Last weekend, I joined several hundred Libertarian Party members at Red Rock Casino and Resort in Las Vegas, Nevada for our national convention. It was a long one, probably a day or two too long, but still a lot of fun both politicking and hanging with friends.

The weekend opened without much fanfare. Candidates running for the party’s nomination were seeking “tokens” from delegates in order to appear in the debate and be considered on the floor to represent the LP.

Most of the first two days were consumed with the typical wrangling over the party by-laws and platform. There were some internal issues addressed, such as a dispute between two factions in Oregon where the body had to choose what delegation from the state to seat (some of those not seated in Oregon eventually made their way to Georgia, where we had spots open).

Working (click to enlarge)

These first two days were particularly stressful for me since I had to work three delegations to ensure their support for Gov. Gary Johnson. The campaign gave me Idaho and Iowa as my ultimate responsibilities, but I also spent some time lobbying members from Georgia — after all, that’s my home state. When I wasn’t working on delegates, I was either sitting in the pressroom (where there was Internet access) or catching up with old friends.

On Friday evening, Gov. Johnson and R. Lee Wrights squared off in a debate before convention delegates (you can watch it here). The 2008 debate saw a number of candidates with varying viewpoints of libertarianism and the direction of the Libertarian Party. The debate between Johnson and Wrights showed the clear differences in approach to politics. While Wrights was lobbing one-liners and soundbites to delegates, Johnson was discussing a more political approach. Some friends were complaining that Wrights was only interested in appealing to Libertarians, others said that, since this was our party’s primary, a more “red meat” approach was necessary; no different from Democratic and Republican campaigns.

Most, if not all, of the folks that I talked afterward said that both sides did well articulating their message, and that they hadn’t changed their minds.

War Room (click to enlarge)

Saturday was when delegates selected the party’s nominee. Four candidates were able to get enough tokens to be nominated — Gov. Johnson, Wrights, Carl Person, and Jim Burns. Each candidates received some time to make their case for the nomination. We had heard going into the convention that some delegates were resigned to Gov. Johnson winning the nomination, but wanted to give a nod to Wrights on the first ballot. That was the case with a few folks from Georgia, despite my overtures that were would only be one ballot and that they should get, even what they admit, on the winning team. Thanks to a few of the delegates from Oregon and another couple from Nevada being sat with us, Georgia went for Wrights in a 10 to 9 vote. The other delegations that were assigned to me, Idaho and Iowa, broke for Gov. Johnson.

Boom! (click to enlarge)

And while we may have lost Georgia, Gov. Johnson took the nomination on the first ballot with over 70% of the vote. Wrights received over 25%.

Now, one may think that the stress was off and that we were done with the real work, but that wasn’t the case. You see, in the Libertarian Party, we run candidates for vice president separately. Gov. Johnson let it be known before the convention that he wanted Judge Jim Gray as his running mate. However, Wrights saw the writing on the wall and was collecting “tokens” for vice president as well (he asked me when I saw him on Wednesday evening). Some of were actually nervous here. Wrights is a great guy, but those of us working on the campaign were tasked with rounding up votes for Judge Gray.

But despite a strong showing from Wrights, Judge Gray took the nomination for vice president with 59% of the vote.

That’s it, right? Work is done for the weekend. It time to go drink and gamble. Wrong. Chris Barron, Andrew Ian Dodge, Jenny Everett (a new member from Georgia), and I decided that it was time for a drink, so we headed down to Yard House, one of the fine establishments in the Red Rock casino. The body had moved on to officer elections, and after to speaking to my good friend, Brett Bittner, we had contended that Mark Rutherford would likely win the race for chair. We figured we all could just give him our proxies and have some fun. So, off we went.

Man, were we wrong. After our second round of drinks, we started hearing that there were some strange things going on. By our fourth round, friends were telling us to get back to the floor. By the time we got back, all hell had broken loose. Admittedly, I can’t give the play-by-play, but apparently, None of the Above (NOTA) was a strong candidate. All I can say is that I was incredibly frustrated, probably more than I have been when dealing with party politics or political campaigns. Because of time constraints, voting for chair was postponed until Sunday.

The reasoning for floor fight was because of shenanigans pulled before we even got to Vegas, such as charging a floor fee for delegates and having the convention roughly 15 miles away from the strip. Seriously, it cost around $50 to $60 for a cab ride from the airport or the strip. That was ridiculous.

Delegate Nobody (click to enlarge)

Despite staying until the early hours of Sunday morning, I managed to pull myself out of bed for another day of voting. It got…crazy. During the midst of the voting, Chris was arbitrarily removed from the Missouri delegation along with a couple of other folks apparently for voting the “wrong way.” He’d been voting for Rutherford, but there had been some sort of behind the scenes wrangling going on — or at least, that’s the allegation — to ensure that the delegates seated in Missouri that didn’t actually live there (Chris is from DC, but their delegation was full) would no longer have their votes counted. Again, that’s the allegation, there is no way to prove it. But at the very least, it certainly doesn’t sound good.

In the end, Geoffrey Neale, a former LNC chair who hadn’t even put his hat in the ring until Sunday, defeated Rutherford and on the fifth round of voting that day, won the race for chair. Lee Wrights, who had lost bids for the presidential and vice presidential nomination the previous day, won the race for vice chair. Wrights is a good guy. I don’t know Neale, but everyone I know seems comfortable with him as chair. He certainly understands that he doesn’t have a mandate. Nevertheless, I have confidence that they will serve our party well.

Also, congrats to my good friends, Richard Schrade and Brett Bittner, who were elected to leadership posts. Schrade was elected as the Southeast regional alternate to the Libertarian National Committee. He’ll no doubt serve Georgia’s interests well. Bittner was elected to the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance (LSLA) at as At-Large Representative.

Lee Wrights (click to enlarge)

And let me just say that Chris Barron is a really cool guy. My liver blames him for the amount of adult beverages I consumed in Las Vegas. As an aside, I was happy to see so many younger Libertarians at the convention. That was really encouraging.

My body has finally recovered from the week of debauchery and stress. I managed to catch up on sleep by Wednesday, though I think it’ll be awhile before I drink again. You can see some pictures from the weekend at my Flickr page. Bruce Majors has also shared his photos from the convention.

In these difficult times, I think it’s important to remember to persevere rather than throw up our hands and quit. One could understand a teenager giving up on her future if she was abandoned by her parents, bullied at school, and even homeless. Who could expect any other result?

Don’t tell that to 18 year-old Dawn Loggins. She experienced all this and more and has been accepted to…Harvard?

This is such an inspiring story that I don’t want to give much more of it away. Really, I hope that everyone who reads this post reads this four part series by Alicia Banks for The Shelby Star. This story is nothing short of amazing.

There were three main takeaways I got from reading this series:

1. Dawn’s Personal choices made all the difference. Every cliché you have ever heard about becoming a successful person applies to Dawn Loggins (ex: “Luck is when preparation meets opportunity,” “when the going gets tough…” etc.). Rather than complaining about how unfair life is or blaming all her woes on the 1%,* or even her parents who abandoned her, she took it upon herself to improve her situation.

2. Sometimes one has to break the rules or violate the law to do the “right” thing. Dawn may not have been successful if the law was followed to the letter**. What if the principal or the school’s guidance counselor would have called DSS? Here’s an excerpt from part 2:

No one risked calling the Department of Social Services about Dawn, who was 17 at the time and had been homeless.

Those who cared about Dawn could have lost her to foster care if they alerted the authorities to her situation. Putnam was afraid Dawn wouldn’t be able to take classes she had lined up for her senior year at a different school.

Putnam and Kolton made sure Dawn had everything she needed: Clothes, food, shelter and Burns.

In situations like Dawn’s, Jane Shooter, assistant director for the county DSS, said social workers would have attempted to locate her parents and understand the situation. If they determined a child needed to be placed in foster care, their first attempts would be to find a safe guardian or foster family in the area. But that’s not always possible.

Members of the Burns community took care of one of their own on their own.

But was this the right thing to do?

“I can only say if you suspect a child is neglected or abused, by North Carolina law, you’re mandated to report it,” Shooter said.
Children in foster care age out of DSS’s protection when they turn 18 years old. Dawn turned 18 on Feb. 9.

“There’s nothing we can do now that she turned 18,” Shooter said.

3. Despite what some on the Left believe, regular people are more than willing to help others who are struggling without the government forcing them to do so via wealth redistribution (especially those who are doing all they can to help themselves). In addition to a few very key people who helped Dawn through high school, since this story was published, there has been an outpouring of support from regular people who want to help Dawn pay for her Harvard education.

Of course, Dawn’s story isn’t typical but neither is her work ethic. Was she successful despite her hardships or because of them? Was she smart because she studied hard or did she study hard because she was smart enough to realize doing so would be her most likely ticket out of poverty?

These chicken/egg questions aside, one thing is clear: we could all learn a thing or two about pursuing the American dream from a teenager by the name of Dawn Loggins.

Hat Tip: Neal Boortz

*I believe that if she continues to do the hard work and make smart choices, she will one day be in the 1% and be told that she needs to “pay her fair share” to “spread the wealth” to the “less fortunate.”

**Then again, someone like Dawn Loggins probably would have found another way to make her dreams a reality.

The first video tells Mao’s inspiring story:

The second video, the 2012 Milton Friedman Prize winner himself Mao Yushi delivers his acceptance speech.

Congratulations to Mao Yushi for earning this most prestigious prize for your life’s work in the advancement of human freedom. You sir, are an inspiration to us all.

Aside from the muscular gentleman in the slinky party skirt and halter top, a delegate wearing a Guy Fawkes mask and a prominent speaker sporting a powdered wig, it was a typical political convention.

And by the time the Libertarian National Convention concluded in Las Vegas on Saturday, party members had the man they hope can propel them to relevance in presidential politics.

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson won about 70 percent of the vote on more than 600 ballots, finishing well ahead of Libertarian newsletter founder Lee Wrights.

What it means is Johnson, a former Republican who served two terms as governor from 1995 to 2003, will carry the party’s torch in a campaign against Democratic incumbent President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

Johnson says a “pie-in-the-sky” goal for himself and vice presidential candidate Jim Gray, an Orange County, Calif., Superior Court judge and outspoken critic of the war on drugs, is to generate enough support to qualify for debates on the same stage as Obama and Romney.

“If that happens, anything is possible,” Johnson said. “I don’t think either Obama or Romney are talking about solutions to the problems.”

He’s betting a swell of supporters for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul will shift to the Libertarian candidates once Romney becomes the nominee.

“As much as I would like (Paul) to be the nominee, I don’t think that is going to happen,” Johnson said.

Johnson is right about that point, of course. Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican nominee, and even the apparent delegate wins his supporters are racking up at state party conventions in caucus states aren’t going to amount to much of anything in the end. So Paul’s supporters will have a choice, either they support Johnson, they become loyal Republicans and back Romney, or they stay home on Election Day. Johnson is obviously hoping they they choose the first option.

This is the second time in two election cycles that the Libertarian Party has nominated a former Republican elected official as their nominee. Last time, of course, it was former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr and while the results of his campaign were disappointing, Barr did end up getting more votes than any Libertarian Party Presidential nominee since Ed Clark got close to a million votes in 1980. Can Johnson get close to that? Conor Friedersdorf makes a good point in that regard:

A former governor of New Mexico, he was re-elected by that state’s voters, left office popular after two terms, and therefore has the most executive experience of any Libertarian Party presidential nominee. He can also cite the state he ran as evidence that nothing radical happens when he’s put in charge. An economic conservative and social liberal, he represents a new direction for a party that has long wrestled with its paleo-libertarian wing. And yet he too is certain to lose on Election Day, as third-party candidates in American presidential elections do. The question is whether he can match his party’s 1980 high-water mark and win 1 percent or more of the vote, and whether he might win even more in the key swing state of New Mexico, where voters already know and have cast ballots for him.

That would certainly make things interesting wouldn’t it? If Johnson ended up costing the GOP a pick-up in New Mexico, then maybe they’ll stop ignoring the libertarian vote for once.

To be realistic, though, the prospects for third-party candidates are never good and they’re unlikely to be much better. Perhaps the greatest role that Johnson can fulfill with this campaign is to become a strong and effective spokesperson for libertarian ideas around the nation, and to stand as proof that you can indeed by an ideological libertarian and govern effectively. That would be no small accomplishment.

The reality, though, is rather different. Let’s look now at “The Life of Julia”:

3 Years Old

Under President Obama: Julia is enrolled in a Head Start program to help her get ready for school. Because of steps President Obama has taken to improve programs like this one, Julia joins thousands of students across the country who will start kindergarten ready to learn and succeed.

Who really wins: The Federal bureaucracy. Head Start is a high-profile program that allows the employment of many bureaucrats to manage the funds, as well as extending the reach of Washington into the pre-school classroom.

The higher education establishment. Head Start requires teachers to have at least an associates degree, while half must have a bachelors.

Who really loses: Julia, possibly. Head Start produces few lasting benefits and, in some cases, can harm students’ future prospects.

The Taxpayers. They have to pay a lot for few lasting benefits and possible harms.

17 Years Old

Under President Obama: Julia takes the SAT and is on track to start her college applications. Her high school is part of the Race to the Top program, implemented by President Obama. Their new college- and career-ready standards mean Julia can take the classes she needs to do well.

Who really wins: The Federal bureaucracy. Like Head Start, Race to the Top is another chance for the Federal bureaucracy to grow and control more taxpayer dollars, while further tightening the Federal hold on local schools.

Who really loses: Julia. While her school vies for Race to the Top dollars by complying with cookie-cutter reform proposals, it ignores on-the-ground barriers to learning. Her classes are less effective, and while her transcript looks good on paper, she arrives in college academically less prepared.

22 Years Old

Under President Obama: During college, Julia undergoes surgery. It is thankfully covered by her insurance due to a provision in health care reform that lets her stay on her parents’ coverage until she turns 26.

Who really wins: Obama and the Democrats. When college graduates are having a historically difficult time finding jobs and the rest of the PPACA further tightens the link between full-time employment and insurance, this was bound to be a pain point for young voters.

The higher education establishment. This allows the higher education establishment to entice vulnerable young students into spending longer in college, thus forking over more money to them.

Who really loses: Julia. This is yet another incentive to stay in college longer, racking up student loans that will burden her throughout her life.

Julia’s parents. Someone’s gotta pay for this, right?

23 Years Old

Under President Obama: Because of steps like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Julia is one of millions of women across the country who knows she’ll always be able to stand up for her right to equal pay. She starts her career as a web designer.

Who really wins: Lawyers. More lawsuits = more money. Any questions?

Who really loses: Julia. In a time of historically-unprecedented unemployment for young workers, increasing the odds of a discrimination lawsuit further encourages employers to pick older workers with proven track records. Odds are, Julia doesn’t get a job as a web designer. She starts her career as a web designer waiting tables at minimum wage plus tips while doing freelance jobs to build her reputation.

25 Years Old

Under President Obama: After graduation, Julia’s federal student loans are more manageable since President Obama capped income-based federal student loan payments and kept interest rates low. She makes her payments on time every month, keeping her on track to repay her student loans.

Who really wins: The student loan industry. Already protected by the fact that student loans cannot be discharged into bankruptcy, they’re now able to make student loans look like a better deal with “low monthly payments” and a capped interest rate.

The higher education establishment. Since student loans are such a good deal, why not get students to spend a little more on their educations? Right?

Who really loses: Julia. Enticed by easy student loan money, Julia is now burdened with student loan debt. Her career as a web designer has yet to take off, but the fact that she’s working makes it difficult to get a deferment or forbearance.

In the long run, the capped monthly payment causes Julia to accept a longer loan term, extending the time she’s burdened with the loans and increasing their total cost.

27 & 31 Years Old

Under President Obama (27): For the past four years, Julia has worked full-time as a web designer. Thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care, letting Julia focus on her work rather than worry about her health.

Under President Obama (31): Julia decides to have a child. Throughout her pregnancy, she benefits from maternal checkups, prenatal care, and free screenings under health care reform.

Who really wins: The health care industry. Because Julia’s discretionary health care consumption is covered by “insurance”, she has no incentive to curb it, thereby increasing demand for health care.

Unions. Health care is a heavily unionized field, and more health care consumption means more unionized workers.

Obama and the Democrats. With their impulses towards social engineering, wresting control of Julia’s health care decisions out of the hands of her employer is a huge victory. Make no mistake, Julia’s health care decisions are now in the hands of the Federal bureaucracy.

Who really loses: Julia. Because insurers aren’t able to accurately price for risk, everyone ends up paying significantly more for insurance, including Julia.

Moreover, Julia’s health care is now controlled by an unaccountable Washington bureaucracy issuing orders to her health insurer. She has less power, and less choice, than before.

Finally, since employers have less control over the cost of health insurance under Obamacare, the odds of her having gotten that full-time web design job at 23 are further diminished.

37 Years Old

Under President Obama: Julia’s son Zachary starts kindergarten. The public schools in their neighborhood have better facilities and great teachers because of President Obama’s investments in education and programs like Race to the Top.

Who really wins: The Federal bureaucracy. It was true when Julia was in school, and it still is. Race to the Top and other Washington “investments” in education are primarily to reinforce the control of the Federal bureaucracy over local schools.

Who really loses: Julia and Zachary. The public schools in Julia’s neighborhood are now tightly controlled by Washington. Local problems are ignored entirely, as are politically incorrect problems like the achievement decline among boys. As a result, Zachary receives a substandard education compared to his female peers, making him less likely to learn the skills he needs to make it in life.

42 Years Old

Under President Obama: Julia starts her own web business. She qualifies for a Small Business Administration loan, giving her the money she needs to invest in her business. President Obama’s tax cuts for small business like Julia’s help her to get started. She’s able to hire employees, creating new jobs in her town and helping to grow the local economy.

Who really wins: No one.

Who really loses: Julia. While able to start a one-person web shop in an apparent win, her progress is impeded when it’s time to expand. When faced with bringing on employees in the Obama regulatory climate, she decides it’s too difficult and passes on the opportunity. She’s never able to make it big.

65 Years Old

Under President Obama: Julia enrolls in Medicare, helping her to afford preventive care and the prescription drugs she needs.

Who really wins: Obama and the Democrats. Their outright false claim that Medicare will still be solvent by the time Julia reaches 65 only exists to keep them in power.

Who really loses: Julia. Having counted on Medicare to be there through much of her career, Julia failed to save enough for her medical care in retirement. Now that Medicare is insolvent, she has to keep working. She could have put the money taxed from her for Medicare towards savings, but was denied the opportunity.

67 Years Old

Under President Obama: Julia retires. After years of contributing to Social Security, she receives monthly benefits that help her retire comfortably without worrying that she’ll run out of savings. This allows her to volunteer at a community garden.

Who really wins: Obama and the Democrats. Their outright false claim that Social Security will still be solvent by the time Julia reaches 67 only exists to keep them in power.

Additionally, Social Security today doesn’t provide enough to retire comfortably on in many areas of the country. So claiming otherwise is yet another lie to keep Obama and the Democrats in power.

Who really loses: Julia. Having counted on Social Security to be part of her retirement strategy through much of her career, Julia failed to save enough. Now that Social Security is insolvent, she has to keep working. She could have put the money taxed from her for Social Security towards savings, but was denied the opportunity.

The Community Garden. Because Julia is still working, they’re short a volunteer.

Conclusion

Who really wins: Obama and the Democrats, the Federal bureaucracy, the higher education establishment, Lawyers, the student loan industry, the health care industry, and unions.

Who really loses: The taxpayers, Julia’s parents, Julia’s son Zachary, and Julia, every single time.

Now, young voters, ask yourselves… do you really want “The Life of Julia”?

Now it seems that Obama supporters are doing something similar as it relates to his one word 2012 campaign slogan: Forward.

Just yesterday, Neal Boortz referenced the Wikipedia article for the word “forward” as it related to politics but by the time he was off the air, the page had been significantly altered. Boortz explains:

So yesterday I gave you a laundry list of different political philosophers, publications and propaganda that all used the phrase “forward” to embody and promote their socialist or communist causes. Considering the historical use of the word “forward,” it is no surprise that our Marxist in Chief would select this phrase as his new campaign slogan. But one of the many examples I referenced was a Wikipedia entry under “Forward” that Cristina found entitled “Forward (generic name of socialist publications).” Yesterday morning if you went to this link you found a long history of socialist and communist publications published in many languages, principally German, Russian and French, using that name as their title.

[…]

By yesterday afternoon Obama sycophants and myrmidons were busy. They were demanding that Wikipedia remove that reference to the word “forward” being a generic name of socialist publications. Toward the middle of the afternoon if you clicked on that link it would say “This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia’s deletion policy.” By the end of the day, if you searched the word “Forward” in Wikipedia, the link to that entry had been removed from the website.

Boortz’s blog Nealz Nuze cached the original Wikipedia search and is included in his post.

The as of the publication of this post, the Wikipedia page Forward (Obama-Biden campaign slogan) says: “On April 30th, 2012 the Obama–Biden campaign announced the slogan “Forward”.” If you go back to the main page and look under “Politics,” there are 4 links in addition to the Obama campaign link of political groups, all Marxist in nature, all of which use “forward” as a slogan.

This could be a coincidence, but that is beside the point. My question is what is it about this page that certain Wiki editors who want to delete the page find objectionable? Was the original article not factual or do they not like that other Wiki editors pointed this out?*

*Seriously, if you or someone you know contributes to Wikipedia, maybe you could shed some light on this in the comments section.

Earlier today, the Connecticut Senate passed a bill 42-11 that would hold the police liable for arresting individuals who record their activities in public. Carlos Miller writing for Pixiq writes:

The Connecticut state senate approved a bill Thursday that would allow citizens to sue police officers who arrest them for recording in public, apparently the first of its kind in the nation.

As it is now, cops act with reckless immunity knowing the worst that can happen is their municipalties [sic] (read: taxpayers) would be responsible for shelling out lawsuits.

Senate Bill 245, which was introduced by Democratic Senator Eric Coleman and approved by a co-partisan margin of 42-11, must now go before the House.
The bill, which would go into effect on October 1, 2012, states the following:

This bill makes peace officers potentially liable for damages for interfering with a person taking a photograph, digital still, or video image of either the officer or a colleague performing his or her job duties. Under the bill, officers cannot be found liable if they reasonably believed that the interference was necessary to (1) lawfully enforce a criminal law or municipal ordinance; (2) protect public safety; (3) preserve the integrity of a crime scene or criminal investigation; (4) safeguard the privacy of a crime victim or other person; or (5) enforce Judicial Branch rules and policies that limit taking photographs, videotaping, or otherwise recording images in branch facilities.

Officers found liable of this offense are entitled, under existing law, to indemnification (repayment) from their state or municipal employer if they were acting within their scope of authority and the conduct was not willful, wanton, or reckless.

While I think the fourth and fifth exceptions to the law could be problematic, this should go a long way toward holding the police accountable.

As if this wasn’t enough good news, just yesterday Gov. Dannel Malloy signed a bill to abolish the death penalty in the Nutmeg state. CNN reports:

(CNN) — Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed a bill into law Wednesday that abolishes the death penalty, making his state the 17th in the nation to abandon capital punishment and the fifth in five years to usher in a repeal.

The law is effective immediately, though prospective in nature, meaning that it would not apply to those already sentenced to death. It replaces the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of release as the state’s highest form of punishment.

“Although it is an historic moment — Connecticut joins 16 other states and the rest of the industrialized world by taking this action — it is a moment for sober reflection, not celebration,” Malloy said in a statement.

Connecticut isn’t a state that comes to my mind when I think of a death penalty state and for a good reason: only 2 people have been executed in that state in the last 52 years (both of which wanted to be executed), according to the governor. So, if the administration of the death penalty is so infrequent, why does this abolishing of the death penalty even matter? I think Gov. Malloy said it quite well in his signing statement: “Instead, the people of this state pay for appeal after appeal, and then watch time and again as defendants are marched in front of the cameras, giving them a platform of public attention they don’t deserve.”

Keep up the good work Connecticut!

Hat Tip: The Agitator

FreeMarketAmerica.org has released a great video (above) called “If I Wanted America to Fail.” It’s a pretty decent list of policies one would want to implement to cause America to fail but it’s far from complete.

Here are a few suggestions of my own:

If I wanted America to fail, I would want congress to abdicate its war powers and give those powers to the president so he could commit acts of war against any country he desires for any or no reason at all.

If I wanted America to fail, I would want these undeclared wars to be open-ended with no discernable war aim. This would lead to blowback and create more enemies for America.

If I wanted America to fail, I would have troops deployed around the world to make sure the world is “safe for democracy” but would topple regimes, even those elected by the people of these countries, if the president found the new leaders not to his liking. This would create even more enemies who would try to cause America to fail.

If I wanted America to fail, I would do away with due process – even for American citizens who the president considers “enemy combatants.” I would want the president to have the ability to detain these people indefinitely, ship them to a foreign country, and even give the president the authority to kill these people anywhere in the world they are found.

If I wanted America to fail, I would have the ATF sell arms to Mexican drug cartels so they could kill innocent people on both sides of the border. I would name this operation after a lame action movie franchise and pretend to know nothing about it when details were made public (It’s not like the media would have any interest in investigating this deadly policy because this is a Democrat administration).

Now it’s your turn. What are the policies being implemented now that you would want implemented if your goal was to make America fail?

College graduates who majored in zoology, anthropology, philosophy, art history and humanities were among the least likely to find jobs appropriate to their education level

Actually, like the guy interviewed with a “creative writing” degree who now works as a barista, I think these folks are finding exactly the sort of jobs appropriate to their education level.

I cannot recommend this episode enough.

Watch The Real CSI on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Also, the producers of this episode hosted a live chat for viewers to ask some follow-up questions (I’m sorry I missed it). Here is the archive from the chat.

Related Posts
Popular Mechanics Separates CSI Fact from CSI Fiction
Dr Michael West Filmed Committing Attempted Murder
An Innocent Man Was Probably Executed on Gov. Rick Perry’s Watch…Not That Anyone Cares
200 Innocent and Counting
25 More Reasons for Criminal Justice Reform

To say that most American political discourse takes place at the intellectual level of baboons would be an insult to baboons. Baboons are capable of handling two-factor reasoning problems: if I eat all the bananas now, I’ll have none left for later; better eat enough to quell my hunger now, but leave some for later. In contrast, political discourse generally takes place at the one-factor level that could be handled by, say, flatworms: Banana yummy! Hunger bad!

And politics takes place at the same level: Spend now! What consequences?!

On the one hand, I regard the basic human value that underlies my own beliefs as tolerance based on humility. I have no right to coerce someone else because I cannot be sure that I am right and he is wrong. On the other hand, some of our heros…people who have, in fact, done the most to promote libertarian ideas, who have been enormously influential, have been highly intolerant as human beings and have justified their views, with which I largely agree, in ways that I regard as promoting intolerance.

In searching for the above transcription of what I thought was very profound and wise, I found a couple of bloggers who thought this particular quotation as “an inadequate defense of liberty” or one of the “failures” of Milton Friedman.

I happen to disagree with these notions.

Maybe because I have been humbled in realizing that I had been wrong on some issues of great importance. By far the most difficult (yet ultimately liberating) post I have ever written was the post in which I declared that I was wrong about my support for the war in Iraq. I was so certain that regime change in Iraq would bring about peace in the Middle East and freedom would take hold. I thought the Ron Paul and big “L” Libertarian position on preemptive war was naïve and dangerous but now I believe the opposite to be true (for reasons I stated in the aforementioned post).

Having experiencing this, I can’t help but think that Friedman was right to say that each of us should be open to the possibility we may be wrong. If we aren’t open to this possibility, what is the point of debating an issue? Obviously, if I argue that X is correct and my opponent says Y is correct, I’m going to do my best to convince my opponent that I am right and s/he is wrong (meanwhile, my opponent is doing the same).

But what if I realize in the course of the debate that my opponent is at least partially right about Y being correct and/or that my reasoning is flawed or the facts do not support X? As a normal human being, I might not concede right away but if I am being intellectually honest, I’ll revise my thinking based on new information or new reasoning I hadn’t considered.

If Milton Friedman was willing to be open to the possibility of being wrong, how could I, someone whose mind will never in the same league as his, be so stubborn?

One thing I notice in watching Friedman debate people who are diametrically opposed to his positions was how patient he was with them. Something that many of us libertarians seem to forget is that much of what we believe to be true is counterintuitive to at least half of the people we encounter on a daily basis because many of these people have not been exposed to our philosophy. Friedman understood this. He knew that much of what he was saying was new territory for many who would hear his lectures or read his books.

Before he could make the case about any of his ideas to others, he had to be satisfied that the facts backed up his theory. These two sentences from the NPR obituary for Friedman summed up his approach beautifully:

Friedman was an empiricist, whose theories emerged from his study of the evidence, not the other way around. He also was a champion of the free market and small government.

We are supposed to believe this to be a weakness? I find this to be so refreshing!

Americans suffer under the delusion that transportation systems are just that—systems for transporting people from one destination to another. What most of us fail to recognize is that the politicians, activists and planners who play the greatest role in creating those systems have far different goals than improving the way we move from Point A to Point B.

To today’s transportation movers and shakers, such systems are giant jobs-creation programs designed to boost the economy and provide high wages to members of influential unions; and the key means by which to remake society in a way that is nicer to the environment and leads to a changed citizenry that is less likely to use automobiles to get around. Think of transportation these days less as civil engineering and more as social engineering.

It sounds like a grand thesis statement, because it is. He goes on in the rest of his article to expand and justify it. But these two paragraphs crystallize why the supporters and opponents of HSR are so exasperatingly talking right past each other.

Everyone was up in arms over this, and to be honest, I frankly think it was pointless, in bad taste, and didn’t do anything but spin up a news cycle for about 24 hours. After reading a particular Popehat piece, I’m not all that surprised, but I’m certainly a bit dismayed that Jerry Smith decided that this was a necessary act.

Well, the homework assignment is here for all to see:

DOJ Letter to 5th Circuit re Judicial Authority

There’s a section in here that is particularly interesting. One aspect of this is an “F-U” to the judge, but points to something that I think is a bit unnecessary in Constitutional jurisprudence:

While duly recognizing the courts’ authority to engage in judicial review, the Executive Branch has often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress. See, e.g. , Nature’s Daily. v. Glickman, 1999 WL 158 1396, at *6; State University of New York v. Anderson, 1999 WL 680463, at *6; Rojas v. Fitch, 1998 WL 457203, at *7; United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 75i v. Brown Group, 1995 WL 938594, at *6.

The Supreme Court has often acknowledged the appropriateness of reliance on the political branches’ policy choices and judgments. See, e.g., Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U.S. 320, 329 (2006) (explaining that, in granting relief, the courts ‘·try not to nullify more of a legislature’s work than is necessary” because they recognize that’” [a] ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people’”(alteration in the original) (quoting Regan v. Time, inc. , 468 U.S. 641, 652 (1984) (plurality opinion))); Turner Broadcasting System, inc., 512 U.S. at 665-66. The “Court accords ‘ great The “Court accords ‘ great weight to the decisions of Congress”‘ in part because “[t]he Congress is a coequal branch of government whose Members take the same oath [judges] do to uphold the Constitution of the United States.” Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57,64 (1981) (quoting Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 102 (1973)). These principles of deference are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere. The courts accord particular deference when evaluating the appropriateness of the means Congress has chosen to exercise its enumerated powers, including the Commerce Clause, to accomplish constitutional ends. See, e.g. , NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 32 (1937); McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 408 (1819). See also Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529, 566 (6th Cir. 20 11) (Opinion of Sutton, J.); Seven Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1, 18-19 (D.C. Cir. 201 1) (Opinion of Silberman, J.)

So the Supreme Court should grant a great deal of deference to Congress, because Congress cares deeply about their Constitutional obligation!

Paging the folks over at Volokh:

Most of us know that when then-Speaker Pelosi was asked where the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact an “individual mandate,” she replied with a mocking “are you serious? Are you serious?”

Here are a few more pearls of constitutional wisdom from our elected representatives.
Rep. Conyers cited the “Good and Welfare Clause” as the source of Congress’s authority [there is no such clause].
Rep. Stark responded, “the federal government can do most anything in this country.”
Rep. Clyburn replied, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do. How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?”
Rep. Hare said “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest [...] It doesn’t matter to me.” When asked, “Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority …?” He replied, “I don’t know.”
Sen. Akaka said he “not aware” of which Constitutional provision authorizes the healthcare bill.
Sen. Leahy added, “We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there’s no authority?”
Sen. Landrieu told a questioner, “I’ll leave that up to the constitutional lawyers on our staff.”

So some don’t care, and some just assume the authority exists but can’t cite it, and some make up new sections of text in the Constitution that don’t even exist. Deferring to Congress on whether or not legislation is Constitutional is like deferring to Philip Morris on whether cigarettes are good for your health.