If you have small kids, the laws about seat restraints virtually mandate having an SUV or minivan. Until you have an electric car that can get to that size with a significant amount of range, electric cars will be a niche market at best.

Separate but equal is acceptable where gender differences are a factor. Do you think separate Male/Female restrooms should be made illegal?

What's interesting is that Progressives do not believe that a person has a right to health care in any form. If the ultimate progressive heath system is "Single Payer" if the single payer determines that the procedure your docs recommend is not worth the expense and will not pay for it, you have no recourse to purchase it yourself. If you do have recourse, the system is not single payer.

The reason that conservatives are morally offended by the estate tax more than other forms of taxation is that it's only justification is wealth redistribution. This is one of the few taxes that is directly on wealth. Because of that it is notoriously difficult to determine what the proper amoount tax should be because it includes the non-cash assets of the estate. As such, many believe that it actually costs the government money to collect the tax. It is also destructive of smallish businesses as estates which are asset rich but cash poor have to sell off productive assets to meet the tax, especially when the rate is set at punitive levels. Ironically, the tax encourages the formation of large corporate business models to shelter...

"Frankly, I find the distinction between “libertarian” and “libertine” to be a waste of time."

It seems to me that the distinction between them is that libertarian means being free to take the actions you want but accepting the consequences and responsibilities of those actions, libertines argue they cannot truly be free unless they can avoid all consequences of what they do.

I find that distinction rather important.

There's also the problem that when Liberal's go on moral crusades, they tend to deny that it's a type of morality they are imposing. They usually rationalize it as "public health" or somesuch.

Homosexual couples are not functionally equivalent to heterosexual couples, therefore "equal protection" does not mandate treating homosexual couples legally the same as heterosexual couples. This is because the behavior the relationships are based around have different consequences, and society has a interest in the consequences of heterosexual acts and no interest in the consequences of homosexual acts. Screaming equality just shows how studiously you are ignoring the elephant in the room. Same sex couples are barred from marriage, not because the individual are homosexuals, but becaus ethey cannot do what a heterosexual couple can. There is no equivalency.

You can treat people differently if their situations have different results. The equal protection argument for rests on the idea that male and female are perfectly interchangable. That whether you have a sexual relationship with a male or a female has the same consequences and your coice only resides in personal preference based on aesthetics. If sex between a man and woman was not a potential reproductive pairing, marriage would not exist as an institution. We would not care as a soicety about the long term health of such a relationship. Similarly, society has no interest in the long health of homosexual pairings. What Olsen and Boies are arguing for treating relationships with dissimilar consequences alike in an absurd quest for...

Crist's interest in the Senate has to do with the fact that the governor in FL is limited to two terms, while a senator can run indefinitely. Crist thinks that if he can get into the Senate he'll have a job until he wants to leave. Crist is a complete political opportunist.

I rather suspect the main culprit here is Billy Ray starting to sexualize his duaghter's act for her looming post Disney career.