Monday, September 20, 2004
Reason Interviews the creator of HBO's The Wire
Interesting interview that offers some insight into the war on drugs and into the world that help lead to this great television show.
Simon: Ed Burns and I spoke at one of those groups. There came this point where a guy said, "Well, what is the solution? Give me the paragraph; give me the lede. What’s the solution, if not drug prohibition?"
I very painstakingly said: "Look. For 35 years, you’ve systematically deindustrialized these cities. You’ve rendered them inhospitable to the working class, economically. You have marginalized a certain percentage of your population, most of them minority, and placed them in a situation where the only viable economic engine in their hypersegregated neighborhoods is the drug trade. Then you’ve alienated them further by fighting this draconian war in their neighborhoods, and not being able to distinguish between friend or foe and between that which is truly dangerous or that which is just illegal. And you want to sit across the table from me and say ‘What’s the solution?’ and get it in a paragraph? The solution is to undo the last 35 years, brick by brick. How long is that going to take? I don’t know, but until you start it’s only going to get worse."
And the guy looked at me and went, "But what’s the solution?" He said it again. Ed Burns restrained me.
Interesting interview that offers some insight into the war on drugs and into the world that help lead to this great television show.
Simon: Ed Burns and I spoke at one of those groups. There came this point where a guy said, "Well, what is the solution? Give me the paragraph; give me the lede. What’s the solution, if not drug prohibition?"
I very painstakingly said: "Look. For 35 years, you’ve systematically deindustrialized these cities. You’ve rendered them inhospitable to the working class, economically. You have marginalized a certain percentage of your population, most of them minority, and placed them in a situation where the only viable economic engine in their hypersegregated neighborhoods is the drug trade. Then you’ve alienated them further by fighting this draconian war in their neighborhoods, and not being able to distinguish between friend or foe and between that which is truly dangerous or that which is just illegal. And you want to sit across the table from me and say ‘What’s the solution?’ and get it in a paragraph? The solution is to undo the last 35 years, brick by brick. How long is that going to take? I don’t know, but until you start it’s only going to get worse."
And the guy looked at me and went, "But what’s the solution?" He said it again. Ed Burns restrained me.
Reason Mag Interviews the creator of HBO's The Wire
Interesting interview with the creator of one of the best shows on television and some insight into the war on drugs.
Simon: Ed Burns and I spoke at one of those groups. There came this point where a guy said, "Well, what is the solution? Give me the paragraph; give me the lede. What’s the solution, if not drug prohibition?"
I very painstakingly said: "Look. For 35 years, you’ve systematically deindustrialized these cities. You’ve rendered them inhospitable to the working class, economically. You have marginalized a certain percentage of your population, most of them minority, and placed them in a situation where the only viable economic engine in their hypersegregated neighborhoods is the drug trade. Then you’ve alienated them further by fighting this draconian war in their neighborhoods, and not being able to distinguish between friend or foe and between that which is truly dangerous or that which is just illegal. And you want to sit across the table from me and say ‘What’s the solution?’ and get it in a paragraph? The solution is to undo the last 35 years, brick by brick. How long is that going to take? I don’t know, but until you start it’s only going to get worse."
And the guy looked at me and went, "But what’s the solution?" He said it again. Ed Burns restrained me.
Interesting interview with the creator of one of the best shows on television and some insight into the war on drugs.
Simon: Ed Burns and I spoke at one of those groups. There came this point where a guy said, "Well, what is the solution? Give me the paragraph; give me the lede. What’s the solution, if not drug prohibition?"
I very painstakingly said: "Look. For 35 years, you’ve systematically deindustrialized these cities. You’ve rendered them inhospitable to the working class, economically. You have marginalized a certain percentage of your population, most of them minority, and placed them in a situation where the only viable economic engine in their hypersegregated neighborhoods is the drug trade. Then you’ve alienated them further by fighting this draconian war in their neighborhoods, and not being able to distinguish between friend or foe and between that which is truly dangerous or that which is just illegal. And you want to sit across the table from me and say ‘What’s the solution?’ and get it in a paragraph? The solution is to undo the last 35 years, brick by brick. How long is that going to take? I don’t know, but until you start it’s only going to get worse."
And the guy looked at me and went, "But what’s the solution?" He said it again. Ed Burns restrained me.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
USS Clueless - Kerry speaks
Interesting quotes from a Kerry-Russert interview. This election is shaping up to be one of two bad chioces.
Interesting quotes from a Kerry-Russert interview. This election is shaping up to be one of two bad chioces.
Sunday, January 18, 2004
Dean Pro-War
Anti-Iraq but Pro-Bosnian--Wars that is. Just another hypocrite who says what he needs to say to get elected? It appears that way.
Now compare this with the letter Dean wrote—on his official stationery as Vermont’s Governor—to President Clinton on July 19, 1995:
After long and careful thought, and after several years of watching the gross atrocities committed by the Bosnian Serbs, I have reluctantly concluded that the efforts of the United Nations and NATO in Bosnia are a complete failure . . . It is evident that the cost in human lives in allowing this policy to continue is too great. In addition, and perhaps more importantly for the United States, we are now in a position of ignoring, as many did in the 1940s, one of the worst crimes committed in history. If we ignore these behaviors, no matter where they occur, our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. As the Catholic Church and others lost credibility during the Holocaust for not speaking out, so will the United States lose credibility and our people lose confidence in themselves as moral beings if the United States does not take action.
Since it is clearly no longer possible to take action in conjunction with NATO and the United Nations, I have reluctantly concluded that we must take unilateral action . . . First, lift the arms embargo as it applies to the Bosnian government. Second, enforce a full embargo . . . on the Bosnian Serbs and upon Yugoslavia. Third, break off diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia. Fourth, commit American air power to support the Bosnian government . . . I understand the risks of this policy and their implications for the NATO Alliance and the future success of the United Nations. Surely, however, as you watch and read about the huge amount of unwarranted human suffering, particularly of children, you would agree that our current course must now be changed . . .
Anti-Iraq but Pro-Bosnian--Wars that is. Just another hypocrite who says what he needs to say to get elected? It appears that way.
Now compare this with the letter Dean wrote—on his official stationery as Vermont’s Governor—to President Clinton on July 19, 1995:
After long and careful thought, and after several years of watching the gross atrocities committed by the Bosnian Serbs, I have reluctantly concluded that the efforts of the United Nations and NATO in Bosnia are a complete failure . . . It is evident that the cost in human lives in allowing this policy to continue is too great. In addition, and perhaps more importantly for the United States, we are now in a position of ignoring, as many did in the 1940s, one of the worst crimes committed in history. If we ignore these behaviors, no matter where they occur, our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. As the Catholic Church and others lost credibility during the Holocaust for not speaking out, so will the United States lose credibility and our people lose confidence in themselves as moral beings if the United States does not take action.
Since it is clearly no longer possible to take action in conjunction with NATO and the United Nations, I have reluctantly concluded that we must take unilateral action . . . First, lift the arms embargo as it applies to the Bosnian government. Second, enforce a full embargo . . . on the Bosnian Serbs and upon Yugoslavia. Third, break off diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia. Fourth, commit American air power to support the Bosnian government . . . I understand the risks of this policy and their implications for the NATO Alliance and the future success of the United Nations. Surely, however, as you watch and read about the huge amount of unwarranted human suffering, particularly of children, you would agree that our current course must now be changed . . .
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Liberty & Power: Group Blog
A pretty good blog... I like this quote a lot...
Via Sam Koritz at Antiwar.com Blog :
"The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists." ~ Ernest Hemingway
A pretty good blog... I like this quote a lot...
Via Sam Koritz at Antiwar.com Blog :
"The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists." ~ Ernest Hemingway
Friday, January 02, 2004
FOXNews.com - Views - Straight Talk - Libertarian Heroes of 2003
Not sure if Ian can stomach the fact that FOX NEWS ran this article, but it is a powerful piece and shows that there is some hope in politics. Ron Paul is the hero of the list, but what else is new?
(via marginal revolution)
Not sure if Ian can stomach the fact that FOX NEWS ran this article, but it is a powerful piece and shows that there is some hope in politics. Ron Paul is the hero of the list, but what else is new?
(via marginal revolution)
From Champology blog.....
I know I've been silent (other than my post from someone else yesterday) about the latest ephedra ban, but as long time readers know I think the supplement is safe and effective. Currently, I am reading Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell, a work that does an excellent job conveying the importance of secondary factors of economic (or all) decisions. Sowell eloquently pens a tail of all of us driving tanks b/c that is the safest means of transportation. He also ridicules the common phrase "If it saves just one life" for being the joke that it is. Every decision and action has trade-offs and as Sowell also writes, exercising can kill you and not exercising can kill you. As free people we have the right to rationalize which risks we are willing to take and which risks we would not like to take. Yeah ephedra doesn't work for everyone and if you have a heart problem or want to use 3x the suggested max you might run into some problems and maybe even die! That is reality, just as you might die if you decide to drive 90 mph on the highway or eat McDonald's everyday (no...I don't want those to banned also!). Life is about choices and as Sowell would say, "what is the secondary cause of this action." Will we end up with more obese people who will now develop disease b/c they were unable to lose weight b/c just 100 some people died from ephedra (not to mention the fact that ephedra was LOOSELY connected to their deaths mind you)? We won't even get into the effects of ephedra's ban, which successfully helped people lose loads of weight, on people who psychologically need it to feel better about themselves and stop some self destructive behavior. This is just one more example of the ridiculousness of the police state acting as if it CARES.
Here is my main man Ron Harris' take on the ban from his daily pump email....
In other news, I just learned that ephedra will be officially banned in the United States by March of 2004. As someone who has used it safely for many years and known many others who have as well, I can't say this is much more than a publicity stunt by our government to make us feel like they really care about our health and well-being. If that were true, tobacco products would have been outlawed 25 years ago. Yes, in America we can legally drink and smoke ourselves to death, but soon using a fat-burner containing ephedrine will be against the law.
I know I've been silent (other than my post from someone else yesterday) about the latest ephedra ban, but as long time readers know I think the supplement is safe and effective. Currently, I am reading Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell, a work that does an excellent job conveying the importance of secondary factors of economic (or all) decisions. Sowell eloquently pens a tail of all of us driving tanks b/c that is the safest means of transportation. He also ridicules the common phrase "If it saves just one life" for being the joke that it is. Every decision and action has trade-offs and as Sowell also writes, exercising can kill you and not exercising can kill you. As free people we have the right to rationalize which risks we are willing to take and which risks we would not like to take. Yeah ephedra doesn't work for everyone and if you have a heart problem or want to use 3x the suggested max you might run into some problems and maybe even die! That is reality, just as you might die if you decide to drive 90 mph on the highway or eat McDonald's everyday (no...I don't want those to banned also!). Life is about choices and as Sowell would say, "what is the secondary cause of this action." Will we end up with more obese people who will now develop disease b/c they were unable to lose weight b/c just 100 some people died from ephedra (not to mention the fact that ephedra was LOOSELY connected to their deaths mind you)? We won't even get into the effects of ephedra's ban, which successfully helped people lose loads of weight, on people who psychologically need it to feel better about themselves and stop some self destructive behavior. This is just one more example of the ridiculousness of the police state acting as if it CARES.
Here is my main man Ron Harris' take on the ban from his daily pump email....
In other news, I just learned that ephedra will be officially banned in the United States by March of 2004. As someone who has used it safely for many years and known many others who have as well, I can't say this is much more than a publicity stunt by our government to make us feel like they really care about our health and well-being. If that were true, tobacco products would have been outlawed 25 years ago. Yes, in America we can legally drink and smoke ourselves to death, but soon using a fat-burner containing ephedrine will be against the law.
Monday, December 29, 2003
Walter E. Williams: Parting company is an option
Williams followed up the last piece I blogged with this essay on what amounts to secession from the US to achieve what the Constitution actually states.
"Free State Project (www.freestateproject.org) intends to get 20,000 or so Americans to move to New Hampshire and, through a peaceful political process, reduce burdensome taxation and regulation, reform state and local law, end federal mandates, and attempt to restore constitutional federalism as envisioned by the nation's founders.
Since there was only a remote possibility that we could successfully negotiate with Congress, the Courts and White House to obey the U.S. Constitution, I speculated that liberty could only be realized by a unilateral declaration of independence -- namely, part company. Quite a few readers criticized the idea, calling secession unconstitutional. Let's look at it.
Williams then goes on to site numerous reasons why secession from the US is not unconstitutional. Of course he ends with a sobering tale of troops and military might if once would try to seceded. Props to Walter Williams for once again providing some sound logic.
Williams followed up the last piece I blogged with this essay on what amounts to secession from the US to achieve what the Constitution actually states.
"Free State Project (www.freestateproject.org) intends to get 20,000 or so Americans to move to New Hampshire and, through a peaceful political process, reduce burdensome taxation and regulation, reform state and local law, end federal mandates, and attempt to restore constitutional federalism as envisioned by the nation's founders.
Since there was only a remote possibility that we could successfully negotiate with Congress, the Courts and White House to obey the U.S. Constitution, I speculated that liberty could only be realized by a unilateral declaration of independence -- namely, part company. Quite a few readers criticized the idea, calling secession unconstitutional. Let's look at it.
Williams then goes on to site numerous reasons why secession from the US is not unconstitutional. Of course he ends with a sobering tale of troops and military might if once would try to seceded. Props to Walter Williams for once again providing some sound logic.
Walter E. Williams: Let's do some detective work
"My detective work concludes with several competing explanations. The first is that the great men who laid the framework for our nation were not only constitutionally ignorant but callous and uncaring, as well. The second is it's today's politicians who are constitutionally ignorant. Lastly, it's today's Americans who have contempt for the Constitution, and any congressman or president upholding the Constitution's letter and spirit would be tarred and feathered. "
That sums up the points that Walter Williams was trying to make in one of his latest essays.
He further states:
"In one of those papers, Federalist Paper 45, James Madison wrote: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the States."
Unfortunately individuals like Madison, Grover Cleveland, and Franklin Pierce no longer serve in our government (save Ron Paul), so Williams is just beating a drum that no one in governement listens to in 2003.
"My detective work concludes with several competing explanations. The first is that the great men who laid the framework for our nation were not only constitutionally ignorant but callous and uncaring, as well. The second is it's today's politicians who are constitutionally ignorant. Lastly, it's today's Americans who have contempt for the Constitution, and any congressman or president upholding the Constitution's letter and spirit would be tarred and feathered. "
That sums up the points that Walter Williams was trying to make in one of his latest essays.
He further states:
"In one of those papers, Federalist Paper 45, James Madison wrote: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the States."
Unfortunately individuals like Madison, Grover Cleveland, and Franklin Pierce no longer serve in our government (save Ron Paul), so Williams is just beating a drum that no one in governement listens to in 2003.
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
Cartoons in 2003
Jesse Walker, of Reason, pens a good article on how cartoons such as Southpark and King of the Hill have a libertarian/conservative bend to them. He also touches on the Simpsons and its all over the map politics. Cartoons have definitely growns up and growns up.
Not conservative. But not liberal, either. An intensely political show - really - South Park almost always comes down on the libertarian side of an argument. Its targets range from environmental crusaders to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to government-run sex education. And no, it doesn't preach a libertine sort of libertarianism. In addition to the sex-ed episode, it's satirized the extreme wing of the pro-choice movement and once devoted a half-hour to arguing that there's a good reason why TV should refrain from airing cuss words.
If South Park is libertarian, then King of the Hill might best be described as populist. It makes no bones about its heroes' failings: Hank Hill is naive and repressed, his family is eccentric and his best friends are a loser, a womanizer and a raving paranoid. But their world exists in a kind of balance, where everyone's good qualities make up for everyone else's flaws; you get the impression that their Texas suburb can take care of itself. Real trouble comes when outsiders try to interfere: regulators, managers with MBAs, Ritalin-dispensing doctors, left-wing or right-wing ideologues.
(via Ulmann)
Jesse Walker, of Reason, pens a good article on how cartoons such as Southpark and King of the Hill have a libertarian/conservative bend to them. He also touches on the Simpsons and its all over the map politics. Cartoons have definitely growns up and growns up.
Not conservative. But not liberal, either. An intensely political show - really - South Park almost always comes down on the libertarian side of an argument. Its targets range from environmental crusaders to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to government-run sex education. And no, it doesn't preach a libertine sort of libertarianism. In addition to the sex-ed episode, it's satirized the extreme wing of the pro-choice movement and once devoted a half-hour to arguing that there's a good reason why TV should refrain from airing cuss words.
If South Park is libertarian, then King of the Hill might best be described as populist. It makes no bones about its heroes' failings: Hank Hill is naive and repressed, his family is eccentric and his best friends are a loser, a womanizer and a raving paranoid. But their world exists in a kind of balance, where everyone's good qualities make up for everyone else's flaws; you get the impression that their Texas suburb can take care of itself. Real trouble comes when outsiders try to interfere: regulators, managers with MBAs, Ritalin-dispensing doctors, left-wing or right-wing ideologues.
(via Ulmann)
