Saturday, December 5, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
GARRETT PECK ON "THE PROHIBITION HANGOVER: ALCOHOL IN AMERICA FROM DEMON RUM TO CULT CABERNET"
Reading People’s Faces
Tattoos, dueling scars, and other rational acquisitions
Katherine Mangu-WardIt is a truth universally acknowledged that messing with a guy who has facial tattoos is a really bad idea.
Getting dirty words tattooed on your eyelids—a popular choice, judging from the mug shots available online—is a serious commitment. It is, as social scientists say, a “signal that is costly to fake.” The bearer of a facial tattoo announces to the world: I expect to be in prison for most of my life, or to hang out with people who consider prison experience a character reference.
Those of us who are not a part of the criminal underworld have a much cheaper system: Asked for a reference, we happily provide our colleagues’ phone numbers and email addresses. But for crooks, broadcasting signals about their professional pasts and current social networks is a good way to wind up with a new pair of concrete shoes. In Codes of the Underworld: How Criminals Communicate (Princeton), the Oxford sociologist Diego Gambetta uses colorful stories and a minimum of jargon in his quest to analyze how people advertise when their business happens to be illegal.
Unlike a legal trademark, an underworld brand can’t be defended with little more than an expensive attorney. If another gang steps into your turf, you can opt for a violent defense of your signal of choice. But gangsters who previously relied on large gaudy tattoos to get a message across can hardly go around roughing up every 17-year-old with a tramp stamp on her tailbone.
As tattoos go mainstream, criminals have to adapt. These days, even art on your neck, collarbone, and wrists is barely enough to signal your commitment to subcultures that are totally legal.
But there are still some kinds of tattoos—including those inky eyelid admonitions and the homespun variety created with a shard of a ballpoint pen during long hours behind bars—that retain their signaling power, demonstrating a commitment to the criminal way of life. A guy with extensive Aryan Brotherhood facial tattoos is unlikely to snitch on his buddies. The only thing worse then getting an eyelid tattoo is having one removed. What’s he going to do, go into witness protection and start a new life as a kindergarten teacher in Ohio?
In Japan, members of the yakuza have long favored tattoos covering the entire upper body to signal their mafia status. They also amputate all or part of a pinky finger. One study estimated that between 40 percent and 70 percent of the yakuza had sacrificed a digit, generally making the cut themselves. READ MORE REASON
Time to Wind Down the War on Drugs
It's hard out here for a libertarian in the Age of Obama. From bailout mania to the drive to nationalize health care, those of who want less federal involvement in American life have plenty to be depressed about.
Is there any area in which it's not too audacious to hope for less intrusive government?
Yes, thankfully: Today, more and more Americans are open to winding down our destructive war on drugs.
In October, Gallup recorded its highest-ever level of public support for marijuana legalization, with 44 percent of Americans in favor. There's "a generational rift" on the issue, Gallup reports: A majority of voters under 50 back legalization.
This Election Day, Maine joined a growing number of states that have legalized medical marijuana dispensaries. Meanwhile, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for a "robust debate" on the issue, and activists are on pace to put a marijuana decriminalization initiative in front of the state's voters.
In Congress, unlikely allies Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Barney Frank, D-Mass., recently introduced a bill to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Most encouraging, Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., has called attention to the scandalous fact that the United States has more people in jail per capita than any other nation in the world, in large part because of the drug war. READ MORE @ CATO
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Killing Slaughterhouse
Understanding the controversial 1873 decision at the center of the Supreme Court's upcoming gun rights fight
Brian DohertyThe Supreme Court has set a date of March 2, 2010, for oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, the case that will decide whether the revival of the Second Amendment won in 2008’s Heller case will extend to overturning gun control restrictions imposed by local and state governments.
The legal briefs from the plaintiffs, and many of their amici, are now circulating. And an interesting division in the preferred strategy for winning the case has appeared, one based on the daring legal gambit around which most of lead McDonald lawyer (and Heller lawyer) Alan Gura’s brief is built.
To understand Gura’s radicalism, we need to take a quick stroll through a century and more of legal precedent. For decades, the rights contained in the Bill of Rights (both explicitly enumerated and unenumerated) were interpreted to bind only the federal government (see the 1833 Barron case, regarding takings under the Fifth Amendment, for the beginnings of this line of thought). Then in 1868 the 14th Amendment was enacted to impose substantive limitations on the ability of state and local governments to infringe individual rights.
The 14th Amendment was passed in the historical context of Reconstruction, when many southern governments were violating the rights of newly freed blacks. As many of the briefs in McDonald detail quite convincingly, one of the rights that was almost universally understood to fall under 14th Amendment protection (or to use the lingo, one of the rights meant to be “incorporated” on the states via the 14th) was the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The 14th Amendment lists three distinct ways in which states and localities are prohibited from violating our rights: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” READ MORE REASON
The Discoverer of HIV Speaks Out
by James Foye
The new film House Of Numbers (reviewed by me here) contains excerpts of interviews with almost everyone of significance in the debate about whether or not HIV causes severe immune deficiency (aka AIDS). In a true scientific debate, the defenders of AIDS orthodoxy would jump at every chance to engage in debate with HIV skeptics, in the hope of either clearly refuting their arguments, or else learning something from them. But instead their mantra is:
Some of the people interviewed by filmmaker Brent Leung didn’t realize that his final product was not going to be a one-sided rehash of the nonsense that has been fed to us for the last 25 years by the AIDS establishment, but rather would feature both sides of the story. They therefore regret their participation in the film, and are trying to explain away the comments they made and to portray Mr. Leung as being deceptive. But, had he stormed into their offices telling them that he had doubts about HIV, by their own admission, they wouldn’t have given him the time of day. In any event, is there one question they would have answered differently had they then granted an interview? The answer, one must presume, must be "No." So what difference does it make? Read More"We will not engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes."
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Libertarians opposed to new war plans for Afghanistan
Wes Benedict, Executive Director of the LP, said, "Rush Limbaugh should buy Obama a nice cigar. The liberal president has done exactly what the conservative leader wanted: escalate the war."
William Redpath, Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC), commented, "This is further evidence that the differences between Republicans and Democrats are, at most, rhetorical. This president, whose votes made him the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, has just announced an escalation of a foreign war. His campaign promise of 'Change' now sounds a lot more hollow."
Redpath continued, "Some congressional Democrats may make a rhetorical show of opposing Obama's decision, but that is all it will be. Obama is guaranteed to get the additional troops and funding that he wants."
Redpath continued, "Instead, Congress should re-assert its authority in matters of war, by passing legislation that terminates the president's authorization to make war in Afghanistan, and that calls for an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan. If the president vetoes it, Congress should override the veto."
In September 2008, the LNC adopted a resolution calling for a military withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Benedict commented further, "One problem with the president's strategy is that it demonstrates a hyperinflated fear of terrorists. When we act worried and threatened, we make the terrorists feel like they're having their intended effect, which encourages them to keep doing what they're doing."
Redpath continued, "According to the Cato Institute, 'the U.S. military's counterinsurgency doctrine says that stabilizing a country the size of Afghanistan would require far more troops than the most wild-eyed hawk has proposed: about 600,000 troops.' President Obama is proposing to put a total of about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, which won't come close to accomplishing anything."
Redpath concluded, "The president's speech was surprisingly content-free. The speech was nearly all platitudes, which is typical for politicians, particularly presidents. Will someone please restore substance to American political discourse?"
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP executive director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Three Decades of Politics and Failed Policies at HUD
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has long been plagued by scandals, mismanagement, and policy failures. Most recently, HUD's subsidies and failed oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac helped to inflate the housing bubble, which ultimately burst and cascaded into a major financial crisis.
Given this giant policy blunder, now is a good time to review the many failures in HUD leadership over the years. This study discusses how HUD officials operate within a highly politicized environment, which is heavily influenced by the groups that HUD subsidizes and regulates, including the housing industry, financial institutions, and community activists.
At the same time, HUD leaders often put their personal goals ahead of those of the general public. Recent HUD secretaries have focused on gaining private benefits while doing favors for business interests and political insiders. These leadership failures are illustrated in this study by profiles of four recent HUD secretaries: Samuel Pierce in the 1980s, Henry Cisneros and Andrew Cuomo in the 1990s, and Alphonso Jackson in the 2000s. Read More @ CatoClick Here to see the Entire Report
DeHaven, Tad. "Three Decades of Politics and Failed Policies at HUD." November 23, 2009. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10981 (accessed November 30, 2009).
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Unfortunate Example of Tiger Woods
The once unblemished image of golfing great Tiger Woods has taken a serious blow in recent days. Millions of people claim to be fans, millions of young people look up to him as a role model. Millions buy the products that he endorses, making him worth millions of dollars from endorsements alone. He lives in an exclusive neighborhood, set apart from the world. Obviously he thinks that includes the law and cooperation with Law Enforcement.
Personal responsibility for your own actions requires more than a statement through your people. Setting an example for young people whose parents like having you, as a role model should include cooperating with Law Enforcement when they are investigating an accident or a murder. Everyone is subject to the law in this country.
Nobody is above the law and we all work within those limits, even if we disagree them. Hiding behind your lawyers, money and the walls of your home is not acceptable behavior, though it may be legal. Step up and be a man. Do as you are asked, tell the truth no matter where it leads, and then accept the consequences. That is how regular people live and you are no exception. In the long run people will actually respect you more.