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.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

LP Monday Message: Republicans and Democrats are both terrible for health care

November 23, 2009

Dear Friend of Liberty,

I don't know about you, but I'm getting a little tired of hearing Republicans act self-righteous about this health care bill. Of course it's a terrible bill that will increase government and taxes and make our health care worse -- but let's take a short trip down memory lane.

In November 2003, almost all Republican senators voted to pass the "Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003." That was the horrible humongous Medicare expansion that ended up costing about $1.2 trillion. It was a huge federal intrusion into health care. Republican darlings like Kay Bailey Hutchison and James Inhofe were among those who voted for it.

Now Republicans are saying they oppose government expansion into health care. What a joke. A few years ago they thought it was the greatest thing in the world. Messages being sent out by the Republican National Committee are telling people that the current bill is bad because it will "cut Medicare"!

There's only one party that really opposes government health care, and that's the Libertarian Party. We've always been against it, and we'll always be against it. But that doesn't mean we want to force your health care into the hands of big insurance companies or big pharmaceutical companies, or subject it to the monopolizing effects of today's licensing laws.

As our platform states, "We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions."

Thanks to everyone who called your Congressman a few weeks ago. The bill still got passed by the House, but maybe it will be weakened or killed in the Senate. I certainly hope so.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Owings Mills, MD: On November 21, 2009 the Central Committee of the Libertarian Party of Maryland selected Susan Gaztañaga as their candidate for Governor and Doug McNeil as their candidate for Lieutenant Governor.

The MDLP will be releasing more information as well as the Gaztañaga Campaign's platform and plan for Maryland in the coming weeks. With the extraordinary burden placed on Maryland Taxpayers, businesses and the over regulation of everything from fishing to the gaming industry, the Libertarian Party believes that reducing both taxes and regulations will strengthen the stability of Maryland's economy. It will bring more freedom to all citizens and make Maryland a more attractive place to live, work, and raise a family. These are the core principles of the Libertarian Party and what drives Susan Gaztañaga and Doug McNeil to serve.

For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Maryland Libertarian Party, please call Communications Director Muir Boda at (410) 603-3347, or email at mwboda@mac.com.

The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Maryland Libertarian Party at www.md.lp.org, their blog at www.mdlibertarian.com, and the Libertarian Party by visiting LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.


Ron Paul - New Orleans Investment Conference, Pt. 3

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Missing the Point

After receiving emails and messages concerning others opinions on my Letter to the Editor, I have decided to respond.

First, I believe the point of the entire editorial was missed. It is not about any one person, the issue is larger than that. Whether Chief Webster is terminated or not, will not affect the crime rate. Chief Webster is not the issue. This obsession with Chief Webster is personal and vindictive.

Second, those that propose to get rid of him have never offered any detailed solutions to reduce crime. Sub-Stations have been proposed and we have talked about the crime numbers and that is about it.

Third, I believe now is the time we need to have the discussion on how do we reduce crime and improve the effectiveness of our Law Enforcement.

Those that choose to make the discussion personal, resort to name calling, and degrading an individuals chosen profession are simply blinded by their own arrogance. They have the audacity to question a concerned taxpaying citizen, voter, and someone who is willing to express their opinion because they care. These actions show their true nature and that they have no alternative plan, proposal, or fresh ideas. This is their M.O. against anyone who may disagree on a particular policy. Unless they can engage in meaningful debate and exchange ideas, I plan on simply ignoring them from this point forward.

What I do propose is this:
  • We should phase in merging all law enforcement agencies in the county. Creating a Public Safety Commissioner (Elected Position). Under the PSC should be the Police Chief, Fire Chief, Fire Marshall, and Emergency Management.
  • Develop strong, anti-crime educational courses in our schools, taught by Law Enforcement.
  • Encourage our legislators to pass mandatory sentencing and fines for all levels of convictions.

These are ideas that may not be the final solution. The problem is, there is nobody offering any solutions except hanging all their hopes on a person or whether we fire someone. Our problems are bigger than any individual, that is why it will require all of us to be engaged in the solutions.

Ron Paul - New Orleans Investment Conference, Pt. 1

The 'Stimulus' for Unemployment

by Alan Reynolds
This article appeared in the New York Post on November 17, 2009.

Why did the unemployment rate rise so rapidly — from 7.2 per cent in January to 10.2 percent in October? It was clearly the administration's "stimulus" bill — which in February provided $40 billion to greatly extend jobless benefits at no cost to the states.

As Larry Summers, the president's top assistant for economic policy, noted in July, "the unemployment rate over the recession has risen about 1 to 1.5 percentage points more than would normally be attributable to the contraction in GDP." And the rate has moved nearly a percentage point higher since then, even though GDP increased. Countries with much deeper declines in GDP, such as Germany and Sweden, have unemployment rates far below ours.

Summers knows why the US rate is so high. He explained it well in a 1995 paper co-authored with James Poterba of MIT: "Unemployment insurance lengthens unemployment spells."

That is: When the government pays people 50 to 60 percent of their previous wage to stay home for a year or more, many of them do just that.

And the stimulus bribed states to extend benefits — which have now been stretched to an unprecedented 79 weeks in 28 states and to 46 to 72 weeks in the rest. Before mid-2008, by contrast, only a few states paid jobless benefits for even a month beyond the standard 26 weeks.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Extending unemployment benefits from 26 to 79 weeks was guaranteed to leave many more people unemployed for many more months.

And longer unemployment translates to higher unemployment rates — because the relatively small numbers of newly unemployed are added to stubbornly large numbers of those who lost their jobs more than six months ago.

Until benefits are about to run out, many of the long-term unemployed are in no rush to make serious efforts to find another job — or to accept job offers that may involve a long commute, relocation or disappointing salary and benefits.

(Incidentally, the "mercy" of longer benefits does no long-term favors: The literature is quite clear that a prolonged period on unemployment tends to depress income for years after you finally go back to work.)

The median length of unemployment hovered around 10 weeks for six months before February's "stimulus" plan. Since half the unemployed found jobs within 10 weeks, more than half of those counted among the unemployed in one month would no longer be included three months later. In other words, more frequent turnover among the unemployed held down monthly unemployment.

But after February, with jobless benefits stretched out to 46 to 79 weeks, the median duration of unemployment nearly doubled, reaching 18.7 weeks by October.

READ MORE @ REASON

Reason.tv: UPS vs. FEDEX—Ultimate Whiteboard Remix

Great Letter From Dr. Adrian Moore of the Reason Foundation

I received this yesterday from Dr. Adrian Mooore, Vice President of the Reason Foundation.

***************************************************
I live in a small town with a large state prison on the outskirts. Fortunately relations between the prison and the city are pretty good. In fact, the city, facing another tough budget year, has been very innovative in working with the prison to use work crews on public works projects. A great way to turn what some might think is a liability into an asset.

From Congress to the smallest town in America, the pressure is on to do more with less. To help stir that pot, here are some recent items from my colleagues at Reason:

Setting the Record Straight on Chicago Parking Meter Privatization
While glitches in the early implementation have prompted significant scrutiny of the transaction from local officials and media, the turbulence of the early rollout now seems to have subsided as operational improvements have taken hold in recent months.

Selling" State Buildings in Arizona, California
Arizona has made national headlines in recent months for a $735 million dollar proposal to sell state buildings to generate revenue in the face of ongoing, massive budget deficits. Given their high-profile nature, the inclusion of the state House and Senate buildings, the Governor's executive tower and state prisons in the package has generated a great deal of publicity, generating headlines like "Desperate state may sell Capitol buildings, others" in the Arizona Republicand even a Daily Show segment poking fun at the idea.

San Quentin, I'd Sell Every Inch of You: Reason Foundation's Anthony Randazzo on Why California Should Sell Off Useless Assets (video)

Getting Virginia Off the Sauce
Virginia is one of 18 states where the government is the monopoly rumrunner. Supermarkets, gourmet shops, and corner stores are all forbidden to sell liquor. But Bob McDonnell, the newly-elected Republican governor, has promised to end the monopoly on liquor sales in the Old Dominion.

Privatize the Post...Oh, Just Forget It
As unlikely as it may seem to today's wee young Ron Paul supporters, "Privatize the Post Office!" was once a seriously stirring rallying cry.

Some Officers of Their Own
The citizens of a housing estate in Darlington, U.K., try a private solution to crime:

And to get a sense of how many places are looking at some kind of outsourcing, competition, or privatization, check out the links to news stories in these updates:

Privatization News Roundup, 10/2/2009
Privatization News Roundup, 10/16/2009
Privatization News Roundup, Oct. 23, 2009
Privatization News Roundup, Nov. 5, 2009
Privatization News Roundup, Nov. 13, 2009



Adrian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Adrian Moore
Vice President
Reason Foundation
(661)477-3107

Libertarian Party of Maryland Program


First Steps Towards Freeing the Citizens of the Free State

The purpose of the Libertarian Party of Maryland is to use the political process to promote freedom as the primary value in the organization of a healthy society. To that end, it seeks to elect Libertarians to public office, influence other elected and appointed officials, and move public opinion toward supporting increased liberty in our daily affairs. Our liberties were not curtailed overnight and we do not expect them to be restored overnight. This program represents our first steps toward restoring our freedoms.

Education
Encourage variety in education through local control, including:
  • Allowing for increased parental choice within the government public school system (e.g. tax credits, vouchers, school district selection, etc.);
  • Supporting small autonomous schools within the larger school buildings;
  • Allowing K-12 neighborhood schools (reducing busing costs);
  • Encouraging privately funded K-12 scholarships for non-government educational activities; Discouraging government interference and control with home schooling;
  • Encourage counties to elect school boards.
Open and Responsible Government
  • Create or maintain small, single member legislative districts at the state and local levels. This will encourage politicians to be accountable to their constituents for their actions.
  • Take steps to create a nonpartisan redistricting process. Politicians should not be able to choose who votes for them.
  • Work to decentralize the governmental bodies in Maryland. Politicians should respect the right of local communities to govern themselves and not micro-manage every aspect of peoples’ lives. Political decisions should be made at the lowest feasible level in order to encourage civic participation.

Job and Wealth Creation without Corporate Welfare
Reduce government spending and lower the tax burden by:
  • Ending public funding for stadiums, hotels, concert halls, etc., and stopping unfunded mandates;
  • Promoting economic growth by restructuring the tax system in order to eliminate subsidies or special tax breaks to businesses;
  • Reforming licensing laws that unfairly restrict competition, thus allowing the creation of more jobs and business opportunities.

Secure Property Rights
  • Forbid government entities from abusing the power of eminent domain in order to transfer private property to privileged individuals.
  • Phase out government entities that compete against the private sector, such as the Maryland Economic Development Corporation (MEDCO).
Land Use, Transportation, and the Environment
Encourage private redevelopment of vacant and underused urban land and remove developmental pressure on farms and wilderness lands by:
  • Removing subsidies to developers, such as publicly funded infrastructure for new developments;
  • Encouraging efficient land use by reducing the tax on buildings and property improvements, leaving only assessments on land itself;
  • Revising zoning laws to allow the development of self-sufficient communities. Transportation systems in the compact communities resulting from the above policies would increase pedestrian, rail, and mass transportation relative to automobile traffic. Prevent pollution and increase environmental awareness by making polluters pay for their irresponsibility by facing strict civil liability. Promote free market environmentalism to solve problems.

Crime and Public Safety
  • Free up our law enforcement resources by concentrating efforts on crimes against persons and property, rather than non-violent offenders.
  • Stop any use of “asset forfeiture” until the property owner has been properly convicted of a crime in the judicial system. Seizure of property before a conviction is an un-American policy of “guilty until proven innocent.”
  • Promote medical treatment, rather than prison sentences, for those who abuse alcohol or drugs.
  • Stopping the national War on Drugs will reduce profit of the drug trade, resulting in a decrease in crime.
  • Permit the carrying of firearms with training and a background check (shall-issue). This will allow law-abiding citizens the constitutional right to arm themselves to protect their homes and liberties. Waiting periods, bans, and registration may actually increase crime.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Lou Dobbs Resigns from CNN

11/18 Fiat Dollar Reserve System Dead New World reserve currency

Letter To the Editor

For some time now FBI Crime Statistics have been waved around in our faces. They tell us Salisbury is the second most dangerous city in America. All we have heard is “Crime is out of Control!” “You do not want to go out after dark.” Yet through all of this, the only solution that seems to be out there is to replace the current Chief of Police – Allan Webster. Some how magically that will solve all our problems.

The truth is that crime is not just Salisbury’s problem it is Wicomico County’s problem. As the economical hub of Delmarva, Salisbury becomes a city of over 100,000 during the day with all the people who come here to work, shop, and do business. So many of the people who commit crimes are from the county, lower Delaware, and beyond. That would be an interesting statistic – how many of the crimes committed in the city are from people outside of the city?

The police react to crime they do not stop crime. Individuals make choices to commit crimes and the police arrest them when they discover who has committed the crime. At that point they are turned over to the court system and eventually released back into society where many fall back into the same cycle.

Without a comprehensive regional plan to fight crime – that should begin with education, rehabilitation, and streamlining law enforcement resources – the situation is not going to improve if we continue with a vacuum in our leadership.

Reason.tv: Mike Flynn on Big Government (The Website!) & The Videos That Cut Down ACORN

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

I'll Never Smoke Weed With Willie Again

Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes

Why we cannot afford to sit out this fight

Last week the House of Representatives voted on a 2,000 page bill to give the federal government the power to micromanage the health care of every single American. The bill will raise your taxes, steal your freedom, invade your privacy, and ration your health care. Even the Republicans have introduced their version of Obamacare Lite. It, too, if passed, will compel employers to provide coverage, bribe the states to change their court rules, and tell insurance companies whom to insure.

We do not have two political parties in this country, America. We have one party; called the Big Government Party. The Republican wing likes deficits, war, and assaults on civil liberties. The Democratic wing likes wealth transfer, taxes, and assaults on commercial liberties. Both parties like power; and neither is interested in your freedoms.

Think about it. Government is the negation of freedom. Freedom is your power and ability to follow your own free will and your own conscience. The government wants you to follow the will of some faceless bureaucrat.

When I recently asked Congressman James Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House, to tell me "Where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to regulate everyone's healthcare," he replied that most of what Congress does is not authorized by the Constitution, but they do it anyway. There you have it. Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights, it doesn't care about the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it doesn't even read the laws it writes.

America, this is not an academic issue. If this health care bill becomes law, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, privacy as you have enjoyed it, will cease to be.

When Congress takes away our freedoms, they will be gone forever. What will you do to prevent this from happening?

We Can't Sit Back and Allow the Loss of Our Freedoms

We elect the government. It works for us. As we watch the Democrats' plans for health care take shape, we can only ask how did our government get so removed, so unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal lives?

On Saturday November 7, at 11 o’clock in the evening, the House of Representatives voted by a five vote margin to have the federal government manage the health care of every American at a cost of $1 trillion dollars over the next ten years.

For the first time in American history, if this bill becomes law, the Feds will force you to buy insurance you might not want, or may not need, or cannot afford. If you don’t purchase what the government tells you to buy, if you don’t do so when they tell you to do it, and if you don’t buy just what they say is right for you, the government may fine you, prosecute you, and even put you in jail. Freedom of choice and control over your own body will be lost. The privacy of your communications and medical decision making with your physician will be gone. More of your hard earned dollars will be at the disposal of federal bureaucrats.

It was not supposed to be this way. We elect the government. It works for us. How did it get so removed, so unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal lives? Evil rarely comes upon us all at once, and liberty is rarely lost in one stroke. It happens gradually, over the years and decades and even centuries. A little stretch here, a cave in there, powers are slowly taken from the states and the people and before you know it, we have one big monster government that recognizes no restraint on its ability to tell us how to live. It claims the power to regulate any activity, tax any behavior, and demand conformity to any standard it chooses.

The Founders did not give us a government like the one we have today. The government they gave us was strictly limited in its scope, guaranteed individual liberty, preserved the free market, and on matters that pertain to our private behavior was supposed to leave us alone.

In the Constitution, the Founders built in checks and balances. If the Congress got out of hand, the states would restrain it. If the states stole liberty or property, the Congress would cure it. If the president tried to become a king, the courts would prevent it.

In the next few weeks, I will be giving a public class on Constitutional Law here on the Fox News Channel, on the Fox Business Network, on Foxnews.com, and on Fox Nation. In anticipation of that, many of you have asked: What can we do now about the loss of freedom? For starters, we can vote the bums out of their cushy federal offices! We can persuade our state governments to defy the Feds in areas like health care—where the Constitution gives the Feds zero authority. We can petition our state legislatures to threaten to amend the Constitution to abolish the income tax, return the selection of U.S. senators to state legislatures, and nullify all the laws the Congress has written that are not based in the Constitution.

One thing we can’t do is just sit back and take it.

Judge Andrew Napolitano is Fox News' senior judicial analyst. This article originally appeared in two parts on FoxNews.com.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Maryland Libertarian Party Central Committee Meeting

Date: November 21, 2009
Time: 2:00PM
Location: 3213 Patmor Road Owings Mill, MD 21117

Agenda: Nominations for Governor/ Lieutenant Governor and other public offices. Approval of last two Treasurer's reports.


RSVP: n3ic@ICengineering.com (410)363-6626

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The Judge on Helthcare

Dr. Davis' November Letter to Editors

As Veteran’s Day approaches, I’ve been pondering why I accepted when the chairman of the Maryland Libertarian Party asked me to run again for Congress.

I concluded that, like my service in the Navy, I owed it to my community and my country. I owe it to those who came before me – the great-great-grandfather who fought for three years in the Union Army; my father and late father-in-law who spent several of the prime years of their lives in the Army Air Force in World War II; my father’s high school friend (whose first name I carry) who died on Iwo Jima in his fourth invasion in a thirteen-month span of 1944-45; my Boy Scout buddy’s older brother, killed as an army medic in Viet Nam.

I owe it to those here with me: family, friends, neighbors and patients who live with me in a free and prosperous country that is becoming less free and less prosperous.

I owe it to those yet coming. To my children, nieces and nephews and their friends who will inherit what we leave them: the freedoms we preserve or fail to; the prosperity or debt; the peace or the unresolved conflicts; the clean air and water or the pollution.

Whether or not I serve in Congress will be up to the voters of this district, but I owe it to myself to know that I did my best to offer an alternative and to serve if I am elected.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Davis, D.D.S.

Libertarian for Congress

www.davis4congress.com

Monday, November 9, 2009

Don't Copy Europe's Mistakes: Less Government Is the Right Way to Fix Healthcare

Ron Paul: Important News on Audit the Fed

GODDESS OF THE MARKET AUTHOR JENNIFER BURNS ON AYN RAND

The $1.5 Trillion Fraud

by Michael F. Cannon

If House Democrats hold a vote on their health-care overhaul this weekend, they might as well vote on abolishing the Congressional Budget Office too. It would be no more audacious — and much more honest — than their current strategy for hiding the true cost of their legislation.

Never mind the everyday budget gimmicks House Democrats have used, such as removing $250 billion of deficit spending to be voted on separately. Or claiming their bill would cost just $894 billion — around $400 billion less than the CBO actually projected. We've seen this kind of trickery plenty in recent years; to suppress an inconvenient cost estimate of its proposed Medicare drug entitlement, the Bush administration threatened to fire Medicare's chief actuary.

Deceptions on this scale are child's play, at least when compared to what has to be the biggest fiscal obfuscation in the history of American politics: The current leadership has rigged the legislation so that 60 percent of its total cost will not be made public by the CBO in advance of the House vote. Here's how they did it.

The centerpiece of the bills currently under consideration is not the "public option," but the "individual mandate" — a legal requirement that all U.S. residents purchase health insurance, on penalty of fines and/or imprisonment.

The CBO describes an individual mandate as "an unprecedented form of federal action" whose closest analogue in federal law is the draft. But as President Obama told a joint session of Congress, the rest of the legislation won't work unless the federal government forces Americans to purchase health insurance. READ MORE @ CATO

Kratovil Grows A Pair, Votes No On The Healthcare Bill

Frank Kratovil bucks his party leadership and votes no on the House's version of their Healthcare Bill. In his press release he gives this explanation:

“I support healthcare reform, but it must be the right kind of reform that works for my constituents in the First District. I have consistently argued for healthcare reform that reduces long-term health care spending, improves quality, and expands coverage in a fiscally responsible manner. Our nation is facing an $11.9 trillion national debt, and we simply cannot afford a bill that does not lower healthcare spending. It is also essential for healthcare reform legislation to support, not burden, our nation’s small businesses.

I was not able to support the bill before Congress today because I do not believe it meets my criteria for a sustainable solution. While I recognize the need for reform and I applaud some aspects of this bill, I do not believe that this bill offers a sustainable solution. I will continue to work with my colleagues to pursue a better bill as this process continues, and I urge constituents to continue to offer their input.”

Too bad he did not have this set of stones when he voted for Obama's stimulus package which simply printed a ton of paper that went into the big black hole of what is the national debt.

Here is what Congressman Kratovil is looking for according to his website:

  • I believe that any reform plan must begin with an understanding that any individual must be allowed to keep the coverage they have now if they so choose. I will not support any reform plan that forces consumers to give up a plan with which they are currently happy.
  • I believe that a public option may help reduce costs by increasing competition and expanding consumer choice, but it is important that any public option be forced to compete on a level playing field with private insurers.
  • I oppose taxing health benefits as income.
  • I believe we must protect small businesses and entrepreneurs from unreasonably burdensome mandates that could limit their ability to create new jobs.
On this he seems to be on target and sticking with his principles. Again, too bad he could not stick to his principles on the Stimulus Bill. With other legislation coming up in the next year where will he fall. At some point he will have to tow the party line on a major piece of legislation, one that could be tremendously devastating. He obviously made this vote to keep his job and probably got a pass from the party. You only get so many of those.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

A Third Party Will Rise in 2010

"Listen to the highly respected Gerald Celente, who pulls no punches, announce that the political system is failing the America people and that the Banks (Oligarchy) are robbing us blind. If you're not outraged, you're on life support. As Celente predicts – watch for the formation of an angry Progressive / Libertarian third party before the mid-term elections in 2010 and I'll be an active participant."











DREW CAREY CLASSICS

Saturday, October 31, 2009

NYC: The City That Never Smokes

by Patrick Basham and John Luik

A proposal to ban lighting up in New York's parks has exposed the puritanical agenda behind the crusade against smoking.

The truth about second-hand smoking is finally out.

Thanks to some unusual candour on the part of the anti-tobacco brigade in New York City, we now have official confirmation that banning smoking in public has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the health of non-smokers from second-hand smoke, but everything to do with stigmatising both smoking and smokers. Closer to home, new evidence from the National Health Service (NHS) shows that the public smoking ban in England has made absolutely no positive difference in smoking rates, despite claims made by its champions that it would.

In September, Dr Thomas Farley, New York City's Health Commissioner, proposed banning smoking at all of the city's parks and beaches (1). Dr Farley's rationale for the ban has nothing to do with the risks that outdoor smoking pose to non-smokers, but rather with preventing people, particularly children, from having to see anyone smoking in public. Farley says, 'We don't think children should have to watch someone smoking'. Farley also defends the extension of the smoking ban to outdoor areas by arguing that it is 'part of a broader strategy to further curb smoking rates'. New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg, confirmed earlier this month that he would implement Farley's proposal, arguing that the public is 'overwhelmingly in favour' (2).

Why have the champions of banning smoking everywhere, even in private accommodation, suddenly come clean about the driving force behind their crusade? The answer is that they have essentially won the war over public smoking. But why is this the case? The answer, sadly, is that for the past 15 to 20 years, the public has been bombarded with a carefully orchestrated government-funded anti-tobacco campaign to convince them — in contradiction of the scientific evidence — that smokers pose a deadly health risk to non-smokers, particularly children.

The scientific evidence has never supported the case against public smoking. The US Environmental Protection Agency's seminal early 1990s report on second-hand smoke was severely flawed. Its critique of second-hand smoke was only sustained through a careful exclusion of non-confirming evidence and a non-traditional application of the statistical test known as confidence limits. The report was subjected to a scathing analysis by a US federal court, which rejected its scientific claims about the dangers of second-hand smoke, a finding that even on appeal was not reversed (3). READ MORE

CLASSIC DREW CAREY

Friday, October 30, 2009

David Boaz on military libertarianism, White House and Fox News, and the pay czar.

REASON.TV'S NANNY OF THE MONTH FOR OCTOBER 2009

Latest ACORN Pimp/Prostitute Video

Keep Government Out of Media

Marta Hummel Mossburg

If Fox News is not news, according to the White House, then what is CBS' "60 Minutes"? If Sunday's lineup is an example, it's flirting with becoming Obama TV.

It began its program with a piece on Medicare fraud - a worthy topic. But it's all about "perspective," as President Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said of Fox's reporting.

Steve Kroft began the segment with, "Of all the problems facing the United States right now, none are more important than health care. President Obama says rising costs are driving huge federal budget deficits that imperil our future and that there is enough waste and fraud in the system to pay for health care reform if it were eliminated."

Who says health care reform is the biggest issue in the country - "60 Minutes," the president or the people of the United States? Polls consistently show the economy outranks health care reform on the list of Americans' concerns. But it certainly is Obama's chief concern as he seeks to overhaul the U.S. health system this fall. Kroft did mention that the $60 billion fraud industry raises "troubling questions" about the government's ability to run a bigger health care bureaucracy and told a chilling tale of how easy it is to defraud taxpayers. But the entire story is framed under the auspices that the government says this is the biggest issue, so therefore it should be covered.

That segment was followed by what can only be called an epilepsy advocacy piece by Katie Couric focused on Obama's senior adviser David Axelrod and his wife, Susan. Their family faced a huge struggle with a disease that struck their daughter Lauren, 28, as an infant. Theirs is a compelling story and the debate over funding for epilepsy certainly is a worthy public policy issue. But with three million people suffering from the disease in the United States, according to Couric, aren't there others who could have served as her protagonists? There was nothing particularly newsy about the piece that made them necessary headliners.

READ THE REST @ MPPI

Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock Details Fallout from Chrysler Bankruptcy

Great American Quotes

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. "

– H.L. Mencken

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Greed Is Good?

What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy, it’s always the other fellow that is greedy” (Dr Milton Friedman)

Welcome to the War on Greed. It manifests itself in massive government legislation, Michael Moore films, Paul Krugman editorials, TV news, and elsewhere. All those greedy corporations, greedy bankers, greedy entrepreneurs have ruined us. They need to be stopped!

It is easy to apply the greed label. That’s because most people applying that label don’t know what greed is. What is greed?

If you reached this far in my article, you already read the quote and viewed the video by the great Dr Milton Friedman. He provides a necessary context to the question but does not really answer it.

My observation is that most people that apply the greed label think that profit is greed. Those people are confused. They think anyone that has achieved and are wealthy are greedy. They are wrong.

Greed is an addiction. It is an addiction to possession. A greedy person just needs to have more stuff. Be it money, land, art work, or power, the greedy person will do anything to have it. They will break the law, steal, cheat, lie, murder. Their compulsion to acquire is all consuming and ultimately self destructive, as shown in Citizen Kane. Some of the greedy people are bankers and corporate CEOs. Many greedy people are politicians.

Profit is not an addiction. In order to profit, you must provide a good or service that people want. The more you produce, the more profit you make. In order to grow profit you must continue to offer what is in demand, and if you do so you will be rewarded with higher profit. There is no lying, stealing, or murder involved. It is voluntary, peaceful, and ethical.

If you apply the proper definition of greed to our current condition, you will find most of the people labeled as greedy are not greedy. They may have made bad business decisions and took unwise risks. But they did not lie, steal, murder.

Much is made of health insurance companies making record profits. Their profits are reported to have increased 350% over a decade. A fine example of the War on Greed was recently shown on Fox News. How greedy they are! However, these greedy health insurance companies are nowhere near as greedy as beer brewers and software companies. The profit margins for these greedy health care companies are about 3%. Yes, for every dollar invested they get back 3 cents. For those who suffer from the experience of a government controlled education system, you may need to learn what a profit margin is.

There are others that are greedy and have not been labeled as such. They have acquired more power by lying and stealing. They tell us they need to take more money from us to stop all the greedy people. And we re-elect them.

So if you are watching Citizen Kane or Wall Street and ponder Gordon Gekko’s famous statement that greed is good and that greed works, you should now have a proper perspective.

Greed is bad. Profit is good.

Pat Dixon is the Chair of the Texas Libertarian Party and a City Council Member in Lago Vista, Texas.

Libelous Leftist Lynch Mobs

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Watching Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson get away with libeling Rush Limbaugh with several outrageously spectacular lies recently (they falsely claimed Limbaugh "defended slavery" and praised Martin Luther King, Jr.’s murderer) reminded me once again how the American Left throws all morals out the door when it comes to any challenges to their secular "religion" of welfare statism and socialism. (The neocon Right, which includes Limbaugh, tells even bigger lies, such as the ones that "justified" the Iraq war.) It also reminded me of how campus leftists at Loyola University Maryland libeled Dr. Walter Block last year with equally outrageous slanders.

LRC readers may recall that after Dr. Block presented a very mainstream economics lecture on "The Economics of the Gender Gap" the university president, Rev. Brian Linnane, S.J., who did not attend the lecture, issued an email to all faculty, staff, students and alumni that did not mention anything that was said in the lecture, but libeled Dr. Block as a racist and sexist. Dr. Block’s apparent "offense" was to use economic theory to challenge one of the superstitions of academic feminism – the dubious notion that all of the difference in male/female wages is caused by sex discrimination, something that no self-respecting economist would ever claim. The obvious goal of such obnoxious tactics is to censor all views of such subjects that do not conform to left-wing political correctness. (Linnane's academic field of specialization is "feminist theology.")

I suspected from the beginning that the libeling of Dr. Block was a set-up by the self-appointed Campus Thought Police, who never stop reminding everyone that they are in favor of "social justice." (The implication is that anyone who opposes their socialistic political agenda must be in favor of injustice.) It was this "social justice crowd" on the Loyola campus who immediately claimed after Dr. Block’s lecture that a student complained to them about the "insensitivity" of Dr. Block’s rendition of the economics of discrimination. Within twenty-four hours I learned that the university president was preparing his libelous letter despite the fact that he had neither attended the lecture nor contacted Dr. Block to ask him if the scurrilous slanders about him were true. I have always suspected that the student was sent to the seminar with specific instructions to cause trouble, which he did. READ MORE

CONGRATS TO REASON FOUNDATION'S SHIKHA DALMIA FOR WINNING BASTIAT PRIZE FOR ONLINE JOURNALISM!

Ron Paul on H1N1

Jim Harper discusses the FCC's plan to regulate the internet

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Stenny Hoyer shouted down during Town Meeting

Great Libertarian Quotes

"There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

The Blind Side - Great Story Coming to Theaters

The life story of the Baltimore Raven's Rookie Offensive Tackle Michael Oher is coming to theaters on November 20th. Sandra Bullock and Tim McGraw play Leigh Anne and Sean Touhy who took in a homeless teenager from a broken home.

IMDB's synopsis says:
"The Blind Side" depicts the remarkable true story of Michael Oher, a homeless African-American youngster from a broken home, taken in by the Touhys, a well-to-do white family who help him fulfill his potential. At the same time, Oher's presence in the Touhys' lives leads them to some insightful self-discoveries of their own. Living in his new environment, the teen faces a completely different set of challenges to overcome. As a football player and student, Oher works hard and, with the help of his coaches and adopted family, becomes an All-American offensive left tackle. In the latest chapter of his inspiring story, Oher was a First Round draft pick in the 2009 NFL Draft, selected by the Baltimore Ravens. The Touhys were there to share the moment with him."



Great story and since Oher is a Raven we wish to encourage everyone to check it this incredibly inspiring story.

Greasing the Palms of Democrats & Republicans from the Same Wallets

CREW - Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics In Washington have filed a complaint with the FEC concerning campaign contributions to Michael Steele's 2006 Senatorial Campaign. There website stated the following:

20 Oct 2009 // Washington, D.C. - Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Maryland citizen and CREW Chief Counsel Anne Weismann, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against a Maryland real estate developer and a number of his employees, alleging serious violations of campaign finance law in giving to Republican Federal Committees.

The complaint seeks an FEC investigation of Edward St. John and six employees of his company, St. John Properties, Inc., for making over $60,000 in illegal corporate conduit contributions to the Maryland Republican State Central Committee and the 2006 Senate campaign of RNC Chairman Michael Steele. The contributions that are the subject of the FEC complaint were made contemporaneously with contributions to several Maryland state candidates that the Maryland State Attorney determined last year had been reimbursed by Mr. St. John using St. John Properties, Inc. funds given to company employees in the form of year-end bonuses. Mr. St. John paid over $100,000 in penalties to settle those state allegations, but he has never been held accountable for the much larger contributions made in connection with the 2006 federal election.

CREW's executive director Melanie Sloan said today, "The facts indicate Mr. St. John made illegal conduit contributions to Michael Steele's campaign committee. With the 2010 campaign cycle in full swing, the FEC should investigate Mr. St. John's activities immediately and make clear that violations of campaign finance law will not be tolerated."

This comes on the heals of last year's fine stated below from CREW's website:

In June 2008, St. John paid $55,000 in civil fines after being charged with making campaign contributions exceeding legal limits through third parties that anticipated reimbursement.

According to the Office of the State Prosecutor, several St. John vice presidents made contributions to the campaigns of Gov. Martin O'Malley and Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith in 2006 and were paid back by St. John in the form of year-end bonuses.

No criminal charges were filed because "there was insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. St. John knew that such actions violated Maryland law," the office officials said in a statement.

The state prosecutor also found more than $300,000 had been contributed during that election cycle through third parties and limited liability companies to both Democrats and Republicans. All of the contributions, however, were within legal limits.

What these situations prove is that both political parties are simply funded from the same source. Money is what controls the agenda and the strings that our current corrupt crop of political rulers dance to.

For the 2010 Census: Name and Address Only

(Congress Will Obey the Constitution When the People Demand It)

by Paul Galvin

Next year the country will go through another census. The people and the states – the creators and on-going sustainers of the federal government – have authorized this undertaking (U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2). The census should be seen not as a burden but rather as an opportunity for Americans to practice self-government. Let me explain.

Our written Constitution embodies ideas to which every member of Congress has taken an Article VI oath to support. In taking their constitutional oath the members of Congress are joined by every member of the 50 state legislatures, every federal executive, legislative, judicial officer, and every executive, legislative, judicial officer of the 50 states, as well as all military personnel. That so many are required to take the oath "to support this Constitution" is ample evidence that the Framers thought their written document to be quite important, a belief shared by most Americans.

Our Constitution is written in clear, understandable English. Consider the census provision. "The [first] actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States [March, 1789], and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law direct." This allows Congress to count us, but only count us. The operative word, "Enumeration."

How then can we help Congress? By giving census officials your name and address, thereby counting you, but nothing more. By doing this simple task, you assist Congress and census officials fulfill their oath-taken duties "to support this Constitution."

We have agreed to be counted but the license ends there. With our consent Congress is authorized to count us for one purpose: to apportion among the states, as a function of population, the number of House representatives who will then speak for / represent the people on federal matters. That’s it. As to senators, the representatives for the states, no apportionment/enumeration scheme is necessary because no variable is involved: each state is entitled to two senators regardless of demographic or geographical size ("The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State"). These provisions are the result of the delegates’ debates on representation and their final agreement, often referenced as the Great (or Sherman’s) Compromise. READ THE REST...

Gallup Sees Libertarianism at an All-Time High

David Boaz at Cato@Liberty points out that since late 2008, the percentage of Americans whose political beliefs could be roughly characterized as "libertarian" (that is, say yes to both "government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses" and "government should not favor any particular set of values") has hit a high of 23 percent.

Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie wrote about the "libertarian moment" in the December 2008 issue of Reason magazine.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Ready Money but Not Quite Dirty

A Baltimore nonprofit raises millions for the needy, while its checkbook enables city officials to spend with little oversight

The Stench Continues to Rise in Baltimore City by the Gunpowder Chronicle certainly explains the awful smell floating over the Bay that we have been smelling. The Baltimore Sun's article raises some questionable spending practices through private funds that city officials are using for pet projects.

Check Out The Article.

Libertarians attend the National Equality March in D.C.

posted by Mark Meranta on Oct 22, 2009

By: Ivy Wisner and Ashley O'Donnell

On October 11, 2009, Libertarian Party interns joined over 150,000
protesters at the National Equality March in Washington, D.C. The march
was organized to show support for the LGBT community and came in response
to the Obama administration’s negligent attitude towards gay rights. After
nine months of serving as president, Obama failed to end the
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy on banning open homosexuals in the military,
prolonging the ban until 2010 or later. The administration
also ignored the subject of gay marriage as other issues took the
forefront. This leaves liberty-minded individuals wondering how long will
gays be treated as second-class citizens. So far, the Libertarian Party
seems to be the only political party to offer uncompromising solutions to
these issues.

Instead of urging the government to grant same-sex couples the same
benefits as heterosexual married couples, the Libertarian Party advocates
for zero government intervention in personal relationships with the goal
of privatizing marriage. Libertarians maintain that as long as the
government has the power to distribute marriage licenses, it has the power
to define marriage itself. Therefore, the only way to preserve the
greatest amount of freedom for members of the LGBT community is to
regard marriage and other personal relationships as private social
contracts, eliminating the special benefits that are assigned to the
government sanctioned institution. The government should not treat
married people differently from unmarried people.

The official Libertarian Party platform states: “Consenting adults should
be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict
personal relationships.”

The issue of privatization is not often discussed in gay marriage
debates. People frequently look to the government to enact
legislation to secure so-called “endangered” civil liberties, but
the solution which provides the most freedom is one that is separate
from the government. Therefore, it is important to attend protests
such as this, spread the Libertarian philosophy, and recruit new
Libertarians.

Mr. Wu Award

Ted Kennedy is the current holder of the Mr. Wu Award from the Gunpowder Chronicle. Actually, I doubt he is able to hold it, but it is his..... Mr. Wu Award.....

Monday, October 26, 2009

LP Monday Message: Libertarian candidates on November 2009 ballot

This coming November 3 is Election Day in many places throughout the U.S. Since it's an odd-numbered year, there are relatively few races. Nevertheless, dozens of Libertarians are on the ballot for various positions.

While you may not live in a place with a Libertarian on the ballot, perhaps you've got friends or family who live where one of our Libertarians are on the ballot. If so, I hope you'll encourage them to vote for the Libertarian candidates in their area.

You can view our list of Libertarians in upcoming 2009 races.

Only two states have gubernatorial elections in 2009 (New Jersey and Virginia). Ken Kaplan is the New Jersey Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate.

Last week we posted an entry on our blog about Matt Drew, who is in a run-off for Durham City Council in North Carolina. He placed second in a five-way primary on October 6.

I am especially thankful for every Libertarian candidate who throws their hat in the ring and runs for office. In some cases Libertarian candidates do win and have the opportunity to directly implement libertarian policies. Usually our wins come in small towns or small jurisdictions where there aren't too many voters and a candidate can campaign door-to-door.

On the other hand, many of us live in large cities where winning isn't feasible in the short term. Nevertheless, every Libertarian on the ballot helps to publicize the Libertarian Party and our ideals, and helps build the party for future races.

I've run for office five times myself. As Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Texas, I helped get a record 173 candidates on the November 2008 ballot in Texas. As your national Executive Director, I'm looking forward to recruiting an army of candidates across the country for the November 2010 mid-term elections.

I hope you'll visit our website and make a contribution to help us prepare for the upcoming 2009 and 2010 elections.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

Friday, October 23, 2009

New Jersey Considers Medical Marijuana

New Jersey considers a medical marijuana law












Paying Off Debt Is Like Dying…

by Bill Bonner

Yesterday, George Osborne, Britain's Conservative Party finance minister-in-waiting, did something extraordinary. We can't remember anything like it. He told the truth.

"We are sinking in a sea of debt," he admitted. And on the very day when France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, said he would not raise taxes, Osborne said that he would not lower them. In order to lighten Britain's debt, he'd leave Labor's 50% maximum tax rate right where it is.

Voters don't like hearing about debt. Politicians don't like talking about it. And economists don't want to think about it. And in a kind of collective suicide pact, they have all agreed not to worry about it. But debt is at the center of the world's financial troubles.

Paying off debt is like dying. You try to put it off as long as you can. But nobody runs an open tab forever.

This week brought news that Maine-based luxury yacht maker Hinckley, which has been building boats since 1928, is sinking. The problem is neither technical nor operational. It is philosophical. No one complains about the quality of the boats. Or even the prices (if you have to ask, you can't afford one). The company sailed along nicely until 1997. Then, the private equity hotshots from Boston took the helm. The old Hinckleys who ran the shop looked upon debt as though they were looking at a bottle of whiskey. A drink now and then did no harm. But watch out. Too much will sink you. In the 70 years they ran the place, they accumulated only $1 million of debt. But the new owners were dipsomaniacs; they multiplied Hinckley's debt 20 to 40 times. (Exact figures are not available.)

For much of history, failing to repay debt was regarded as not merely a breach of contract, but a crime. People who failed to repay their debts in timely fashion were thought to have stolen from their lenders; they were put in prison. In the Middle Ages even a dead debtor's children could be sent to prison.

Now, bankruptcy laws allow individuals and businesses to go to rehab. Then, they can stiff creditors again. Neither sin nor crime, debt is now just a cost of doing business. Read More

The Rise and Fall of Obama Marketing

Thursday, October 22, 2009

NATURAL FOOD FIGHT: WHOLE FOODS AND HEALTH CARE

Separation of Church and Signs

by Pat Dixon

It is common for people to assume Libertarians hurt Republicans. They see us aligned with Republicans on economic issues and presume we split their vote. Wrong!

Besides serving as the Libertarian Party state chairman, I also am serving my second term on the city council of Lago Vista, TX. Last night at our council meeting we had a discussion about having religious advertising on a sign paid for with taxes. Can you guess what my position is?

I will add that this is one of the strongest Republican Party areas in the state of Texas. If you ask most city council members or voters around here what party they support, it will be obvious to you. I can tell you the predominant sentiment of our council is that we should not be afraid of the ACLU and that religious material is fine.

Well on this matter I am proud to stand with the ACLU. As a matter of fact I often stand with the ACLU where Republicans and most Democrats dare not go.

As is my custom, I have already posted my opinions at www.PatDixon.org. If I can’t bother you to go there and read it, let my summarize.

A few weeks ago we had a vote on whether to have a community sign provided by the city government, paid for with taxes. I cast the lone dissenting vote. While the amount of money is small relative to the overall budget, our budget is very tight and we made lots of cuts to avoid raising taxes. Therefore this expense, though small, should not stand while other more urgent causes are cut. However, the real problem is not financial. I warned that having such a sign would result in a fiasco of contention and rancor over policy. Last night’s council meeting proved my point.

Our city staff prepared a draft policy for the sign at last night’s meeting. It contained an exclusion for content of a religious nature, which I support. In order to clarify the interpretation of this policy I started the questioning by presenting several examples from the church I attend. A fellow councilman asked if a vacation bible school could be advertised. This went on a good long while with the mayor concluding he doesn’t have any problem with using taxpayer’s money for advertising items of a religious nature.

Let me set some further context here. We begin council meetings with a prayer to Jesus Christ. I oppose this. I haven’t actively done anything about it because I have so many other battles to wage, but I would certainly welcome a policy change here.

Why would a Catholic who goes to church twice every Sunday oppose religion in city politics?

Perhaps you are familiar with the first amendment to the US Constitution. Perhaps you are aware of the inspiration the first amendment derived from Thomas Jefferson. Perhaps you are aware that Muslims, Jews, Atheists, and others have the same rights as Christians. Perhaps the Muslim, Jew, or Atheist wonders if they will get a fair shake on a zoning variance after the entire council prays to Jesus. Perhaps you are aware of the atrocities of the Taliban.

I take my faith seriously. I do not need George Bush, Bill Clinton, or any other politician being the middle man in my relationship with God. If we continue to empower politicians to take our money to promote their church, what happens when their church isn’t your church?

Now ask yourself, do I sound like a Republican to you?

Let me be more clear:

* I cast the lone dissenting vote against an ordinance allowing government to ban cell phone use in school zones
* I cast the lone dissenting vote to renew our curfew law

It is easy to stand on the sidelines and call yourself one thing or another. The true test of your identity is when you are outnumbered but refuse to compromise your principles.

So, do Libertarians hurt Republicans? Yes, when they are in power. We have had Republicans in power until recently and Libertarians have appealed more to voters that see their failure of leadership. The same will happen with Democrats. Research proves it

In conclusion, if you are wondering who will pay as much attention to your privacy and individual rights as your economic rights, don’t listen to what people say. Look at what they do. I am happy to stand with the ACLU and Jefferson. Are you?

Pat Dixon is a City Council Member in Lago Vista, Texas and is the Chair of The Libertarian Party of Texas.

JOHN MACKEY'S CONSCIOUS CAPITALISM: FULL INTERVIEW VERSION

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Is Canada Really a Model for Health Reform?

BUDGET DEFICITS FOR DUMMIES: OR HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE $1.4 TRILLION

2008 LP VP nominee Root comments on Olympics and newspaper bailouts

Libertarians pleased by new federal marijuana policy

WASHINGTON - The Libertarian Party (LP) today expressed its approval of the Obama administration's new, more laissez-faire policy toward medical marijuana. The policy appears to end the practice of federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients and providers in states where medical marijuana is legal.

Wes Benedict, LP executive director, commented, "This is a small step in the right direction. The federal government currently wastes tremendous resources in the War on Drugs, creating a huge, vicious, violent black market. This new policy will reduce the damage and destruction, and it will hopefully end some of the unjust prosecution of peaceful medical marijuana providers and patients."

The LP has long called for the repeal of laws that criminalize the medicinal or recreational use of drugs.

Benedict added, "We urge the Obama administration not to stop with this small step, but to take further steps to end the destructive, unjust, unconstitutional War on Drugs."

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.

Using Freedom to Fund Newspapers?

Posted on October 21, 2009, 9:32AM | Matt Welch

It's a Maureen Dowd column, so not to be taken seriously, but check out the latest Big Idea for Saving Our Newspapers:

Mortimer Zuckerman, who owns The Daily News and U.S. News & World Report, proposed to Forbes that the federal government could save newspapers by allowing sports betting on newspaper Web sites.

"It would take Congressional legislation and the willingness on the part of the government to confront gambling and casino interests that have blocked this," he said. "Newspaper owners have never gotten together to lobby for this because they have always been quite profitable. Those days are behind us."

I tracked down Zuckerman in Jerusalem on Tuesday to ask him about it. "Newspapers are so critical for public dialogue and holding public officials responsible," he told me. "And who's going to be able to afford original reporting in the next five years? Very, very few."

He said some British newspapers make millions on betting games like Bingo. "People are spending money on what is basically a social vice anyhow," he said. "So why not use it to preserve the First Amendment? It's not a perfect solution, but it is a solution." [...]

Nick Pileggi, who wrote the books and screenplays for "Goodfellas" and "Casino," sees no downside. "It would be a wonderful, huge blow against organized crime because the money would be taken out of what the mob gets," he said. "And every state has a lottery so nobody from the state is going to stand up and say 'We're against gambling.'"

He said that if newspapers would stop being so stuffy, they could set up A.T.M.-style machines in lobbies and at newsstands and "take over a business that the mob now does illegally worth $20 to $40 billion a year."


Or, you know, you could legalize online gambling because it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, regardless of how the newspaper industry is doing this year.

For the definitive piece about "the strangely selective and self-defeating crackdown on Internet gambling," consult this June 2008 piece by Reason Senior Editor Jacob Sullum. And watch here how Jesus himself disapproves of criminalizing nonviolent recreation.

Myocardial Infractions

A government-commissioned report promotes smoking bans by tweaking the evidence.

Six years ago, when I asked an epidemiologist about a report that a smoking ban in Helena, Montana, had cut heart attacks by 40 percent within six months, he thought the idea was so ridiculous that no one would take it seriously. He was wrong.

Since then 10 other studies have attributed substantial short-term reductions in heart attacks to smoking bans, and last week an Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee endorsed their findings. But a closer look at the IOM report, which was commissioned by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suggests its conclusions are based on a desire to promote smoking bans rather than a dispassionate examination of the evidence.

Thousands of jurisdictions around the world restrict smoking. Some of them are bound to see significant drops in heart attacks purely by chance, while others will see no real change or significant increases. Focusing on the first group proves nothing unless it is noticeably bigger than the other two groups.

The largest study of this issue, which used nationwide data instead of looking at cherry-picked communities, concluded that smoking bans in the U.S. "are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction." It also found that "large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a workplace ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature."

That study, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in March, suggests that publication bias—the tendency to report positive findings and ignore negative ones—explains the "consistent" results highlighted by the IOM committee. But even though the panelists say they tried to compensate for publication bias by looking for relevant data that did not appear in medical journals, they ignored the NBER paper, along with analyses that found no declines in heart attacks following smoking bans in California, Florida, New York, Oregon, England, Wales, and Scotland.

If smoking bans reduce heart attacks, the effect could be due to declines in smoking, declines in secondhand smoke exposure, or both. The IOM report settles on that last explanation, quite a leap given that "only two of the studies distinguished between reductions in heart attacks suffered by smokers versus nonsmokers." READ MORE REASON

'War on Terror' II

by Julian Sanchez