Reason Magazine - Topics > Media

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."

Plastic Surgery Disasters

jwalker@reason.com (Jesse Walker) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:46:00 EDT

On Tuesday, Newsweek devoted over 1200 words to My Beautiful Mommy, a children's book about plastic surgery. Since then, news of the tummytuck-touting tome has shot through the blogosphere, inspiring the sort of irate commentary ordinarily reserved for It's Just a Plant or Frog and Toad Do Dallas. (*)

All of which might be understandable if the book had any ... readers. As Teresa Nielsen Hayden notes,

This story is equal parts hokum and hot air. You'd think that somewhere in those three [Web] pages of titillating handwringing, [Newsweek writer Karen] Springen would have gotten round to mentioning that My Beautiful Mommy is a self-published vanity-press book available only from its "publisher"--or, presumably, from [author-surgeon] Dr. Michael Salzhauer.

Big Tent Books (not to be confused with Big Tent Entertainment) is a vanity press and marketing and fulfillment operation.... [It] has the usual problem of vanity presses: zero to lousy sales and distribution. They're a lot better at making books than they are at promoting them. Only a few of their titles are even listed at Amazon, and those are listed badly--half the normal publisher-furnished information is missing. Sales are minimal.

My Beautiful Mommy is not one of the books Big Tent lists on Amazon. It has no ISBN that I can detect--and this close to its publication date, I should be able to detect one. Clearly, this book is not destined to make its way to the shelves of your local bookstore.

But maybe it is now, thanks to Newsweek's publicity blitz.

Footnote: There is not, in fact, a book called Frog and Toad Do Dallas. But if you draw it yourself, staple it together, and send a copy to Newsweek, you just might have a hit on your hands!

The Image Lies

jwalker@reason.com (Jesse Walker) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:42:00 EDT

Friday fun link: Photoshop disasters.

The News Media vs. the Innocent

schapman@tribune.com (Steve Chapman) — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:00:00 EDT

Years ago, Ray Donovan, Ronald Reagan's Labor Secretary, was prosecuted for corruption, only to be acquitted. After the verdict, Donovan asked plaintively, "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?"

Steven Hatfill knows where to go to get his reputation back. But upon arriving there, he finds the door blocked by someone who says her privileges are more important than his good name. That someone, of course, is a journalist. And, not surprisingly, she enjoys the broad support of other journalists, who have proved to be slow learners about the obligations they share with their fellow citizens.

Hatfill was a casualty of the anthrax scare of 2001. Just after the 9/11 attacks, someone mailed letters containing anthrax spores to several news organizations and a pair of U.S. senators. Some 22 people were infected, and five died. In the aftermath, the Justice Department labeled Hatfill, who had done research on biological warfare for the army, a "person of interest." Secret information leaked to the press suggested he was the terrorist behind the attacks.

But the suspicions were wrong. Hatfill asserted his innocence, and he was never charged in the case. He sued the government, The New York Times and others for damages. Federal Judge Reggie Walton concluded that the claims have "destroyed his life" even though "there's not a scintilla of evidence to suggest Dr. Hatfill had anything to do with" the anthrax attacks.

Years later, Hatfill is still awaiting vindication. Last week, he inched closer when the judge ordered Toni Locy, a former USA Today reporter, to disclose her sources about Hatfill—or else face fines of up to $5,000 a day for contempt. A host of news organizations, including Tribune Co., filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging that she be spared from providing evidence.

Here we find ourselves on depressingly familiar ground. Back in 2005, Times reporter Judith Miller refused to say who told her that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. She went to jail for contempt before finally acknowledging it was vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Five reporters didn't want to reveal their sources about Los Alamos nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee, who was tarred for alleged espionage but convicted only of a single minor count of mishandling classified data. Their demands got nowhere, forcing their employers to reach a costly settlement with Lee.

The news media keep losing these cases, yet journalists and their attorneys refuse to recognize reality. They continue to insist on their right to keep evidence of wrongdoing and lawbreaking from the courts, no matter what the collateral damage.

Locy reported on the suspicions about Hatfill based on interviews with confidential sources in the Justice Department and the FBI, who may have violated federal law in leaking information about him. Since she discarded her notes and says she can't remember which of 10 people told her about Hatfill, the judge says she has to turn over the names of all 10 so Hatfill's lawyers can question them.

Judge Walton found that the identity of her sources "goes to the heart" of his case, and that there is no other way he can get the information. Without Locy's testimony, the damage done to Hatfill would go unpunished and unrepaired.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and its allies also think the $5,000-a-day fine, which the judge says she must pay herself, is outrageously excessive. But the point of such fines is not to accommodate the financial resources of the person who is defying the law—it's to force her to comply, in the interests of justice.

Justice should not be at odds with the job of the news media. But in this instance, it is. University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, one of the premier experts on the First Amendment, thinks the press has overstepped. "It's important to remember here," he told me, "that these sources were not blowing the whistle on government wrongdoing but were allegedly doing something wrong in revealing the information about the identity of the suspect."

Journalists and citizens may disagree on the proper role of the news media in a free society. But when the press finds itself protecting the guilty at the expense of the innocent, it's made a wrong turn somewhere.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Forget It Hillary, It's Chinatown

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:15:00 EST

As reason.tv videographer Dan Hayes notes at that site's video blog, Rough Cut, Hillary Clinton actually won the Ohio primary even after Jack Nicholson, the Laurence Olivier of American celebrity douchebags, released this ad in favor of the former First Lady.

A clip roll of various Nicholson performances ranging from the Joker in Batman ("this town needs an enema" is not included, alas) to Five Easy Pieces (where Jack's hip character harangues a waitress in a diner to show how disaffected and down with the common man he is) to A Few Good Men (where his military commander characters unconvincingly sanctions torture of U.S. servicemen as the only way to protect this land of liberty). The clip ends with an Colbert-Nation-like eagle emblazoned with the legend: "I'd rather live on my feet than die on my knees." Which strikes me as a very clumsy way to recall the good old '90s from a Clintonian perspective.

Yes, it's that good.

Question: Where do Barack Obama and John McCain go for their equivalent celebrity gag-ads?

Remixed Propaganda Posters

kmw@reason.com (Katherine Mangu-Ward) — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:29:00 EST

London has a new poster campaign asking citizens to report potential terrorist photogs, cell phone users, and house dwellers on an "anonymous anti-terror hotline" ("Terrorism: If you suspect it, report it.") The original posters say things like "Thousands of people take photos everyday. What if one of them seems odd?"[PDF] and "Thousands of people have mobiles. What if someone with several seems suspicious?"[PDF].

Naturally, parodies have sprung up.

Here's my favorite (and a favorite of Cory Doctorow), despite the slightly dumb use of that much-abused word, fascism, from Flickr user illegalphotos:

For more on the joys of living in the remix age, stay tuned for my upcoming review of Matt Mason's book on the subject, The Pirate's Dilemma, in the next issue.

In the meantime, tide yourself over with one of my favorite pieces remixed WWII propaganda. Also, this one, a close second in that genre.

With His Ballot in His Hand

jwalker@reason.com (Jesse Walker) — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:00:00 EST

Like no other Democratic candidate in this presidential campaign, Barack Obama has had an affinity for fan-launched viral videos, from a cutting spoof of Apple's famous 1984 ad to a star-studded singalong to a stump speech. But the most interesting Obama clip circulating online right now might be "Viva Obama!," a musical tribute cooked up by the Chicago-based marketing company Nueva Vista Media and performed by a California mariachi band. Aimed at Latino voters in Tuesday's Texas primary, the video features a Spanish-language testimonial to the junior senator from Illinois.

Translated into English, the song begins:

To the candidate who is Barack Obama
I sing this corrido with all my soul
He was born humble without pretension
He began in the streets of Chicago
Working to achieve a vision
To protect the working people
And bring us all together in this great nation
Viva Obama! Viva Obama!

The anthropologist Margaret Dorsey has listened to lots of lyrics like these—though this is the first time she's heard someone combine a corrido, a specific kind of ballad frequently used in South Texas political campaigns, with Mexican mariachi music. "This is insane," she laughs as she hears the song over the phone. "I can't wait to listen to it at home. It sounds like a wonderful example of cultural hybridity and innovation."

Dorsey has spent a lifetime surrounded by borderlands politics and borderlands music. The daughter of a now-retired Texas judge, she attended her first rally when she was five. More recently, she spent several years researching and writing Pachangas (2006), an intriguing study of the intersection between music, marketing, and politics along the Texas-Mexico border. It focuses on the pachanga, a local institution whose forms range from family barbeques with musical entertainment to choreographed commercial spectacles sponsored by Budweiser, Ace Hardware, and other multinational firms. She did her fieldwork in and near Hidalgo County, a rapidly growing border county that contains over 700,000 people.

Dorsey, 34, is now a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania. I interviewed her in late February, just a few days before the Texas presidential primary. We began by exploring the deep roots of Obama's campaign corrido.

reason: When did the corrido originate as a form?

Margaret Dorsey: The corrido of the Texas-Mexico borderland area comes out of a context of intercultural contact and conflict, specifically between Anglo and Mexicano populations. Américo Paredes [author of With His Pistol in His Hand, the classic study of the subject] points to the time period around 1900 to 1920, when you see the real emergence and innovation of this form in the region.

reason: What is the literal translation of "corrido"?

Dorsey: Literally, correr means "to run"; it's about a flow. But the best translation in English is really "ballad," or "border ballad."

The quintessential corrido, the ur-text, is "El Corrido de Gregorio Cortez." Paredes found many, many iterations of this song. It's never exactly the same: People change the places a little, and they play with it. But it follows the corrido form in terms of its rhyme scheme. There is a corrido melody, and it follows that. And the text tells the story of an upright man fighting for the right cause against a system that is not upright.

This is important, too: A corrido is based in reality. It's a legend, but it's based on historical fact. It's extrapolated from this wonderful story of what happened to this fellow.

reason: And what did happen to him?

Dorsey: In a nutshell, it's the story of an upright Mexicano fighting the unjust rinches, or Texas Rangers. It's a very long story, but the short version is they come on his property and try to arrest his brother, a shooting match breaks out, people are killed, and then he flees and Rangers chase him all over the state. Once they meet up, Cortez is put in jail. He is tried in several counties in rural Texas, and finally President Lincoln's daughter intercedes to have him freed.

reason: So it's a classic outlaw ballad, then.

Dorsey: It is. You can talk about this in relation to European balladry traditions. You can talk about this in relation to the Robin Hood story. It's connected to both Mexican and U.S. folk forms. In terms of Spanish balladry traditions, Paredes argues that it builds upon the romance form.

reason: It's interesting that this form that's identified with celebrating the righteous outlaw would evolve into something celebrating the outsider politician.

Dorsey: It makes a lot of sense, right? In my book I talk about [Judge Edward] Aparicio [subject of a popular campaign corrido, "The Song of the Judge"]. He was the politician from Washington state running for office in Hidalgo County in South Texas. And who was he running against? The political machinery. So you can see how those valences work.

You can see it with Obama, too. Bill Clinton was just stumping for Hillary Clinton in Corpus. There was not a strong turnout. There weren't many people there. And -- this fits perfectly with the corrido -- who was standing on stage with Bill Clinton? All of the political establishment, all of these elected officials. Then Hillary Clinton spoke at University of Texas-Brownsville, and from what I could see, she did not have a huge turnout.

Obama had a rally around the same time at University of Texas-Pan American, in Edinburg. At that rally, people arrived six hours ahead of time so that they could be close to Obama.

reason: But is a university typical? A campus would probably be stronger territory for Obama.

Dorsey: Well, I was watching the news, and they were interviewing some young people who had come from Rio Grande City, which is an hour away. Obama's bringing in lots of young people, and when you talk to political scientists who study Latinos in the U.S., you can see it's clearly falling along the lines of young, educated, cosmopolitan Mexicanos overwhelmingly supporting Obama. For Hillary Clinton, it's middle-aged Mexicanos.

reason: There's also the idea that someone like Alonzo Cantu, who was reported to be bundling contributions for Hillary, also has the sort of turnout machine that can bus people in to vote for her -- people who might not be as politically engaged on the national scene but know who their patrons are. Do you buy that argument?

Dorsey: I think people who make that argument are discounting the ability of individuals to make their own choices.

reason: The most recent poll numbers I've seen have Obama ahead statewide but with Clinton holding the lead in the border country.

Dorsey: That's pretty much what I've been seeing, too. I haven't seen any surveys that have Obama ahead in the region. What people have told me is that in places like the Austin area his backing is much stronger, but when you get into South Texas there's a much more even split. Even families are split.

We're just going to have to see. I don't think anyone knows. I'm not a predictor.

reason: You mentioned Hillary Clinton's rally in Brownsville. I thought it was interesting that the Brownsville Herald headline called it a "presidential pachanga." Later in the article, the reporter said the rally had "the feel of a political pachanga."

First of all, how would you define a political pachanga?

Dorsey: There are different types of pachangas. You have corporate pachangas, you have family pachangas, and you have political pachangas.

When you look at the political pachangas, specifically in Hidalgo County, you see various iterations of it. You see old-style pachangas, which are still in practice, which are all men, typically out in the country on a little ranch. There's live music, the men cook the food, they're talking politics, and they're organizing people to run for office.

Another kind arose with women taking an explicit role in politics: the dance-hall style pachanga. You find that in small towns and cities. It'll be in a dance hall, usually a family-owned dance hall. It'll have food—traditional Mexican-style entrees, but also served with white bread and things like that. It involves usually a conjunto band. Conjunto bands play various genres of music, including corridos and including dance music. They always have an accordion and a bajo sexto, which is a kind of guitar, and a vocalist.

These rallies involve a pretty set format. You usually have some prayers, the showing of the colors of the flag, patriotic gestures, introduction of the candidate, then the candidate's speech. And then everyone leaves. It almost feels like going to mass, it's almost that regimented. People dance beforehand and afterwards.

The third kind is a novel combination. It's moving more toward a spectacle format, so it has a much more visual orientation, easier to broadcast on TV.

reason: What's the relationship between a political pachanga and the sort of rally Hillary had in Brownsville?

Dorsey: I can't comment on it, because I wasn't there and I didn't talk to anyone who went to her event. The images I have just aren't clear enough.

reason: I found another report about the Clintons going to pachangas back in the '90s. Those were actual pachangas that do fit the term?

Dorsey: They do. Bill Clinton is and was a strong presence in this area. You go into restaurants, and you see signs with the owner shaking Bill Clinton's hand, saying this was Bill Clinton's favorite restaurant. I remember a couple of years ago Hillary Clinton was down in the Valley raising money. So they have maintained their presence in that area for a long time. I never heard about Barack Obama going down to the Rio Grande Valley and drawing in the big money people and raising money the way Hillary has.

reason: I want to read a couple of quotes from your book. First: "Scholars have tracked the work of people, particularly upper-class conservatives in power, who use terms like 'boss,' 'patrón,' and 'machine' in conjunction with politics to describe all that is bad in U.S. politics. Usually such discourse functions to disenfranchise poor citizens (who tend to be darker and immigrant), keeping them as far removed from the political system as possible." The other one is earlier in the book: "With the final fall of bosses like [James B.] Wells, who saw Mexicanos as political capital, and with the rise of reformist candidates, politics reverted to strict racial segregation and a systematic disenfranchisement of Mexicano voters. The texture of politics in South Texas shifted from one of pistol whipping and brow beating—coercing Mexicanos to vote a certain way—to excluding them from the process altogether."

At the surface, grassroots democratic reform seems to be opposed to that kind of machine politics. On the other hand, there's this history of people using "reform" as a way of cutting out the lower rungs.

Dorsey: Usually that's been how people are disenfranchised. When I was doing my fieldwork down there, you still heard Republicans using that rhetoric. The Republicans would use this talk of transparency. And Barack Obama also talks about transparency in his speeches, though that doesn't necessarily mean that the valences are the same.

This is why the story of Aparicio is so important. Block-walking [visiting voters door to door] and grassroots politics are very important to this area. It's very important for people to get to know the candidates, for people to have personal contact with the candidates. The corrido, the music, can often work to facilitate that.

So you do have this very complicated relationship between personal contact and people looking at voters, especially people of color, as a "herd" to be marshaled to vote one way.

reason: How does Obama's rhetoric fit into that? The period of disenfranchisement that you're talking about was the Progressive Era, which is associated with liberal reform.

Dorsey: Right. Martha Menchaca, who's at UT-Austin, is writing a book about this period in Texas politics. And she agrees that these analyses of "machine," "boss" politics where you have people voting in herds is highly problematic. She's an anthropologist writing a historical study that's going to add a lot of complexity to our understanding of that.

With Obama, it's just hard to tell. I realize that's not really a fair answer, but I think we'll be better positioned to answer that question in the general election. Because the general election will be Republicans vs. Democrats, and that's when you tend to see that rhetoric used more clearly, because it tends to be Republicans using that kind of talk against people of color, who tend to vote Democratic. Republicans are already talking about Obama the same way: He's part of "the machine from Chicago."

reason: A lot of people wouldn't talk to you on the record about political pachangas. Do you feel that reticence was justified?

Dorsey: If one feels afraid or threatened to speak about it, certainly it's justified. It's not my place to tell them they should feel safe or unsafe. Politics is still physical in Hidalgo County. The day Barack Obama spoke in Edinburg, the local TV station reported the sheriff going out to a site where people were campaigning for a state rep race -- the campaign workers were having clashes. People were afraid it was going to turn into a fistfight.

Politics in South Texas is still very personal. It's still very family-based for a lot of people. You still hear stories about there being brawls at the polls. That's not everywhere at all times, but it still happens.

At the pachangas themselves, I write about the politiqueras, the ward-heelers, and some people affiliate their role with a type of coercion in getting people out to vote.

reason: Your book talks about the corporate pachangas converging with the political pachangas. When did that start to happen?

Dorsey: I didn't put a date on that. But companies like Budweiser putting on these huge pachangas has been around now for at least a decade. One important fact that I highlight in my book is that right at the time when you expect the candidates to be busy at their own pachangas, Budweiser hosts this huge event and all of the political players are there.

Those events aren't just people from the lower Rio Grande Valley. They bring in people from all over South Texas.

reason: You had a quote in the book about the changing meaning of the term "crossover." A marketer you interviewed, Robert Peña, flipped the word on its head—instead of talking about Tejano stars and the like crossing over to the mass market, he said that advertisers need "to cross over into the Hispanic marketplace." So instead of the outsiders crossing over to the mainstream, the people who are seeking the consumers cross over to the consumers' niche.

You seem ambivalent about that process, but I think it demonstrates a really interesting mutual influence between the local population and the transnational companies.

Dorsey: And we're seeing this today in these political campaigns. You see that in that webpage you sent me: "Viva Obama!" Hillary Clinton is doing it, too. I think Robert Peña was showing some foresight.

We have this wonderful Obama corrido, this hybrid kind of mixture. At the same time, both Obama and Clinton voted in favor of the fence—what people along the border call the wall. And that is highly unpopular in these places.

reason: How do they address that issue when they're in South Texas? It's not just immigrants who are upset—property owners are having their land taken.

Dorsey: Hillary Clinton said at the debate that when she spoke at the University of Texas-Brownsville the previous night, she learned that the president's plan would go right through the campus of the University of Texas. She said there was a "smart way" and a "dumb way" to protect the border and that this was clearly "absurd." And she said it had to be "reviewed" and that she would "listen to the people who live along the border." But then, after she says that, she talks about "smart fencing" and using technology.

So while they're stumping, people from inside the Beltway are finally hearing what people on the border have been saying forever. It doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat, if your skin is light or dark, if your first language is English or Spanish—almost everyone is against the wall. So people like Hillary are saying that we're going to build it in spots, but first we have to listen to the people. She's trying to do both.

Obama's not that much different. He even said, in this debate, that they "almost entirely agree." Obama has three talking points on immigration, and he does a good job in sticking to those three points. But one thing he's added—and Hillary Clinton has mentioned this too—is that we need to work with Mexico and the governments of Central America to fix their economies so that we don't have as many people coming in. Then he shifts attention to—this is his number—the "12 million undocumented workers" in the U.S.

reason: How did you get drawn into this world? Was this around you already, or did you decide as an academic that you wanted to take a closer look?

Dorsey: I was raised in Texas politics. When I went to grad school I was interested in studying the relationship between music and politics, but I didn't know where they came together. I was constantly going back and forth between studying music and studying politics, and the convergence just wasn't there. Then, in 1998, I was reading the Corpus Christi paper, and I saw this photo of Bush stumping with [Tejano star] Emilio Navaira. And he just swept the largely Mexicano counties, the first time a Republican had done that since Reconstruction. That's what brought it all together.

Jesse Walker is managing editor of reason.

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, They Stink: WFB on the Beatles

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:54:00 EST

The always-innerestin' site 10 Zen Monkeys has posted a fun tribute of William F. Buckley, Jr., titled "The Collected Controversies." There's a lot of good stuff there, including the National Review founder's dumping on the Fab Four:

In a 1964 essay titled "Yeah Yeah Yeah, They Stink," Buckley had written that the Beatles were not merely awful: "I would consider it sacrilegious to say anything less than that they are godawful." His diatribe acknowledged the National Review critic who argued that after Sinatra's twitches and Elvis's thrusts, future entertainers would have to wrestle live octopuses. "The Beatles didn't in fact do this," Buckley wrote, "but how one wishes they did!"

"And how one wishes the octopus would win."

10ZM also includes his rarely citied final rejoinder to Gore Vidal in their famous TV bitchfest ("Go back to [your] pornography"), a mention of a dreadful novel about Elvis Presley, and this quote that all conservatives should read closely:

"Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great."

(One controversy that's missing: Buckley's and National Review's odious defense of state-enforced segregation.)

Whole 10 Zen Monkeys, well worth reading, thing here.

I've been trying to track down video of Buckley's great Firing Line interview with Jack Keroauc, the king of the Beats last TV spot (I believe) and a real melding of two very different conservative minds, but can't find it online anywhere, alas.

The editor of The New York Times Book Review and author of a fantastic bio on Whittaker Chambers, Sam Tanenhaus, has a Q&A about WFB here. (Tanenhaus is writing a bio of Buckley too).

Update: Commenter Xmas below points to the Kerouac Firing Line interview here.

Alan Bock on Buckley

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:03:00 EST

The OC Register's Alan Bock writes about William F. Buckley, Jr.:

His intellectual independence shone through from time to time, as in his early understanding that the drug war was unwinnable and socially corrosive, and his realization fairly early on that the Iraq war was a disaster, something the war-addled folks to whom he turned over National Review have yet to come to grips with. I don't know whether it is a commentary on present-day conservatism or present-day cable news that it is difficult to imagine a program of civil discussion like "Firing Line" from the current batch of angry shouters and rude dealers in the ad hominem that pass for conservative (and most liberal) talkers today.

Bock also knocks Buckley for his Murray Rothbard obit while concluding "there's little doubt that he had an enormous impact on the history of this country."

Whole thing here.

Bock blogs at the OCR's always interesting Orange Punch blog (he's there along with Steven Greenhut and Mark Landsbaum) and has his own thang over at alanbock.blogspot.com.

Krugman Hates Ethanol!

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:56:00 EST

From Paul Krugman's NY Times blog:

I'm almost never censored at the Times. However, I was told that I couldn't use the lede I originally wrote for my column following the 2007 State of the Union address, in which Bush made ethanol the centerpiece of his energy strategy: "Before the State of the Union address, there had been hints and hopes that President Bush would offer a serious plan to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Instead, however, he took refuge in alcohol."
Well, anyway - the news on ethanol just keeps getting worse. Bad for the economy, bad for consumers, bad for the planet - what's not to love?

Whole bit here.

reason's Ronald Bailey on ethanol here.

Hat tip: Film critic and blogger extraordinaire Alan Vanneman

Now Playing at Reason.tv: Saturday Night Live-ish with Red Eye's Greg Gutfeld and Drudge Report's Andrew Breitbart

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:04:00 EST

On Saturday, February 9, the host of Fox News' Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld and the man who writes The Drudge Report, Andrew Breitbart, sat down after CPAC, the year's largest gathering of conservative activists, and heavy drinking to talk about liberals, conservatives, the media, hairlines--and how rejection slips from reason in the 1980s helped make them who they are today. It's a rollicking, wide-ranging half-hour of a long day's journey into night, hosted by reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch. Click on the image below to view.

And go to reason.tv for more links and background.

Discuss this video at reason's Hit & Run blog.

Gillespie on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC Show

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:21:00 EST

I was on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show last Monday, discussing topics of the day--which remain the same as today's!--with the host himself and The New Republic's Peter Beinart. Click on the image below to be transported back in time and over to that magical, mystical land known as reason.tv.

Unemployed Like Me

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:34:00 EST

Blogger extraordinaire (a.k.a. film critic extraordinaire) and Hit & Run regular Alan Vanneman takes issue with a Wash Post story on long-term unemployment among the people who really matter, i.e., those more likely to read the Wash Post:

"The problem [long-term unemployment] is ensnaring a broader swath of workers than before. Once concentrated among manufacturing workers and those with little work history, education or skills, long-term unemployment is growing most rapidly among white-collar and college-educated workers with long work experience, studies have found, making the problem difficult for policymakers to address even as it grows more urgent."

OK, so far, so good. But what evidence does Mike have to prove that "long-term unemployment is growing most rapidly among white-collar and college-educated workers with long work experience"? He refers to "studies" but provides no data from them. He provides anecdotal evidence for a grand total of two workers-two! two!-both of whom departed from their last employer under less than ideal circumstances. One felt the job was a "bad fit," which could mean anything from "my boss was an idiot" to "they told me that if I didn't quit they'd fire me." Mike's other hapless victim had a "sleeping disorder," which resulted in his, well, in his not showing up for work very much. Some swath!

More Vannemanium here.

Gillespie on MSNBC's Tucker Tonight

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:14:00 EST

Tonight I'll be mixing things up with Tucker Carlson on his eponymous MSNBC talk show. I will be part of a panel yapping about current events (and hopefully, Congress' stupid attempt to regulate baseball).

Consult your local listings for a "show so fast, it's changing the pace of the news."

More on the former bowtie-wearin', Dancin' with the Stars man himself here. And here's his very pro-Ron Paul profile from, coff, coff, The New Republic.

The Perils of Long Lead Times

jwalker@reason.com (Jesse Walker) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:23:00 EST

The cover of today's Parade:

If you can't make out the text toward the top of the photo, it says, "Is Benazir Bhutto America's best hope against al-Qaeda?" I'm going to go out on a limb and say, "I sure hope not."

Netflix Dives Deep in the Videostream...

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:29:00 EST

A brief non-political item that may well have more to do with how we're living in 2009 than whether Obama Huckabee is president:

On Jan. 2, the mail-order movie rental company said it struck a deal with consumer-electronics maker LG Electronics to develop and market a set-top box that would let Netflix users stream movies straight to their TVs.
The service, expected to roll out by fall, comes amid reports that Apple (AAPL) is on the verge of unveiling (BusinessWeek.com, 12/28/07) its own video download service.

Netflix alreadys allows computer users to stream about 6,000 of its 90,000 titles onscreen--a great service hampered only by its relatively slim pickings and crappy search function (come to think of it, those are two major drawbacks).

More here.

We've been discussing this sort of culture-on-demand world for decades at reason and it's always heartwarming to see it inching closer. Especially as the grim political season gets into full swing.

Will We See Ron Paul in NH Debates?

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:07:00 EST

The NY Times and others report on how Fox News and ABC is working to keep Ron Paul--the $20 million man--out of its debates in New Hampshire this Sunday; ABC is holding out possibility of inclusion based on results in Iowa and polls, though that's a small crumb for a guy who is massively successful in terms of fundraising and besting ghost candidate Fred Thompson in various surveys. Even Cap'n Ed Morrissey of Captains Quarter, no RP man that's for sure, finds the preemptive Paulophobia off-putting:

It makes little sense to start excluding candidates just before the first meaningful vote gets taken. Raising $19 million in a quarter shows at least some level of significant support, even if limited to the fringes of the GOP and Libertarian parties. Also, if Fox wants to rely on polling, Paul does at least as well as Thompson in Iowa and perhaps better at the moment in New Hampshire. Why not just wait for the results from Iowa to make that determination for both parties, as ABC plans to do?

More here.

reason on Ron Paul here.

The Tony Snow Show

info@reason.com (Shikha Dalmia) — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:58:00 EST

According to Karl Rove, ex-White House press secretary Tony Snow is to his former post what Mick Jagger is to rock stars (Rove meant it as a compliment). During his year-and-a-half-long tenure with the Bush administration, The New York Times congratulated Snow for "reinventing the job with his snappy sound bites and knack for deflecting tough questions with a smile." Snow even won plaudits from Daily Show host Jon Stewart, who told the one-time Fox News Channel host, "I really respect you as a person and I like what you bring."

How did Tony Snow—a 52-year-old movement conservative brought on board by a conservative administration to revive a conservative agenda—win over the liberal media? One answer is his deep-seated modesty, which made him serious even as it protected him from self-seriousness. He was able to put aside his own agenda and go to bat on behalf of an embattled president without appearing disingenuous, even though he had made mocking the president a daily sport in his previous job as a Fox News radio commentator and newspaper columnist.

In fact, Snow's daily briefings with the White House press corps—a crusty and confrontational bunch whom he called his "customers"—were so full of his patented brand of repartee that they were dubbed "The Tony Snow Show." During one such briefing last year, Helen Thomas, the curmudgeonly 86-year-old correspondent for the Kings Feature Syndicate, launched into a soliloquy chastising the administration for failing to stop Israel's invasion of Lebanon. Snow patiently waited until she finished, then smilingly thanked her for offering "the Hezbollah view" of the issue and moved on to the next question.

Snow has been battling colon cancer for several years and cited the need to make more money as the main reason he stepped down as press secretary. Just before he left the White House in September, Snow sat down in his West Wing office with Reason Foundation senior analyst Shikha Dalmia, his former colleague on the editorial board of the Detroit News from 1996 to 2000, for an interview about his experiences as press secretary. Comments can be sent to react@reason.com.

reason: How did you enjoy this job?

Tony Snow: I loved it. It's really been the most fun job I've ever had. This White House really operates more smoothly than any I've ever seen. A lot less back-stabbing, a lot more collegiality.

reason: That's contrary to what Robert Draper reports in his biography of the Bush presidency, Dead Certain. He said there was a lot of tension between President Bush's senior advisor Karl Rove and senior counselor Dan Bartlett.

Snow: Dan and Karl worked in close quarters for many years. They had a meeting every day with the president. The idea somehow that there was open warfare between the two of them is overdrawn. They cooperated very well. Are people going to have tensions? Of course. We have conversations and discussions where people disagree pretty vehemently when they're talking in front of the president. But the president ends up making the call and then everybody goes along with it. So perhaps he misconstrued the way the White House operates as dysfunctionality.

reason: Is it true that the president really only likes to hear from people who agree with him?

Snow: This is wrong. That's just wrong.

reason: Especially when it came to the Iraq War, Draper says George W. Bush didn't even consult his father, the former president, because he knew his father wasn't going to agree.

Snow: There were a number of occasions when we brought in scholars and outsiders to discuss Iraq policy and the president participated fully. I guarantee you on that: Draper is just flat-out wrong. People like to draw a caricature of the president as lacking curiosity. The fact is he's one of the most aggressively curious people I've ever known.

reason: There's a strong sense, borne out by action or the lack thereof, that the president is impervious to his critics. So for a long time, people had been telling him that the Iraq war wasn't going well, but he was not listening.

Snow: The critics quite often have criticisms but they don't have recommendations. The new narrative is that somehow the Iraq war has been a failure for a long time and that everybody knows that it's been a failure for a long time. The period when Iraq went sour was from the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samara in February 2006 until really the surge in 2007. Fifteen months, maybe? During that time, by June 2006, the president had already taken a good, fresh look. The National Security Council that involves both the State Department and intelligence agencies had done a review and the plan for the surge was laid out in the State of the Union address in January and rolled out from February through June. And it's producing results. I think what you've seen is the president actually responding pretty nimbly.

reason: So what has fed the idea that Bush is stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes?

Snow: I'm not sure. What often happens is that people ask these open-ended questions, "What mistakes have you made?" But that's gratuitous. The president makes mistakes. Everybody here constantly evaluates this. But when somebody asks a question like that, it's not because they want a balanced response, they want to write a gotcha piece. The president's job is not to sit around and put himself on a couch.

reason: Run through how the messaging works in this White House. If a particular story or disaster breaks, how does the White House decide what it is going to say about it?

Snow: This is not like some previous administrations where people are running around with talking points. You're not going to find—I guarantee you—people using exactly the same phrase because that's not a very convincing way to do public diplomacy. What you've got to do is allow people to speak honestly in their own words. You've just got to do it in a way that is not jarring or inconsistent with what the president is saying. The last thing you want is somebody saying, "Tony Snow said this." I once said that embryonic stem cell research is murder. That was giving my views, not the president's. And so I had to step back and say, "You know what, I gave my opinion."

reason: One of the curious things about your tenure was that you got consistently high marks on your performance from people all over the ideological map. Your approval rating, so to speak, is high. But the president's rating has remained where it was when you took office. Or worse. At various points, it's approached Nixonian levels.

Snow: People have a natural anxiety about the war and that gets visited on the president. But he does not descend into self-pity. He understands the importance of developing public support but he also understands that if, for the sake of getting a slightly better numbers in some public opinion poll, he backed away from Iraq in some dramatic way and the long-term result is that this country is less secure, nobody 25 years from now is going to care about what the public approval ratings. They're going to say, "Why didn't you do your job?"

reason: Are you saying that if a president's policies are unpopular, there's not much that a press secretary can really do to change public perception? How do you see your own contributions to the White House?

Snow: My job is to answer questions pretty much. And to try to make sure that we get the administration's view out. Consider the surge in Iraq: There has been recently some pretty significant change in the public perception about Iraq. That's because the press office has tried to communicate the good news there. But ultimately we live in the reflected glory of the president.

reason: Has press bias contributed to the negative public perception about the president and the war?

Snow: It's clearly a factor. If you went out and gave every reporter a truth serum and asked them if they were Democrat or a Republican, you'd find out that most of them are Democrats. Reporters don't deliberately try to carry the water for political parties but sometimes they don't see your side of the argument. So it's incumbent upon a press secretary to make sure that they do see your side and quite often that is a long-term project. Again, take the case of Anbar. Now it is accepted wisdom that things have changed in Anbar for the better. Four months ago it wasn't. When things started changing, you'd hear the press say that there are no guarantees. It took time, but you have to be persistent.

reason: How do you think the president's relationship with his base has changed over the last year?

Snow: I think he goes up and down. What's interesting is that a lot of people got very skittish about the war and then all of a sudden, what you've seen in the last month is this sense of reassurance because the surge has been working, and there is a sigh of relief. There was a lot of tension over immigration, but if you take a look at the numbers in terms of base Republican support, they're pretty high. If you disaggregate the data, his numbers with the base are about the same as Ronald Reagan's.

reason: The support for the president among Republicans is running at 65 percent [as of the interview]. But according to polls, fewer people identify themselves as Republicans now than before President Bush began his second term. So has the president driven people out of the Republican Party?

Snow: No. Democratic numbers have fallen, too. If you take a look at people's natural party affiliation, that's fallen off dramatically. We've had a really volatile political period where party loyalty has fallen off on both sides on the left and the right. In some ways, this is an artifact of [the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws] because what that did was it reduced the power of the national political parties. You don't have that ability to kind of create this sort of operational coherence that you used to have.

reason: You had been extremely critical of the president before you became press secretary. You made a lot of negative statements about the president, called him a "cipher" on domestic policy, a "classic dime-store Democrat." His policies haven't changed, but your estimation of him has changed quite a bit. Why?

Snow: Well, a couple of things. One is when you get to see somebody in action you get a different view, totally different. Also, we haven't had a lot of the issues on which I was critical that have arisen since I've been here. For instance, on an issue like immigration that I was really passionate about, he took on a lot of Republicans and I'm very proud of what he was doing. When it comes to the war, he's been incredibly steadfast in the face of a lot of people who would like him, really for the sake of polling reasons, to change the way he conducts the war. During my time, it's come down to a handful of key issues such as energy, education, immigration and retirement reform. On all of these, the president didn't do half measures. He's pushing for the right things—regardless of whether he accomplished them or not. I'm fully confident that over time immigration and retirement and all those things, those are the right policies and we'll end up with them.

reason: How has the advent of new media such as bloggers complicated your job as press secretary?

Snow: Not much. I've been a little bit surprised because I've always been an advocate of blogs but, at this juncture, they don't affect things too much. The interesting thing about blogs is that they tend to be serial. They get into an issue and really dig into it, hit it hard. Then they play a very important role, but, on a day-to-day basis, story-to-story, they don't have much of an impact.

reason: Do you wish you could have stayed longer?

Snow: Yeah, sure. I'd love to be able to stay to the end. But my wife and I had known for a good six or seven months that this wasn't possible. I'm sure I'm going to go through intense withdrawal.

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation.

Discuss this article online.

Subscribe to reason—"a kick-ass, no-holds-barred political magazine" that refuses "to carry water for either Democrats or Republicans"--now for just $19.97.

The Real Untold Story

ralt@ashbrook.org (Robert Alt) — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:03:00 EST

Congrats to the Chronicle of Higher Education

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:43:00 EST

Earlier this year, reason was named as a finalist for an Utne Independent Press Award in the Political Coverage category. Also in the hunt were The American Prospect, The Chronicle of Higher Education, City Journal, Dissent, Governing, The Nation, and The New Republic.

The Utne winners were announced yesterday and hats off to the excellent Chronicle of Higher Ed, which took home top honors in that category.

Go here for a list of all the Utne finalists (there's a ton of categories) and here for a list of winners.

From Mad Knockoff to Realist Knockoff

jwalker@reason.com (Jesse Walker) — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:17:00 EST

I knew that Cracked had evolved, or suddenly mutated, or temporarily ascended in an Algernon-style experiment that will end in misery and tears, into something funnier and more adult than its original incarnation as a mediocre Mad clone. But when did it start publishing Ingersollian satire and pop sociobiology?

[Via Jim Henley.]

Welcome Aboard, Matt Welch!

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:41:00 EST

I'm happy to post the following press release from Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes the print and online versions of reason and reason.tv and runs a fantastic policy shop too.

Welcome aboard, Matt Welch!

Reason Magazine and Reason.tv Announce New Editors
Nick Gillespie moves to Reason.tv, Matt Welch takes over Reason magazine
Los Angeles (November 27, 2007) - After seven years as editor-in-chief of Reason magazine, Nick Gillespie is shifting his focus to Reason's Internet content. Gillespie will direct Reason.com and Reason.tv, which debuted in October featuring short documentaries hosted by The Price Is Right and Power of 10 host Drew Carey.
Matt Welch, a former Reason editor and author of the new book McCain: The Myth of a Maverick, leaves his post as assistant editorial page editor at the Los Angeles Times to take over as editor-in-chief of Reason magazine.
"Reason.tv is the most exciting platform we've created yet in terms of demonstrating the ability of 'free minds and free markets' to create a world that routes around politics as usual and lets people pursue happiness in any way that's peaceful. Between Drew Carey's immense contributions and the other original content we are developing, Reason.tv is a great stage for showing all that is right - and wrong - in American politics and culture," said Gillespie. "I'm absolutely thrilled that Matt Welch will be leading the print magazine into its next 40 years. There's no better person to head up one of the few magazines that's still dedicated to long-form journalism and that takes the world as its subject."
Welch will be joining Gillespie in Reason Foundation's Washington, DC, offices in January. The April 2008 issue of Reason magazine will be Welch's first full issue as editor-in-chief.
"I'm excited to be handed the baton at a time when the future of the magazine and Reason Foundation has never looked brighter or more dynamic," declared Welch. "Nick Gillespie and his staff - and their predecessors - have helped create a rare bird in publishing - a magazine about politics that's actually interesting and unpredictable. At a time when Americans despise their elected leaders in record numbers, when party membership is declining all around and the only dark-horse presidential candidate generating anything resembling enthusiasm is a guy nicknamed 'Dr. No,' there's never been a better time for Reason's message of choice versus control, free thinking versus partisan water-carrying."
"This is an unprecedented and pivotal moment for Reason Foundation, our supporters and our ideas," said Reason Foundation President David Nott. "Drew Carey is hosting a video journalism series for us and has just joined Reason's board of trustees. Nick Gillespie's relentless pursuit of quality, thought-provoking journalism will take our websites to new heights. And as Reason magazine heads into its 40th year, Matt Welch brings a fresh perspective that will expand Reason's status as a must-read for anyone interested in the political and cultural landscape of this country. This prepares us better than ever to help bring about change based on individual liberty, limited government and choice."
About Reason magazine
Reason magazine is the award-winning monthly magazine of "free minds and free markets." It covers politics, culture, and ideas through a provocative mix of news, analysis, commentary, and reviews. Reason provides a refreshing alternative to right-wing and left-wing opinion magazines by making a principled case for liberty and individual choice in all areas of human activity. For more information, please visit http://www.reason.com/.
About Reason.tv
Reason.tv is an online community showcasing the best libertarian ideas and videos on the Internet. Reason.tv gives you the opportunity to create videos, share videos and suggest topics for Drew Carey's upcoming documentaries. For more information, please visit http://www.reason.tv/.
About Reason Foundation
Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed monthly magazine, Reason, and its website http://www.reason.com/. Reason Foundation recently launched Reason.tv, an online community featuring short documentaries hosted by The Price Is Right host Drew Carey. For more information, please visit http://www.reason.org/.
Contact
Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Drudge Mentions Unfounded Rumor; Now the Rest of Us Are Free To Talk About It

jwalker@reason.com (Jesse Walker) — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:23:00 EST

Those Hillary rumors have finally entered the mainstream media, or at least the British papers and The Drudge Report. Sen. Clinton is alleged to be having an affair with her personal assistant. The Shyamalanesque twist: Her assistant is a woman!

This isn't the first lesbianism rumor to attach itself to the Democratic frontrunner. In the '90s, a certain sort of right-winger loved to lean in and tell you confidently that Bill Clinton had walked in on his wife having sex with Night Court's Markie Post. Appropriately, the rumor swung both ways: Another version had Hillary walking in on Bill with Markie Post. I assume the actual incident involved Warren Christopher and John Larroquette. You know how these things get exaggerated.

Reason Writers About Town (and More)

Sun, 25 Nov 2007 08:33:00 EST

In The Washington Post, reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch spell out the deep meaning of the Ron Paul Revolution and astonishing bull market in being a libertarian. Snippet:

More than at any other time over the past two decades, Americans are hungering for the politics and freewheeling fun of libertarianism. And with the dreary prospect of a Giuliani vs. Clinton death match in 2008, that hunger is likely to grow even faster than the size of the federal government or the casualty toll in Iraq.

Read all about it here.

In The Los Angeles Times, Matt Welch details how John McCain fudged the facts of his own fact-finding mission about the causes of the Vietnam War. Snippet:

If there is any truly contemporary echo in [McCain's nearly impossible-to-find] War College paper, it's that U.S. troops cannot fight to the best of their abilities if they do not personally support the policies they're enforcing and if they do not have the support of the American people.

Read all about it here.

And in The Washington Times, read all about how libertarians are the new "'It' Faction" in American politics and culture. Snippet:

Gillespie chuckles at the dark images that talk of libertarianism inevitably conjures up. "We're the Sith Lords of American politics," he says, referring to the "Star Wars" baddies. "We can show up in any group. We're both terrifying and devilishly attractive."
It's not likely libertarianism will become a true third-party alternative; it's a temperament to which both major parties will need increasingly to appeal....
Gillespie compares the ideas that underlie libertarianism to a "marinade."
"Our culture has been soaking in it for years," he says.

libertar*ian

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) matt.welch@reason.com (Matt Welch) — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 08:13:00 EST

Here's a Sunday triple play:

In The Washington Post, reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch spell out the deep meaning of the Ron Paul Revolution and astonishing bull market in being a libertarian. Snippet:

More than at any other time over the past two decades, Americans are hungering for the politics and freewheeling fun of libertarianism. And with the dreary prospect of a Giuliani vs. Clinton death match in 2008, that hunger is likely to grow even faster than the size of the federal government or the casualty toll in Iraq.

Read all about it here.

In The Los Angeles Times, Matt Welch details how John McCain fudged the facts of his own fact-finding mission about the causes of the Vietnam War. Snippet:

If there is any truly contemporary echo in [McCain's nearly impossible-to-find] War College paper, it's that U.S. troops cannot fight to the best of their abilities if they do not personally support the policies they're enforcing and if they do not have the support of the American people.

Read all about it here.

And in The Washington Times, read all about how libertarians are the new "'It' Faction" in American politics and culture. Snippet:

Gillespie chuckles at the dark images that talk of libertarianism inevitably conjures up. "We're the Sith Lords of American politics," he says, referring to the "Star Wars" baddies. "We can show up in any group. We're both terrifying and devilishly attractive."
It's not likely libertarianism will become a true third-party alternative; it's a temperament to which both major parties will need increasingly to appeal....
Gillespie compares the ideas that underlie libertarianism to a "marinade."
"Our culture has been soaking in it for years," he says.

Discuss these stories online here.

Reason Magazine - Topics > Media

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

Plastic Surgery Disasters

The Image Lies

The News Media vs. the Innocent

Forget It Hillary, It's Chinatown

Remixed Propaganda Posters

With His Ballot in His Hand

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, They Stink: WFB on the Beatles

Alan Bock on Buckley

Krugman Hates Ethanol!

Now Playing at Reason.tv: Saturday Night Live-ish with Red Eye's Greg Gutfeld and Drudge Report's Andrew Breitbart

Gillespie on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC Show

Unemployed Like Me

Gillespie on MSNBC's Tucker Tonight

The Perils of Long Lead Times

Netflix Dives Deep in the Videostream...

Will We See Ron Paul in NH Debates?

The Tony Snow Show

The Real Untold Story

Congrats to the Chronicle of Higher Education

From Mad Knockoff to Realist Knockoff

Welcome Aboard, Matt Welch!

Drudge Mentions Unfounded Rumor; Now the Rest of Us Are Free To Talk About It

Reason Writers About Town (and More)

lib*er*tar*ian

libertar*ian