Reason Magazine - Staff

Oh, Ziggy, Will You Ever Win?

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:32:00 EDT

Can anybody figure this out?

Writes the Comics Curmudgeon: "AOL-themed joke from 1998 + talking feces = desperate, desperate cry for help."

I tend to agree, but I'm not sure why.

Update: The Onion, of course, publishes Ziggy in Spanish, which makes it at least 15 percent funnier. Though I'm not sure why of that, either.

Teach Your Children Well...Or Their Parents Will Go To Hell Jail

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 13 May 2008 08:38:00 EDT

Via the AP:

A man ordered by a judge to make sure his daughter hit the books has found himself in jail because she failed to earn a high school equivalency diploma.

Brian Gegner, of Fairfield, was sentenced last week to 180 days in jail for contributing to the unruliness or delinquency of a minor.
He was ordered months ago to make sure his 18-year-old daughter Brittany Gegner, who has a history of truancy, received her GED—something that hasn't happened yet.
Brittany Gegner, who said Monday that she plans to take a required GED test this month, said her father shouldn't be blamed for her failure because she has been living with her mother.
"It was my wrongdoing, not his," said Brittany Gegner, whose fiance and 18-month-old daughter also live at her mother's home in nearby Hamilton. "He shouldn't have to go to jail for something I did."
Her mother agrees.
"Brittany is almost 19 years old now and I think it's unfair to put her father in jail," said Shana Roach. "She's an adult now, and it's not right to rip an innocent man from his home."

More here.

Not sure what to make of this all, but I still think this is a great country and that mandatory education is wrong.

Instapundit on Ron Paul's New Blockbuster Book

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 12 May 2008 15:26:00 EDT

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has a new book out titled The Revolution: A Manifesto (it's currently No. 8 on Amazon's bestsellers list).

Here's Glenn Reynolds, a.k.a the Instapundit, on it:

[The Revolution is] important because Ron Paul's candidacy has interested a lot of people in libertarian ideas who probably haven't read those other books, and because their exposure has come not in the context of academic dissatisfaction with the status quo, but in the context of political action. The book benefits from many of the Paul campaign's virtues, in the form of accessibility, clarity, and straightforwardness. On the other hand, it also suffers from some of the Paul campaign's vices, about which more later.
My biggest disagreement, and that of many libertarians with Paul, involves national security. Paul and I are both libertarians, but of different varieties. Paul is an old-fashioned Rothbardian. I'm more of a Heinleinian libertarian and we, like the Randian libertarians, tend to view national defense as more important than the Rothbardians do. Paul's view, essentially, is that if we quit sending troops abroad, other people and countries would quit wanting to kill us. I'm not particularly persuaded by this. First, even during the minimal-government era of Thomas Jefferson we wound up at war with the Barbary Pirates (in many ways, the spiritual antecedents of today's Islamic terrorists). And second, Paul is not an isolationist—he favors much more commercial and cultural engagement with foreign countries, something which, if experience is any guide, is as likely to anger Islamic fundamentalists and other varieties of terrorists and tyrants as is the establishment of foreign bases....
The main shortcoming in Paul's book, as with his candidacy, is in the follow through, the transition from critique to action. Although he does include a chapter entitled "The Revolution," about reducing the size of government, it's a pretty skimpy plan. Were we to see a Ron Paul Administration, with a House and Senate made up of, well, Ron Pauls, it might have a chance of succeeding, though even so he's a bit timid in places - proposing a freeze on the budgets of cabinet departments instead of their outright abolition, for example, despite noting that only State, Defense, and Justice have clear constitutional mandates. But given the unlikelihood of a Paul Administration, and the even greater unlikelihood of a Paul Congress, his policy prescriptions aren't likely to bear fruit. But those who want to see liberty progress right here and right now will look in vain for suggestions on what they might do, right here and right now, to make progress.
Rome didn't fall in a day, and today's monster government didn't spring up overnight. It was the result of incremental expansion. Given that we're not likely to see an opportunity to downsize the federal government overnight, or even in a single Presidential term, those of libertarian inclinations might well look to incremental approaches to reining in Big Government. They will be well advised, however, to look elsewhere than Revolution: A Manifesto. Still, if Fabian Libertarianism is to have a future, it will owe much to the consciousness-raising of the Paul campaign. Socialist candidate Eugene Debs, after all, never got elected President either, but within a few decades much of his platform was adopted by the Democratic Party. May Paul enjoy similar influence on the future of national politics.

Whole thing here.

reason on Ron Paul here.

What the Hell Is Human Dignity Anyway?

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 12 May 2008 07:32:00 EDT

Friend of reason Steven Pinker plows into the mushy category of "human dignity"—routinely invoked to argue against advances in science and medicine that will enliven and lengthen our lives—like nobody's business here:

Many people are vaguely disquieted by developments (real or imagined) that could alter minds and bodies in novel ways. Romantics and Greens tend to idealize the natural and demonize technology. Traditionalists and conservatives by temperament distrust radical change. Egalitarians worry about an arms race in enhancement techniques. And anyone is likely to have a "yuck" response when contemplating unprecedented manipulations of our biology. The President's Council has become a forum for the airing of this disquiet, and the concept of "dignity" a rubric for expounding on it. This collection of essays is the culmination of a long effort by the Council to place dignity at the center of bioethics. The general feeling is that, even if a new technology would improve life and health and decrease suffering and waste, it might have to be rejected, or even outlawed, if it affronted human dignity.
Whatever that is. The problem is that "dignity" is a squishy, subjective notion, hardly up to the heavyweight moral demands assigned to it.

Whole thing in The New Republic, via Arts & Letters Daily, here.

Read Pinker's reason interview here.

Grand Theft Auto IV Steals Sales Records

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 09 May 2008 08:23:00 EDT

It's a bona fide grand slam, despite some mixed reviews and moralizing attacks:

Grand Theft Auto IV has claimed two entertainment industry sales records, posting the best ever single-day and seven-day sales totals for a computer game.
The highly-anticipated, and highly-controversial, game is the latest instalment in Rockstar Games' flagship franchise.
Take Two Interactive, which owns Rockstar, said that GTA IV sold more than 3.6 million copies on its first day of availability, garnering $310m in sales.
Over the course of the first week, that total grew to six million units and $500m in sales.

More here.

"Drop Dead Gorgeous—and Military Trained!"

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Thu, 08 May 2008 10:45:00 EDT

Via the overheated commentary of Extreme Mortman comes this bizarre slow-news-day CNN Situation Room bit on how Israel (that 60-year-old!) is overhauling its image by having former military gals pose for Maxim magazine. "Israel is hip, sexy, and fun," says CNN:

Not sure if Fox News will counterblast with the girls of the PLO.

Gentle reader, does this news change your views on foreign aid?

Or does it merely convince you further that we're living in the Rapture and we don't even know it?

Philly Mayors Says Cops Were Wrong in Beating

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:22:00 EDT

The actions of a throng of [Philadelphia] police officers shown on a videotape kicking and punching three shooting suspects during a traffic stop were inappropriate, Mayor Michael Nutter said Thursday.
A sergeant and five officers have been removed from street duty as authorities investigated the footage. More than a dozen officers were involved, and Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey said investigators were having the videotape enhanced to try to identify how many were actually striking the suspects. Information will be sent to prosecutors, who will determine whether to press charges.
"It absolutely shows inappropriate behavior," Nutter said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America." "There is a way to take people into custody ... and there (are) not acceptable ways of taking people into custody."

More here. The police commissioner has said something similar, and it's refreshing to see authorities not working overtime to defend beserker cops.

Watch the video of the beating and decide for yourself.

And then check out Paulville.org, whose goal is to establish "gated communities containing 100% Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty." (To be honest, I don't know if that means that such police beatings would be totally illegal or an everyday occurence, especially if neighborhood associations embraced the early '90s ideas of Paul advisers/ghostwriters Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell [whose takeaway from the police beating of Rodney King was fear of videocameras].)

Now Playing at Reason.tv: Mississippi Drug War Blues—the Case of Cory Maye

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Thu, 08 May 2008 07:00:00 EDT

The latest Drew Carey Project video for reason.tv tells the story of Cory Maye, who shot and killed a policeman during a 2001 drug raid gone terribly, terribly wrong.

"Mississippi Drug War Blues" is a story about the intersection of race, the war on drugs, the disturbing increase in the militarization of police tactics, and systemic flaws in the criminal justice system. It is a tragedy in which one man is dead and another may spend his life in prison without possiblity of parole.

Click below to view the video and access related materials, including an interview with reason Senior Editor Radley Balko, whose searing October 2006 story changed the course of the case and helped expose fundamental problems with the rules governing Mississippi's expert testimony.

Now Playing at Reason.tv: The New York Sun's Alternative Take on the Big Apple and Beyond

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:30:00 EDT

reason.tv Editor Nick Gillespie recently sat down with The New York Sun's Deputy Managing Editor Robert Asahina and Culture Editor Pia Catton to talk about the six-year-old daily paper's alternative take on the politics and culture; whether the War on Terror will drive Election 2008; how the visual arts are flourishing; why Americans love to hate New York; who deserves credit for the city's turnaround; whether the Big Apple is a libertarian pleasure-dome; and much more.

Approximately 15 minutes; shot by Dan Hayes. Click on the image below to view.

Kevin Bacon, Thou Art Avenged: Dance the Night Away (Finally) at Arizona's San Tan Flat!

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:58:00 EDT

When we last checked in at San Tan Flat, a family restaurant in Pinal County, Arizona, county officials had invoked an anachronistic ordinance to ban outddor dancing at the popular steak joint.

It was the subject of this Drew Carey Project video at reason.tv, dubbed Dance Ban: Footloose in Arizona:

Well, here's some great news, via The Arizona Republic:

Pinal County Superior Court Judge William O'Neil overturned a decision from the county Board of Supervisors that said the country-Western-themed restaurant was operating an illegal dance hall by allowing patrons to dance to live music on its back patio....
The saga of San Tan Flat drew national attention, prompting commentary from actor Drew Carey and conservative Washington Post columnist George Will. The case also received several comparisons to the 1984 Kevin Bacon film Footloose, in which a small town bans rock music and dancing.

More here.

At the time we released the video, one of the owners of San Tan Flat told the East Valley Tribune, "'This adds one more voice, and I think Drew Carey has a credible voice and he speaks with some degree of credibility to the public,' said Dale Bell, who owns San Tan Flat with his son, Spencer."

All of us at reason are glad to see this incredibly stupid injustice made right—and proud of our role in helping it happen.

"Is It Too Late for the GOP to Dump McCain?"

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 07 May 2008 11:35:00 EDT

That's the question that the Newark Star-Ledger's Paul Mulshine is asking after talking to one Matt Welch, author of McCain: The Myth of a Maverick. From Mulshine's col:

"Since about 1997 or 1998, he has lost all skepticism of the use of U.S. military power, period," said Welch when I got him on the phone yesterday. "He has been totally consistent since then that the answer to any military question is more boots on the ground."
To that end, McCain wants to increase the size of the military overall by 150,000 troops and of course wants to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," as he so musically put it. But McCain has no idea how to pay for all the military action that will get his mug on Mount Rushmore alongside his hero Teddy Roosevelt.
On domestic affairs as well, says Welch, the earlier version of McCain was a lot more reasonable. As late as his 2000 campaign for president, he was arguing that the next president should deal with such prosaic problems as the debts for Social Security and Medicare.
"McCain would have been more suited to the time of 2000 and might not have done many of the things Bush did," says Welch. "Maybe his tenor was the tenor we were looking for after Sept. 11, 2001. But I don't think it's the tenor we're looking for after 2008."
The funny part, as Welch notes, is that it wasn't really Republicans who nominated McCain. He failed to win even a plurality of Republican votes in the crucial early primaries. The votes of Democrats and independents gave him that insurmountable lead in a crowded field.

The whole col on McCain here.

The Audacity of Agnosticism

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 07 May 2008 09:33:00 EDT

Over at The American Spectator, Sean Higgins argues that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is an agnostic. He notes that in his memoir, Obama pointedly says he did not have a religious epiphany at the moment he became a member of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's congregation; additionally, Obama was raised to view religion as a cultural thing, rather than a source revealed truth. Higgins closes with this:

His Republican opponent [for a Senate seat in Illinois] was the bombastic, erratic and quite possibly insane black conservative Alan Keyes. Obama crushed him in the general election, but says it was harder than it looked.

"[A]s the campaign progressed, I found him getting under my skin in a way that very few people have. When our paths crossed during the campaign, I often had to suppress the rather uncharitable urge to either taunt him or wring his neck," Obama writes.

How did Keyes do this? By questioning Obama's Christian faith.

"Christ could not vote for Barack Obama," Mr. Keyes once said, "because Barack Obama has voted...in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."

It touched a nerve in Obama and he was by his own account tongued-tied, irritable and tense during their debates. Keyes prodded Obama on the question of biblical literalism.

How could Obama believe the Bible's proclamation that life was sacred and yet support abortion rights, Keyes would ask? Obama gave "the usual liberal response" about separation of church and state.

"[Y]et even as I answered, I was mindful of Mr. Keyes's implicit accusation—that I remained steeped in doubt, that my faith was adulterated, that I was not a true Christian," Obama complains.

Well, it wouldn't have annoyed him that much if Keyes wasn't onto something.

Whole thing here.

I'm not convinced the "real" Christians can't be pro-choice, but I do think Obama's candidacy is forcing a discussion of the intersection of religion and politics that is very interesting and relevant to figuring out how pols govern.

Here Come Da McCain Judges!

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 07 May 2008 08:32:00 EDT

GOP Prez Candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) vows to appoint good conservative judges if elected:

John McCain made a play to the GOP's right wing yesterday, vowing to appoint conservative judges like Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito and blasting Democratic rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton for voting against them.

In a speech his campaign billed as a major address on the judiciary, McCain delivered a harsh critique of "judicial activists" who over step their Constitutional bounds. He also lambasted Democrats for blocking GOP nominees to the bench by turning the confirmation process into a "gauntlet of abuse."

More here.

Never forget: John Roberts played Peppermint Patty in his high school production of You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown, which should have disqualified him from something.

reason's Damon Root on why some libertarian activism on the high court can be a good thing:

A principled form of libertarian judicial activism—that is, one that consistently upholds individual rights while strictly limiting state power—is essential to the fight for a free society....The real legal challenge facing libertarians isn't judicial activism; it is defending individual rights from the liberals and conservatives who seek to take our liberties away.

Nudge, Nudge, Push, Push...Are You Ready for Libertarian Paternalism?

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 06 May 2008 08:12:00 EDT

Here's an account in The Chronicle of Higher Education discussing Nudge, a new book about "libertarian paternalism" by University of Chicago profs Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler. They define LP as "noncoercive alterations" in various sorts of social and economic decision-making contexts.

Sunstein explains the appeal of libertarian paternalism: "For too long, the United States has been trapped in a debate between the laissez-faire types who believe markets will solve all our problems and the command-and-control types who believe that if there is a market failure then you need a mandate." That debate has been exhausted, he says.
"The laissez-faire types are right that ... government can blunder, so opt-outs are important," he says. "The mandate types are right that people are fallible, and they make mistakes, and sometimes people who are specialists know better and can steer people in directions that will make their lives better."
Sunstein argues that understanding human irrationality can improve how public and private institutions shape policy by increasing the likelihood that people will make decisions that are in their own self-interest. Most important, he and Thaler insist, such nudges can be executed while protecting freedom of choice.
Take two examples in their book. Studies show that placing fruit at eye level in school cafeterias enhances its popularity by as much as 25 percent. Or consider this stroke of creativity by an economist in Amsterdam charged with cleaning up the restrooms at the Schiphol Airport: He had a fly etched into the wells of urinals, giving male patrons something to aim at. Spillage was reduced by 80 percent. The problems of childhood obesity and foul restrooms are remedied with very little inconvenience to people—or cost. Children remain free to grab that piece of chocolate cake, and there is nothing preventing visitors to Schiphol's restrooms from ignoring the fly and aiming elsewhere. It is merely less likely that either group will do so.
"Nudges are inevitable, so they might as well be smart," Sunstein says with a grin. The inevitability—and potential—of nudges is most clear when it comes to default options. For example, 401(k) employee-savings plans generally have an opt-in design, meaning that when employees become eligible to participate, the onus is on them to join. Many will procrastinate - even though it is usually in their best interest not to. According to Sunstein and Thaler, that inertia can be harnessed. They suggest that companies adopt automatic enrollment for 401(k) programs, pointing to studies that show how doing so significantly increases levels of employee participation. And, they stress, because there is still an opt-out, people aren't forced to do anything against their will.

More here.

This all sounds fine and innocuous enough, especially the 401(k) example, since there is going to be default setting one way or another in most payroll departments (the urinal example sounds a bit too pat. I admittedly have not read the book and its notes, but how exactly does anybody—even the Dutch—measure urinal spillage in such exact percentages?) Yet there's a logic here: If there's going to be default settings, why not tip them to one for which you can make a strong argument for the greater good, right? However, as any schoolteacher, drill sergeant, or playground bully will tell you, nudges have a knack for becoming outright shoves pretty quickly, and without much discussion. Certainly it should give one pause that in 2004 Cass Sunstein wrote a book about FDR's "second Bill of Rights" and "why we need it more than ever." FDR's uplift mofo party plan included guarantees of:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

More on that here. We can quibble over whether FDR's second Bill of Rights has effectively been delivered or not in contemporary America, but there's little question that it's chock full of the old sort of paternalism, and is predicated upon very forceful state action that would allow for very little opting out. Whatever large discomfort I have with the utilitarian and social-engineering impulse lurking close to the surface of libertarian paternalism is dwarfed by more prosaic concerns that it would immediately devolve into a my-way-or-the-highway scenario at larger and larger levels of governance.

Jacob Sullum on LP here.

Julian Sanchez on the matter here and especially below, where he discusses what Nobel Laureate James Buchanan called "parentalism" (which is basically LP by another name):

Yet when it comes to our most central choices-what kind of person am I to be, what work will I find rewarding?-we may take as least as much satisfaction in the feeling of responsibility for our choices, in knowing that we have shaped a life that is ours even when we have chosen badly.
Classical liberals have become good at explaining how the market order they favor promotes freedom and happiness. They have been less adept at explaining why-at least past a certain point-people ought to want that freedom, which when genuine is always at least a little frightening. In the face of the parentalist impulse, we may need to develop the case that our bad choices, the choices that make us unhappy, are as vital and precious as the ones that bring us joy.

More here.

As Many as 14,000 Dead in Myanmar

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 06 May 2008 07:34:00 EDT

Myanmar officials said on Tuesday the death toll could continue to climb higher than the 14,000 already feared dead from the Southeast Asian nation's devastating cyclone as the international community prepared to rush in aid.
In the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, state radio reported that the government was delaying a constitutional referendum in areas hit hardest.
Myanmar's Information Minister Maj. Gen. Kyaw Hsan confirmed at a news conference that some 4,000 people had died in Yangon and the low-lying Irrawaddy delta region. He added that another 10,000 people could be dead in the delta.
Kyaw said tidal waves killed most of the victims in that region.

More AP account here.

reason on Burma here.

Cathy Young on the last mega-storm in the region.

Question: What do Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Nine Kittens Bobbing Together to a Song, and PayPal Co-Founder Peter Thiel Have in Common?

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 05 May 2008 13:48:00 EDT

Answer: Stories about them were recommended to pals of FriendFeed cofounder Paul Buchheit last week, according to The New York Times.

Following the feeds of people you like and admire, these companies say, allows the serendipitous discovery of needles in the information haystack. "Friends are likely to have some similar interests and tastes. Just the fact that your friends find it interesting should make it more interesting to you," said Paul Buchheit, one of FriendFeed's four founders, all of them former Google engineers.
Last week, for example, Mr. Buchheit's followers on FriendFeed were treated to what he himself had discovered and found valuable online: links to interviews with the investor Peter Thiel in Reason magazine and the Google co-founder Larry Page in Fortune, an article about Justice Antonin Scalia's views on torture on a political Web site, and a YouTube video of nine kittens moving their heads in rhythm to a song, among other Internet ephemera.

Read "Friends May Be the Best Guide Through the Noise."

Aussie Doc Proposes $47,000 per Donated Kidney to Relieve Chronic Shortages

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 05 May 2008 07:37:00 EDT

An Australian doctor has proposed that the government pay up to $47,000 for kidney donations to overcome a chronic shortage.
The suggestion has touched off debate around the country on the idea, which critics say will end in the poor selling their organs to the rich.
Kidney specialist Gavin Carney says allowing the sale of organs would save thousands of lives and billions of dollars in care for patients on transplant waiting lists.
He also says it would stop people from buying organs on the black market in developing countries, where they pursue risky, unregulated surgeries.

And the predictable response from the Aussie medical establishment, despite the country's low rate of donation? Don't even think about it: "The idea was dismissed by Health Minister Nicola Roxon, who said Australians would not be allowed to market their organs.

A few weeks ago, reason.tv host Drew Carey looked at how open markets in human organs would make everybody involved much better off.

Check it—and a ton of relevant resources—here.

Now Playing at Reason.tv: Grover Norquist Says Leave Us Alone Already!

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:00:00 EDT

Americans for Tax Reform honcho Grover Norquist recently sat down with reason.tv's Nick Gillespie for a 45-minute conversation about Norquist's new book Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government's Hands of Our Guns, Our Money, Our Lives.

From the book's description at Amazon:

The modern Republican party is a coalition of groups and tendencies created during the political life of Ronald Reagan, based on principle rather than region and history. The new political movement that now controls much of the Republican party is one of Americans who simply wish to be left alone by the government. They are not asking the government for others' money, time, or attention. Rather, they want to be free to own a gun, homeschool their children, pray, invest their money, and control their own destiny.
They are the Leave Us Alone coalition, at the heart of the center-right, and Grover Norquist argues that it will grow in power and size during the next generation. Directly opposed to this coalition is the descriptively titled Takings Coalition, which is at the heart of the tax-and-spend left, and they will battle for control of America's future over the next fifty years. It is increasingly important to better understand these coalitions than it is the Republican or Democratic parties themselves.
In a compelling and powerful narrative, Norquist describes the two competing coalitions in American politics, how they are organized, what makes them stronger or weaker. What each can achieve and what they cannot do. And how you may fit into the contest as well as gain a deeper understanding of American politics-where it's been, where it is and particularly where it will go-through a series of eye-opening economic, demographic, and political trends that will shape these coalitions in the years to come.

In this wide-ranging, in-depth discussion, Norquist talks about splits among libertarians and conservatives, the many failures of the Bush administration and the GOP Congress, his trouble with Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the urgent need for reform in Social Security, health care, and education, and much, much more.

Click on the image below to view.

May Day Remembered

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 02 May 2008 11:31:00 EDT

For the past five years, the blog The Distributed Republic has commemorated May Day in the name of the victims of communism. The site's latest offering went up yesterday is well worth reading here.

"Save waste fats for explosives"!

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:08:00 EDT

Over at the excellent food blog Crispy on the Outside, proprietor Baylen Linnekin walks down memory lane to Victory Gardens and points readers to this insane WW2-era poster that seems strangely relevant in a world of rising food prices and forever war:

Iron Man Confidential

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 02 May 2008 07:11:00 EDT

Early word on the latest Marvel Comic turned big-screen spectaculah, Iron Man? It's been updated from Vietnam to the War on Terror and is techno-riffic. From the Daily News:

Downey is Tony Stark, a millionaire arms inventor who, while giving a weapons demonstration to troops in Afghanistan, is attacked and kidnapped. Shoved in a cave by terrorists who give him a week to build a rocket from spare parts, Stark - who now has a magnetized sphere in his chest that keeps shrapnel in his body from entering his aorta - instead constructs a tank-suit that looks like the Michelin Man and boasts more goodies than a Swiss Army knife.
Back home at his L.A. mountaintop bachelor pad (which of course has a workshop General Motors would kill for), Stark experiences a true change of heart, deciding to stop making war machines. So he builds a suit of armor that flies like a jet, shoots energy blasts and helps keep his ticker going as he fights injustice.
The fact that Iron Man is a B-lister in the Marvel Comics stable doesn't stop director Jon Favreau and his writers from aiming high and generally hitting the target. Meanwhile, Stark's inner circle - including Gwyneth Paltrow (sexy and bookish) as his trusty assistant, Terrence Howard (tough and loyal) as his military connection, and Jeff Bridges (bald and menacing) as a mentor-turned-villain - lend a touch of class.
But cruising above it all is Downey. Since Iron Man's helmet has no nose and a little rectangular mouth, the smartest thing Favreau did was cast a lead who's constantly alive. The few times the red-and-yellow battle gear is front and center in "Transformers"-ish action moments, Favreau often shows his star's face inside the shell-head. As Downey pumps life into every scene, it's clear the actor, long regarded as one of the best of his generation, has not let the rust set in after his battle with drugs a decade ago.

Sexy and bookish? Bald and menacing? Tough and loyal? It sounds like they're really blazing new trails!

More here.

I salute Iron Man because he, along with the board game Monopoly, Dallas, Bruce Jenner, Jimmy Carter's cardigans, and Bobby Fischer helped us beat the Russkies when it mattered (until his death earlier this year, the insaniac former chess champ Fischer was helping us defeat Islamism by identifying as anti-Western[*]). And because Iron Man points the way to the coming age of the cyborg (or cyborg-like humans), which we're already in. Everytime you see someone with a cochlear implant (look carefully) or a pacemaker or wearing a wrist-guard for carpal tunnel syndrome, there beats the adamantium heart of Iron Man. If you can't be a full-blown mutant (thanks for nothing Mom and Dad) and are a couple standard deviations down the Bell Curve from homo superior, you might as well have microprocessors and exoskeleton-like devices up the ying-yang.

But enough with the drug-story backstory on RDJ (and Iron Man, who battled the sauce longer than he did The Mandarin, one of the last great gasps of full-blown Orientalist fantasy is post-war pop cult)! Spencer Tracy had problems—including a penchant for locking himself in hotel room bathtubs for an entire weekend while drinking and pissing himself into stupor—but you don't have to know that to enjoy Bad Day at Black Rock, do you?

All you need to know about Tony Stark--a cool exec with a heart of steel and two fistfuls of "repulsor rays"--in 22 seconds:

Bonus video: Black Sabbath asks the musical question "Can he walk and talk?,' etc. in this great home-brewed video.

[*]: Corrected spelling and life status of Fischer thanks to reader UCrawford.

Joe Trippi's Gut-Check Failure

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:39:00 EDT

From the current issue of Politics (formerly Campaigns & Elections and outlet for two damn fine cover stories by reasoners [about Mike Huckabee and the coming libertarian era]), Joe Trippi turns on the waterworks thinking about his experience with presidential washout John Edwards:

For the first time in thirty years of political work, I didn't go with my gut.
I didn't tell him what I should have told him: That I had this feeling that if he stayed in the race he would win 300 or so delegates by Super Tuesday and have maybe a one-in-five chance of forcing a brokered convention. That there was a path ahead that would be extremely painful, but could very well put him and his causes at the top of the Democratic agenda. And that in politics anything can happen-even the possibility that in an open convention with multiple ballots an embattled and exhausted party would turn to him as their nominee. I should have closed my eyes to the pain I saw around me on the campaign bus, including my own. I should have told him emphatically that he should stay in. My regret that I did not do so-that I let John Edwards down—grows with every day that the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continues....
My mistake was not seeing more clearly then what is so obvious to me now: He could have kept his agenda in the forefront by staying in the race and forcing Obama and Clinton to focus on those issues because he, John Edwards, would hold the key to the convention deadlock. And maybe, just maybe, a brokered convention would have stunned the political world and led to an Edwards nomination.

Whole thing, worth reading for many reasons (including real insight into campaign guys' heads), here.

Me, I'm glad John Edwards is out of the race—he's the Mountain Dew of phoney-baloney pols (to the extreme!) and while a brokered convention would be a good deal of fun (whether it'll ever happen is a very different question), Edwards' dumb Big Gummint ideas were cutting edge back when LBJ was taking craps in front of his cabinet members. Do we really need another moneybagged populist egging Obama and Clinton to go Ralph Nader on an already-flagging economy?

reason on Joe Trippi here.

Now Playing at Reason.tv: The Age of American Unreason; Q&A with Susan Jacoby

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:35:00 EDT

...

Meanwhile, on the Isle of Lesbos...

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Thu, 01 May 2008 10:35:00 EDT

Reader H Clay points us to this BBC story about what might just be the ultimate nuisance lawsuit since The Simpsons' Lionel Hutz took on The Neverending Story:

Campaigners on the Greek island of Lesbos are to go to court in an attempt to stop a gay rights organisation from using the term "lesbian".
The islanders say that if they are successful they may then start to fight the word lesbian internationally.
The issue boils down to who has the right to call themselves Lesbians.
Is it gay women, or the 100,000 people living on Greece's third biggest island - plus another 250,000 expatriates who originate from Lesbos?
The man spearheading the case, publisher Dimitris Lambrou, claims that international dominance of the word in its sexual context violates the human rights of the islanders, and disgraces them around the world.
He says it causes daily problems to the social life of Lesbos's inhabitants....
In court papers, the plaintiffs allege that the Greek government is so embarrassed by the term Lesbian that it has been forced to rename the island after its capital, Mytilini.
An early court date has now been set for judges to decide whether to grant an injunction against the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece and to order it to change its name.

The kicker to the story? Sorry, girls, Sappho was married: "According to Mr Lambrou, new historical research has discovered that Sappho had a family, and committed suicide for the love of a man."

Whole thing here.

Obama and Wright...

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Thu, 01 May 2008 09:52:00 EDT

Atlanta-based columnist Ron Hart on Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright:

I am no stranger to what is said in a black church, which, since revealed by the Rev. Wright, can shock and amaze most whites. It is the same feeling of disbelief that blacks and whites grappled with when O.J. Simpson was acquitted in his trial in Los Angeles.

The Rev. Wright is simply ripping the scab off race relations, yet to be reckoned with by political leaders. Politicians pander to race for their own benefit, but they don't intend on getting past it because it is an effective tool. Without race and class envy, the Democrats really have no campaign tools.

The media continue their fascination with Obama, but this new religious stumble toward Obama's coronation clearly troubles them. Politicians bring religion into politics at their own peril. Yet somehow the media will spin it for Obama, and probably tie it to their belief that Obama was born in a manger.

Whole thing here.