Last week’s Weekly Standard was pretty sweet.

The cover article – The Colorado Model: The Democrats’ plan for turning red states blue – cites my boss Eric O’Keefe in terms of successful political strategy.

Eric O’Keefe, chairman of the conservative Sam Adams Alliance in Chicago, says there are seven “capacities” that are required to drive a successful political strategy and keep it on offense: the capacity to generate intellectual ammunition, to pursue investigations, to mobilize for elections, to fight media bias, to pursue strategic litigation, to train new leaders, and to sustain a presence in the new media. Colorado liberals have now created institutions that possess all seven capacities. By working together, they generate political noise and attract press coverage. Explains Caldara, “Build an echo chamber and the media laps it up.”

First, there are the think tanks such as Bighorn and Bell and supposedly nonpartisan political advocacy groups like the Colorado clone of MoveOn.org called ProgressNowAction.org, founded in 2005. Another clone, this one a local version of Media Matters known as Colorado Media Matters, was created two years ago to harass journalists and editorial writers who don’t push the liberal line.

There’s a “public interest” law firm, Colorado Ethics Watch, established in 2006, plus an online newspaper, the Colorado Independent, with a team of reporters to ferret out wrongdoing by Republicans, also begun in 2006. And there’s a school to train new liberal leaders, the Center for Progressive Leadership Colorado, as well as new media outlets with bloggers and online news and gossip, including ColoradoPols.com and SquareState.net. That covers all seven capacities. Count them.

While I was checking that article out, another entitled Self-Interest Is Bad? caught my eye. It ends with the following thoughts:

For four long years the rest of us will be hectored about pursuing a cause greater than our self-interest, with the unavoidable implication that as we go through the day getting our kids out of bed, packing their lunches, helping them with homework, dragging ourselves to our jobs, enduring an hour’s commute, so we can make enough money to meet our mortgage, attending PTA meetings, feeding the dog, going to church, mowing our neighbor’s lawn while he’s on vacation, planning a birthday party, saying a prayer for a sick friend, picking up a six-pack for our brother-in-law on the way home, writing a check to the Red Cross, shopping for an old roommate’s wedding gift, pretending to listen to the tedious beefs of a co-worker, telephoning an aging aunt, and otherwise doing what it is we need to do to make our lives mean something, we are merely pursuing what our two presidential candidates consider our selfish interest. Because we haven’t joined one of their national service programs.

For now, of course, each of the two men, McCain and Obama, points to himself as an exemplar of service–even as he avoids his family, neglects his job, and hands his everyday obligations over to poorly paid subordinates, all so he can fulfill his lifelong ambition of becoming the most powerful and celebrated man in the world. What do you know: They think their self-interest is a cause greater than their self-interest. Funny how that happens.

Virginia Postrel, author of The Future and Its Enemies–one of my favorite pieces of political nonfiction–is featured in reason.tv’s latest video entitled Organ Transplants: Kidneys for Sale (I had a blog post with the same subtitle here).

‘What’d she do–donate her kidney?’

Why yes she did! In order to save an ally’s life. In order to make a larger political and moral point. In order to make some money. Err, can’t do that…

[quicktime]http://s3.amazonaws.com/reasontv-video/reasontv_video_333.mp4[/quicktime]

Hands down, the most absurd argument against organ-markets comes from UCLA’s Dr. Gabriel Danovitch, stating that money compromises what was previously an altruistic donation, that the dollar signs negate the selfless goodness of the action.

“Because they don’t care about each other…We’re going to take the caring about of it and it’s becomes a matter of paying off people.”

What is he, crazy? Pushing a form of Kantian duty as the legal standard?! Yamma-hamma. Now I don’t tow the Randian line when it comes to detesting all things Kant–she definitely threw out the baby with the bathwater in that regard–but her diagnosis of Kant’s moral philosophy is right on:

What Kant propounded was full, total, abject selflessness: he held that an action is moral only if you perform it out of a sense of duty and derive no benefit from it of any kind; neither material nor spiritual; if you derive any benefit, your action is not moral any longer.

Not the best criteria to base legislation upon.

On the other hand, maybe it does work! Courtesy of the Onion, Anonymous Philanthropist Donates 200 Human Kidneys to Hospital:

[youtube]D_5nLxZVoPo[/youtube]

UPDATE: I wish I was clever enough to think of the following title for this post: Kant get a kidney? No Wonder. It’s an article by Thomas L. Knapp that I found after the fact in Rational Review. Great stuff that goes further to make the Kant/kidney connection.