come from, there tends to be an elevation drop within the vicinity of anything deemed a lake or body of water. Should an open-to-the-public right-of-way come close to the edge of a lake in such a way that leaving said right-of-way with your vehicle is made more treacherous by an embankment – even a slight one. A guardrail doesn’t seem like that big of a deal and probably a good idea.

   You can almost smell the wrongful death lawsuits.

   It’s notable that the Army Corps of Engineer’s reasons for wanting the guardrail are never even mentioned, aside for the all too generic “public safety.”

   Who knows, maybe an traffic engineer could make a smart case for not having a guardrail there? God knows Coburn, however well intentioned, is only barely trying to.

10. Patrick  •  Jun 17, 2009 @4:49 pm
    

    In Coburn’s defense, he’s given his reasons. If the Obama administration had said, “We want to build a guardrail around a dangerous crater, into which dozens of people have fallen,” you’d have a point.

    But instead, the administration says it wants to build a guardrail around a lake.

    A lake which doesn’t exist.

11. David  •  Jun 18, 2009 @10:25 am
    

    They plan to name it “Jobs Saved Basin”

Leave a Reply