Reason Magazine - Staff

One Reason Why This Is Still a Great Country (South Park 12th Season Semi-Premiere Edition)

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:58:00 EDT

Sure, things may be going down the crapper in any number of ways: The stock market is tanking faster than the Cubs in post-season play; George W. Bush is still president at least until January; McCain and Obama are very special bums each in their own way; and much, much more.

But as long as there's South Park, there's hope. Or at least incredibly bizarre laughs. Earlier this week, SP returned with new episodes as part of its 12th season. The opener this time included a truly mad plotline in which the most recent Indiana Jones movie was filled with scenes in which creators George Lucas and Steven Speilberg repeatedly rape Harrison Ford, causing post-traumatic stress disorder among South Park's denizens.

Is this "beyond offensive and into some sort of hyper-offensive stratosphere," as some critics have claimed? And that's not even taking into consideration the episode's other plot, which involves Eric Cartman's xenophobic reaction to the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics.

Decide for yourself by watching the full episode online right now (go on, it's Friday and this isn't Putin's Russia).

And don't forget to read the 2006 reason interview with Matt Stone and Trey Parker. A snippet:

Matt Stone: I had Birkenstocks in high school. I was that guy. And I was sure that those people on the other side of the political spectrum were trying to control my life. And then I went to Boulder and got rid of my Birkenstocks immediately, because everyone else had them and I realized that these people over here want to control my life too. I guess that defines my political philosophy. If anybody's telling me what I should do, then you've got to really convince me that it's worth doing.

More here.

Read This Story About Stocks On Track for Their Worst Year Since 1937 and Then Tells Me What It Means Exactly...

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:28:00 EDT

Continuing the less-than-stellar reporting of the financial sector, this AP story has the attention-grabbing headline "Stocks are on track for their worst year since 1937," without really explaining what that means. "Stocks are on track for their worst year since 1937," announces the story (hence the headline), without detailing how or in what ways. Ah well, context really doesn't matter, does it?

GM, the story says, is at its 1950 price, which kind of makes sense given the product that company makes. Ford, another rusted-out industrial-era giant, is tanking too. Which leads to a real problem, even beyond the $25 billion these two welfare kings (along with Chrysler) have already gotten from the feds. It's no secret that the Big 2.5 (sorry, Chrysler, the truth can be so hurtful) are dying to unload their pension and health-care liabilities onto the American taxpayer. Current and future conditions make it likely that they'll get their wish.

Look for a new 'roided-up stimulus package too:

"We have to prop up consumption," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an interview.
The new proposal would be far greater than the $60 billion stimulus package that the House passed in September, Frank said. The Senate has not acted on the earlier bill, which was dwarfed in attention and scope by the sums being pledged to Wall Street companies and commercial banks.

And look for a new drop in the Dow, too. President Bush is going to speak about the market today, and that always seems to take a couple hundred (thousand) points off the index, doesn't it? The AP suggests various factors are to blame for yesterday's big dip (electronic trading, late-day execution of trades) but a humongous chunk has got to be related to the evolving plans of the Bush admin to first push a useless bailout through Congress and then announce plans to nationalize banks via direct purchase of equity. If I could only get out of this damn wheelchair (but I can't, I can't!), maybe I'd be moving into cash or gold coins hawked by G. Gordon Liddy too.

reason on the bailout.

Is McCain Still in the Game? Does He Need a Hail Mary? Marshall McLuhan Has Answers, Dammit! (Though To Questions Far More Interesting Than Those Ones)

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:39:00 EDT

Pollster Scott Rasmussen says that Sen. John McCain needs a Hail Mary play to win the election:

"John McCain probably needs an outside event to win the White House," pollster Scott Rasmussen told the Herald. "He's a little bit like a football team in the fourth quarter, down by a couple of touchdowns. You can't make it all up in one play. And you still need a break or two."

More here.

Pollster John Zogby says the election "can still break either way":

"I don't think Obama has closed the deal yet," pollster John Zogby told the Herald yesterday.
Zogby's latest poll, released yesterday in conjunction with C-Span and Reuters, shows Obama and John McCain in a statistical dead heat, with the Illinois Democrat up 48-45 percent.

More here.

This much seems certain: Whoever wins, "Free Minds and Free Markets" lose, as is clear from our for-you-viewing-pleasure 63-second condensation of Tuesday's debate:

And speaking of Tuesday's debate, here's a YouTube clip of media theorist Marshall McLuhan appearing on the Today show in 1976 to comment on the debates between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Hosting the Today show? One Tom Brokaw, who seemed every bit as perplexed by complex thought and the English language as he does today (Edwin Newman, NBC's resident egghead, is also there). It's a really interesting clip, I think, especially because it shows how little has changed in the staging of political spectacle.

In many ways, McLuhan's criticisms of the debate format are more relevant now than ever given that we live in a radically deconstructed media environment. Phoney-baloney pseudo-events such as the presidential debates are even more self-evidently agitprop for, well, phoney-baloney pseudo-events. (Note: The technical difficulties that Brokaw, Newman, and McLuhan refer to resulted in a 27-minute delay during which moderater Harry Reasoner "vamped" while the candidates stood like wooden puppets at their podiums.)

Government to Buy Equity Stakes in Crappy Banks

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 07:21:00 EDT

From the AP, the follow-through on the big bailout bill:

An administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because no decision has been made, said the $700 billion rescue package passed by Congress last week allows the Treasury Department to inject fresh capital into financial institutions and get ownership shares in return.
This official said all the new powers granted in the legislation were being considered as the administration seeks to deal with a serious credit crisis that has caused the biggest upheavals on Wall Street in seven decades and continues to roil global markets.
Supporters of this approach, such as Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., argue that injecting fresh capital into U.S. banks who want to participate in the program would be an effective way to bolster banks' balance sheets and get them to resume lending. Taxpayers would benefit because the government would receive an equity stake in the bank in return for providing the capital.
"This idea would, at a minimum, complement the administration's planned approach of buying up troubled assets and may prove to be the most promising tool of all in Secretary Paulson's kit," Schumer said in a statement.

More here.

It is not clear what "the biggest upheavals on Wall Street in seven decades" means exactly. Certainly it's the biggest bailout, which is not quite the same thing.

Look for the semi-socialization of the nation's financial sector to be George W. Bush's legacy project over the few remaining weeks (thank God) of his presidency (whatever happened to the political capital he was gonna spend on privatizing Social Security? Guess he lost it in a poker game or a war or something). And somehow, if Bush has his way, maybe we the taxpayers will get big steaming piles of equity in a bunch of dying car makers and airlines too.

It didn't have to be this way. Here's reason on "building a better bailout" and here's economist and author Russell Roberts on just how bad the bailout is:

And here's reason's coverage of the bailout en toto.

Hitchens on Afghanistan's Poppies: Buy Them, Don't Burn Them!

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:50:00 EDT

Over at Slate, Christopher Hitchens proposes a novel solution to the "problem" of Afghan farmers continued interest in growing opium poppies, their biggest cash crop: The U.S. should buy the crop rather than letting the Taliban do so.

We don't have to smoke the stuff once we have purchased it: It can be burned or thrown away or perhaps more profitably used to manufacture the painkillers of which the United States currently suffers a shortage. (As it is, we allow Turkey to cultivate opium poppy fields for precisely this purpose.) Why not give Afghanistan the contract instead? At one stroke, we help fill its coffers and empty the main war chest of our foes while altering the "hearts-and-minds" balance that has been tipping away from us. I happen to know that this option has been discussed at quite high levels in Afghanistan itself, and I leave you to guess at the sort of political constraints that prevent it from being discussed intelligently in public in the United States.

More here.

Never miss an opportunity to read Hitchens' tremendous 2001 interview with reason. A snippet:

The thing I've often tried to point out to people from the early days of the Thatcher revolution in Britain was that the political consensus had been broken, and from the right. The revolutionary, radical forces in British life were being led by the conservatives. That was something that almost nobody, with the very slight exception of myself, had foreseen.
I'd realized in 1979, the year she won, that though I was a member of the Labour Party, I wasn't going to vote for it. I couldn't bring myself to vote conservative. That's purely visceral. It was nothing to do with my mind, really. I just couldn't physically do it. I'll never get over that, but that's my private problem.

And while we're at it, watch him sing a decidedly off-color Christmas song at last year's Very Secular Christmas Party at reason's DC HQ:

What You Need to Know About the Bailout (and Why You Should Be Really Worried)

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 09:05:00 EDT

George Mason University economist and author Russell Roberts, who blogs at the always interesting Cafe Hayek, sat down with reason.tv to talk about the nation's shakey economy and the government's bailout plan. Watch this six-minute interview to learn where the problems came from, why the bailout won't address them, and what sort of hurt we're in for over the next several weeks, months, and years. "The real cost of this," warns Roberts, "is that we have said to people, 'Risk taking is not as risky as it used to be.' That's a mistake. It's a horrible mistake and it will lead to a lower standard of living down the road because investment will be more cavalier and less prudent."

Roberts' newest book is the novel The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity. Look for an upcoming reason.tv interview with him about his goals in writing fiction.

Innovators in Action 2008

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:59:00 EDT

From Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes reason online:

Reason Foundation is heralding U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters and Texas Gov. Rick Perry as "Innovators in Action" for their work in developing fresh solutions to cope with our growing infrastructure and traffic problems. In Innovators in Action 2008, Ms. Peters and Gov. Perry author columns explaining their visions and policy prescriptions for the future of transportation funding and construction.
"From crumbling roads to collapsing bridges to gridlocked roads, our nation's infrastructure is in desperate need of repair and expansion," said Leonard Gilroy, editor of Innovators in Action and director of government reform at Reason Foundation. "Governor Perry and Secretary Peters have led us down a new path, a path that shows there are better and more sustainable ways to fund, build and operate infrastructure. Their leadership offers hope that after years of falling behind, we can build a 21st century transportation system that protects our mobility and spurs the economy."
In addition to Peters and Perry, the Reason Foundation publication features essays by and interviews with U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker, Utah Senator Howard Stephenson and Representative Craig Frank, New Jersey Senator Raymond Lesniak, the late Texas Transportation Commission Chairman Ric Williamson, Denver Regional Transportation District CEO Cal Marsella, King County (WA) Executive Ron Sims, and BASIS Charter Schools co-founder Olga Block.
In their own words, this bipartisan group of leaders reveal how they are reducing government spending and reforming bureaucracy; how they are collaborating with the private sector to build new infrastructure and deliver cost-savings and better services to taxpayers; how they are advancing market-based transportation solutions to reduce congestion and improve mobility; how they reforming public education delivery and advancing school choice; and how they are reforming urban public transit operations.

The One and Only Billy Ayers...

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:15:00 EDT

I'm not convinced that painting former Weather Underground jefe Bill Ayers and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a post-American Century version of Brian Piccolo and Gale Sayers is a) effective negative politics or b) particularly relevant in the glimmering twilight of late capitalism (by which I mean of course enduring capitalism that will hopefully still be around to help increase my kids' standard of living every bit as much as it has mine). As someone who lives in Ohio half the time, I've seen the McCain "Know Enough?" attack ad about Ayers a million times. My seven-year-old son thought it was convincing; my 14-year-old thought it was irrelevant and weak. Go figure.

But Bill "I don't regret setting bombs" Ayers really is a jackass of the highest degree and deserves all the opprobrium this latest turn in the spotlight affords (his last big burst of publicity came from the ill-timed release of his kaboom-filled autobiography right around the 9/11 attacks; not a good moment to talk about, other things, blowing up the Pentagon).

Here's City Journal's Sol Stern with a strong piece about Ayers' post-radical life as an "education reformer":

Calling Bill Ayers a school reformer is a bit like calling Joseph Stalin an agricultural reformer. (If you find the metaphor strained, consider that Walter Duranty, the infamous New York Times reporter covering the Soviet Union in the 1930s, did, in fact, depict Stalin as a great land reformer who created happy, productive collective farms.) For instance, at a November 2006 education forum in Caracas, Venezuela, with President Hugo Chávez at his side, Ayers proclaimed his support for "the profound educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chávez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane." Ayers concluded his speech by declaring that "Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education - a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation," and then, as in days of old, raised his fist and chanted: "Viva Presidente Chávez! Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta la Victoria Siempre!"

More here.

reason on the Weather Underground.

Do Single-Sex Classes = Single-Minded Students?

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:24:00 EDT

Single-sex classes for K-12 students are increasingly popular in the nation's schools (supposedly). From a recent Cincinnati Enquirer story on the matter:

This school year, there are at least 442 public schools in the United States offering single-sex educational opportunities, according to the National Association for Single Sex Public Education.
"It's very common for public schools to do single-sex education in an elementary school," said Dr. Leonard Sax, director of the association. "That is much more common than the high school level, where it is rather rare. The great success stories are almost entirely among elementary schools."...
In 2006, the U.S. Department of Education published new Title IX regulations governing single-sex education in public schools. The regulations allow public schools to offer single-sex classrooms with some restrictions, such as providing a co-ed class in the same subject at a geographically accessible location.
Proponents say single-sex classrooms allow teachers to address the different learning styles of both genders and eliminate issues between boys and girls that hinder learning.
Detractors say there's not enough evidence to show vast improvement in student achievement. The ACLU opposes single-sex classrooms, saying separate was equal was tossed out with Brown v. Board of Education. "It can't be done," said Carrie Davis, staff counsel at ACLU Ohio....
In science, [fourth through sixth grade teacher Joe] Olding found the arrangement benefited girls the most. Their scores increased about 16 percentage points.
"There was less intimidation," he said. "It took the flirting ... out of it. The competition with boys for the girls, it eliminated that."
Boys had about a 4.5- to 5-percentage-point increase overall.

More here.

Some immediate reactions: 1. Intimidation and flirting in grades 4-6? Sounds more like prison than school, but that's almost always the case, isn't it, at all levels of education, whether public or private? 2. Different kids will flourish under different regimes. The same goes for teachers. I'd hazard a guess that a good goal of educational policy would be to allow as many different arrangements as possible, thus increasing the odds that everyone finds a good fit. 3. Anything that doesn't fundamentally address the top-down, monopolistic nature of educational services is doomed to failure. 4. With the possible exception of, er, the financial industry, education is filled with the most phoney-baloney godawful research, stats, etc. There is a study out there that proves anything you want proven. And a school district acting on it. 5. Pushing public money down to the level of the student and giving them more options would be the best way to spend it. 6. Education should be paid for not by public money but by the people directly benefiting from it (e.g., parents, businesses, and others), and a variety of philanthropic efforts. 7. It is not clear that single-sex education actually improves academic achievement, but that is not and should not be the only way of evaluating education, especially when it's paid for by the people using it. Other factors, including parental and student and even teacher satisfaction, should be considered. 8. I need to go to get my seven year old son ready for his multi-gendered classroom.

reason on education.

John McCain Owns Foreign Cars!

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:49:00 EDT

Via Daniel Drezner's always interesting blog comes this Obama ad that has aired in Michigan:

The main charge of the ad? That McCain says he always buys American cars, but is a liar! Three of his 13 sets of wheels are made made by furriners! A Lexus, a Honda, and... a Volkswagen (who woulda expected him to be driving a hippie mobile?).

Drezner, a poli-sci prof at Tufts, notes the massive anti-free-trade sentiments implicit in the ad, which is a major theme in Obama's campaign. The guy really can't seem to attack foreign competition enough, which is really disturbing. The ad also dings McCain for not reflexively bailing out the U.S. auto industry (don't worry, Motown, help is coming!).

Drezner, who is no fan of McCain, writes, "This ad actually brings up one of the few actual "straight talk" moments for McCain in this campaign—when he told Michigan auto workers that he wasn't going to be able to bring their jobs back."

What kinda ride does Obama have? He traded in a gas hog Chrysler for a Ford Escape Hybrid.

Will Wall Street Shun the Bailout?

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:23:00 EDT

Add one more super-sized question mark to the bazillion-dollar bailout: Will Wall Street take the bait?

In the U.K. Guardian, James Doran says eh, maybe not so much:

One of the least attractive elements is a section designed to curb executive pay at banks that participate in the bail-out package. These include limiting stock-related pay and banning 'golden parachutes' for executives.
"I think this hodge-podge of regulations and rules will be enough to put many [chief executives] off participating," [Thomas] Caldwell [of Caldwell Financial, a billion-dollar fund] said.
Sources close to Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch indicated the banks might choose not to participate in the bail-out as there is a growing view on Wall Street that the market may be bottoming out.

More here.

reason on the bailout here.

If You Watch Only Four (4) Political Ads This Season, Watch These Ones

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:37:00 EDT

Don't Vote (Rational Ignorance Remix):

Obama Kids: Sing for Change (Pyongyang Remix):

Who Do You Hate '08?:

Stop Outsourcing Roles in Pro-Obama Videos!:

Subscribe to reason.tv's YouTube videos here.

For longer-form videos and more, visit reason.tv now.

And a Chihuahua Shall Lead Us...

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 08:50:00 EDT

Wall Street (and the world) respond to the (unnecessary/overwrought/misguided/you name it) bailout with a shoulder shrug:

Wall Street looked to continue the volatility of last week when trading resumed Monday. Stock index futures declined by more than 1 percent late Sunday, pointing to a lower open. Dow Jones industrial average futures fell 176, or 1.70 percent, to 10,188. Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 19.3, or 1.74 percent, to 1,089.00, while Nasdaq 100 futures fell 20.25, or 1.37 percent, to 1,457.25.

Your Tax Dollars at Work: Evel Knievel's FBI File Revealed!

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:37:00 EDT

That motorcycle daredevil Evel Knievel, the Yuri Gagarin of Snake River Canyon, was a horrible human being is pretty well understood by anyone with half a brain. Indeed, the guy once beat someone with a baseball bat for calling him "an alcoholic, a pill addict, an anti-Semite and an immoral person"—which of course perfectly underscores the point in question.

But the FBI spent plenty of time following Knievel around because, you know, there weren't serious criminals to be tracking or anything. From his recently released file:

Authorities first wanted to charge Knievel with violations of the Hobbs Act, which prohibits interfering with interstate commerce by attempting to rob or extort someone. But the case was dropped when a new federal prosecutor picked up the case and decided there was insufficient evidence. The federal government today won't comment.
"The Department follows the facts and the law in making decisions and beyond that, couldn't comment on matters in which no public federal charges were filed," Department of Justice spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said in an e-mail.
The daredevil's widow, Krystal Kennedy-Knievel, said she was unaware of any FBI investigation involving her husband and declined further comment. They were married in 1999.
FBI files are available to the public after the death of their subjects and can provide rare glimpses into the private lives of public figures. For example, former President Ford advised the FBI that two of his fellow Warren Commission members doubted the bureau's conclusion that John F. Kennedy was shot from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, according to his file.

More here.

The ultimate FBI investigation? Trying (and failing) to figure out the lyrics to "Louie, Louie."

Recently at Reason.tv: Obama Kids (Pyongyang Remix); Saving Social Security; Bert Dohmen on the Bailout; The Reason.tv Talk Show

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 10:02:00 EDT

For your viewing pleasure.

Go to reason.tv embed codes, related articles, and more video, including The Drew Carey Project.

Obama Kids: Sing for Change (Pyongyang Remix):

Financial advisor Bert Dohmen on the bailout:

The Reason.tv Talk Show, with Michael C. Moynihan, Nick Gillespie, Nicky Grist, and John D. Gartner:

Saving Social Security, Episode One: Pimp My Walker:

Now Playing at Reason.tv: Saving Social Security—Episode One, Pimp My Walker

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:37:00 EDT

Worried about Social Security? Follow the adventures of Sonny, a young kid trying to retire (eventually) in style.

Produced by Lineplot, this is the first of five episodes.

Now Playing at Reason.tv: The Reason.tv Talk Show with Nick Gillespie and Michael C. Moynihan

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:19:00 EDT

From their DC HQ, reason.tv's Nick Gillespie and Michael C. Moynihan have a freewheeling talk about politics, culture, and changing social mores with Alternative to Marriage's Nicky Grist and In Seach of Bill Clinton author John D. Gartner.

Approximately 30 minutes; shot by Dan Hayes.

Click below to watch.

Attn, DC Reasonoids: See Reason.tv's Drew Carey Project on the Big Screen, Saturday, October 4, at 3.30pm

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:30:00 EDT

reason.tv is proud to be participating in this year's American Film Renaissance Film Festival, which runs in D.C.-area theaters from Wednesday, October 1 through Saturday, October 4.

On Saturday at 3.30pm, at the Goethe-Institut (812 Seventh St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20001), selections from The Drew Carey Project will anchor the festival's shorts block.

Go here for more information and to buy tickets ($8.00 for that viewing).

Other highlights of the festival include:

Wednesday night: The Dukes. When a group of down-on-their-luck friends try to launch a comeback for their nostalgia group, The Dukes, creative juices flow, as do the risks of ending up on the wrong side of the law. Starring Robert Davi (License to Kill, Profiler), Chazz Palminteri (Analyze This, The Usual Suspects) and Peter Bogdanovich (The Last Picture Show, Mask). Run time: 94 min. Rated PG-13 for brief sexuality and drug references. Introduction and Q&A with Director, Robert Davi. Playing at 7pm at AMC Loews Georgetown 14 (3111 K St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20007).
VIEW WEBSITE & TRAILER
Film screening ticket $10. After party with actor/director, Robert Davi, at Sequoia Restaurant located in Washington Harbour, within walking distance of the theater. You must purchase the $40.00 ticket to gain entrance to after party.
Thursday Night: Do As I Say. With the 2008 election cycle in full swing, it's hard to turn on the television or open a newspaper without finding politicians, pop stars and pundits blaming capitalism and private enterprise for the world's problems. But how sincere are they about their beliefs? How do they live? The answers will shock you. In Do As I Say, a documentary that will forever change how we see America and its leaders, filmmakers Nicholas Tucker and Lucas Abel take us on an unforgettable journey through a political landscape filled with hypocrites and humbugs. Along the way, they reveal a disturbing national truth: that the two-faced mantra "do as I say, not as I do" has become the unwritten golden rule of modern liberalism. Based on Peter Schweitzer's New York Times bestselling book Do As I Say (Not As I Do) . Run time: 90 min. Not Rated. Introduction and Q&A with director, Nick Tucker. Playing at 7pm at The Carnegie Institution (1530 P St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20005).
VIEW WEBSITE & TRAILER

Film screeing ticket $10. Purchase the $30.00 ticket to attend an after-party with director Nick Tucker in the Carnegie Institution's rotunda.
Friday Night: An American Carol. The American spirit is celebrated in the outrageous and totally irreverent comedy An American Carol from David Zucker, the master of movie satire (Airplane!, The Naked Gun, Scary Movie 3 and 4). In An American Carol, a cynical anti-American "Hollywood" filmmaker sets out on a crusade to abolish the 4th of July holiday. He is visited by three spirits who take him on a hilarious journey in an attempt to show him the true meaning of America. An all-star cast featuring Kelsey Grammer, Jon Voight, Leslie Nielsen, Dennis Hopper, James Woods, Robert Davi, Trace Adkins and Kevin Farley. Run Time: Approx. 90 min. Rated PG-13 for irreverent content, language and brief drug references. Playing at 7pm at Regal Ballston Common 12 (671 N. Glebe Road, Arlington VA 22203).
VIEW WEBSITE & TRAILER

Film screening ticket $10. Immediately following the screening, a Pub Crawl will take place within walking distance of the theater. You must purchase the $15.00 to participate in the Pub Crawl.
Saturday Night: U.N. Me. In this striking documentary, filmmaker Ami Horowitz illustrates how the United Nations, the world's foremost humanitarian organization created to ennoble mankind, has become so ravaged by corruption that it actually enables evil and creates global chaos. By examining failures in Rwanda and Darfur, and the Oil for Food scandal, Horowitz shows how the UN has become the pacifier of dictators, thugs and tyrants. Using a unique blend of the informational qualities of a traditional documentary and the entertainment value of a narrative film, U.N. Me is irreverent, humorous and intense. Filmed in Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the US. Run Time: Approx 90 min. Not rated. Introduction and Q&A with director, Ami Horowitz. Playing at 8pm at the Goethe Institut (812 Seventh St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20001).
$15 for screening ticket and admission to wine and cheese reception immediately following.

For a full listing of all films on display, go here. Advance online ticket purchases are highly recommended. For more info on that and venues, go here.

Now Playing at Reason.tv: Financial advisor Bert Dohmen on the bailout

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:32:00 EDT

On September 30, reason.tv caught up with financial advisor Bert Dohmen, the author of Prelude to a Meltdown and Bert Dohmen's Wellington Letter. In this seven-minute video, Dohmen offered his perspective on the proposed bailout, short selling, the Federal Reserve Bank's reclassification of Goldman and Merrill Lynch as banks, and many other topics.

Interview by David Nott; camera and editing by Alexander Manning.

The Iraq War, but This Time as Economic Pearl Harbor

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:48:00 EDT

I guess fighting one elective war isn't enough for the Bush administration. Or the Senate. Or the media.

But it's pretty clear that the White House, helped by a codependent Congress and media, has yet again manufactured a consensus for massive intervention. The last time they managed to pull this off, of course, the United States invaded Iraq. And that has worked out so well that they've decided to start a brand extension or spin-off series: Intervening massively into the economy. The bailout package as Bush Administration: Special Victims Unit.

Think about it and the parallels are disturbing: a high-ranking, respectable, above-the-fray cabinet member working the ropes to achieve bipartisan cooperation; a pliable Congress where appeals to patriotism always trump appeals to principle (sadly, those two things are almost always construed as oppositional); and a media that is fueling the fire (the dread MSM's role in spreading the Bush admin case for war has been pretty well-documented; in terms of the bailout, the most hysterical champions for intervention have been in the print and TV press). Time magazine's next cover story, I learned watching Morning Joe this AM on MSNBC, is actually an essay on "The New Hard Times" and compares our current day to those of The Great Depression. Ominous parallel or coincidence: In the Depression, people formed lines for free soup; today, people form lines to...buy iPhones?

Arguably what is stunning about last night's Senate vote is not that it happened but that it took so long to add enough "sweeteners" to put free-market devotees into an ideological diabetic coma. The bailout-stimulus-Christmas-in-October-bill that just passed the Senate should not be confused with thoughtful legislation. It's larded with junk designed to convince Main Street that it too will share in the welfare being doled out to Wall Street Masters of the Universe. The need for the bailout has yet to be demonstrated. The efficacy of the proposed plan has yet to be demonstrated. Here's hoping that the House of Representatives, that great holding pen for would-be senators and future criminals, keeps it spine and still votes no. At the same time, this might be a good time to declare citizenship in another country.

One other stray thought: The predicate for action now has been incessant comparisons, despite all available evidence, to The Great Depression, a moment where the American (and world) economy contracted over a period of years. Screw the fact that the U.S. economy, by all the normal indicators that get trotted out on a quarterly basis, is doing OK, if not quite good.

In my memory, the last time this happened with such intensity was, er, in 1992, during the closing months of an presidential election cycle where a vulnerable Republican candidate was facing a charismatic Democratic one who kept harping on how rotten the economy was. Things are different now: The outgoing GOP president is the central fearmongerer (or perhaps, given Bush's intensity on the topic, fearmongererer) in this drama, but we shouldn't forget that the election is an essential backdrop for what is happening. This is, coff coff, a particularly political season, and we should all look especially askance at the hurry-up offense coming out of the White House, the Congress, and the media. Bush is desperate for a legacy that doesn't involve quagmires and broken bodies; Congress is trying to give voters some goodies; both McCain and Obama want to show that they can lead, dammit, and please all the people all the time. And the press is desperate for copy and for change.

Two Reasons to Vote Against Obama

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:45:00 EDT

Obama, who has received a significant amount of celebrity endorsements, will be the beneficiary of a fundraiser at which rock legends Bruce Springsteen and Billy Joel will perform together.

More here.

All right. Who should do benefit concerts for:

John McCain?

Chuck Baldwin?

Ralph Nader?

Bob Barr?

The Fearsome Fear of a Looming Recession

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:17:00 EDT

In an interview with The Los Angeles Times editorial board last December, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson made clear that he defined "market failure" as any instance in which investors, including home owners, lost money. In discussing various grand plans to buoy the economy, Paulson said, "What we're doing is avoiding a market failure that would have forced housing values down in a way that was not in the investors' interest, and in a way that the market wasn't intended to work."

You can read more of that exchange here, where it's reprinted in a recent reason column by Tim Cavanaugh. It's a pretty stunning and open admission of how Paulson conceives his job. Basically, his job is to maintain or increase prices, period. He doesn't want to oversee a market that acts as a discovery process because, as Dr. Zaius, the patron saint of all great Platonic experts, could tell you, "You may not like what you find." Indeed, you might find that you misunderestimated what people think your crap is worth (has Paulson, one wonders, ever gone to a garage sale, that ultimate testing ground of the subjective theory of value?).

So Paulson wants to socialize losses by the investing class with his economic PATRIOT Act, a hasty, hurried, and not-clearly-warranted piece of legislation that will somehow manage to change everything without addressing basic incentives in the financial sector (other than underscoring the idea that the American economy is too big to fail, so the feds will oddly bail it out in the name of capitalism).

Given the stunning and uplifting failure of the House to pass the bailout, the Senate will be taking a whack at the pinata tonight, and the bill is likely to pass (so we've been told). Why? Partly because our dear and great leaders have gone out and "sold" the legislation to the American people by now telling us we need to avoid a recession at all costs. As Hillary Clinton has explained (surely in a voice that even Sarah Palin could understand), voters "have to recognize that we are facing a very serious economic slowdown, a recession that could be of long-lasting and deep impact."

So we're doing massive restructuring (read: giving lots of money but not really restructuing basic structures) of the financial markets to avoid a potential recession? Recessions are not easy, but they are periodic events that don't generally call for a bailout plan of this magnitude currently being discussed in Washington. And the old definition of a recession seems up for grabs these days. It used to be that a recession was two or more consecutive quarters of "negative growth" of GDP. These days, it seems to be whenever somebody anywhere is bothered by current conditions.

Look for the price tag of the bailout to keep going up from the admittedly arbitrary $700 billion originally attached to the plan. That's because our leaders are now trying to sell us the plan by offering "sweeteners" that jack up the price and extend the action to all sorts of tangentially related issues (such as alternative energy).

So, a couple of weeks into the worst global crisis since the Japanese bombed Wall Street in 1929, what have we learned?

1. That the secretary of the Treasury has a very weak grasp of the market mechanisms he's messing with.

2. That the fear of a recession, however you want to define it, is enough to throw a heaping load of money at Wall Street.

3. That Congress won't stop believing that the time for a bailout is always yesterday and that the bailout should include more stimulation than a vibrating bed at a hourly-rate motel, all the better to sell it to the American people.

Virtually every member of the New York-Washington axis of power has been pushing the need for a bailout. Which is only one more reason to question it (just watch cable TV, read the Wash Post and New York Times, or watch C-SPAN's surveillance cameras of Congress).

Here's hoping that the Senate finds a spine and votes down the bailout. Or if they pass it, that the House keeps pushing back until the reasons to act in such a decisive manner are clear not just to Hank Paulson, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain.

Economist Miron: Bail on the Bailout

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:39:00 EDT

Via Drudge comes this CNN.com column by economist Jeffrey Miron. After detailing the government's role in fueling the subprime mortgage crisis, which is at the heart of the current "crisis," he concludes:

So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.
The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.

Miron notes that, among other things, Wall Street is now engaging in "strategic behavior" in anticipation of a bailout. He argues that the current credit freeze, such as it is, is largely a function of firms waiting to see what's coming out of Washington. The whole piece is well worth reading.

Miron participated in our recent forum, "The Great Bailout Brouhaha." His contribution:

Jeffrey A. Miron
1. How bad is the current market situation?
The current situation is serious, but not so much because the economic conditions are especially bad. The situation is serious because policymakers seem poised to undertake an enormous intervention that will have huge adverse effects and may well exacerbate the very kind of problem the intervention is meant to fix.
2. How bad are the current proposed bailout plans?
See #1. The bailout is a terrible idea. It transfers a huge amount of wealth to people who do not deserve it. It will generate enormous incentives for creative bookkeeping as the investment houses and banks try to rid themselves of any assets they do not want. The bailout fails to eliminate the crucial policies that contributed to and caused the current situation, such as the Community Reinvestment Act, the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and so on. Last but hardly least, the bailout sets a terrible precedent: If you take huge risks and become too big to fail, the government will bail you out.
3. What's the one thing we should be doing that we're not?
The only things we should be doing are eliminating the underlying policy causes of the current situation; see #2.

Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies in the Department of Economics at Harvard University.

More here.

Can We Shut the F Up About the "Biggest One-Day Loss in History" on the Dow Already?

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:24:00 EDT

Are journalists, politicians, analysts, et al. really so retarded that they insist on leading all stories about yesterday's Dow with a patently useless measure? (The short answer is probably yes.). To wit:

Stocks plunge as House rejects bailout package: Dow absorbs biggest one-day loss in history: 777.68 points
Stocks plunged yesterday with the Dow Jones industrial average falling nearly 780 points—the biggest one-day point drop ever—after federal lawmakers failed to pass a $700 billion plan to bail out the financial system.

That particular formulation comes from The Baltimore Sun, but you've all read or heard countless variations on the theme. If this figure is not expressed in percentage terms, it is absolutely useless. Indeed, for most of its existence, the DJIA, couldn't have dropped 780 points because the index wasn't that high. Which of course reporters (and pols, and analysts, et al.) know, and always bury somewhere deeper in the story. To wit, from the Sun story mentioned just a few lines above:

The Dow's 7 percent decline was the 17th biggest percentage drop in its history, well below the more than 20 percent drops seen in October 1987 and the Great Depression.

Somehow "Dow absorbs 17th-biggest percentage drop in its history" just doesn't pack the same wallop, does it? More here.

Why the Bailout Died in the House

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:04:00 EDT

What a strange and wonderful narrative that's coming out of the failure of the bailout bill in the House o' Reps yesterday:

Ms. Pelosi delivered the Democratic votes she had promised, but could not muster enough of them to avert a defeat that could long be remembered.

More here, from The New York Times.

Now, we "know" why the Republicans pissed on the bill (well, by a 2-to-1 margin, meaning 65 GOPpers voted for the bailout): Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave a rankly partisan speech that dried House Minority Leader John Boehner's teary eyes and steeled the will of the free-market ideologues to vote against a bill they know is bad for all sorts of reasons (more on that in a second).

But why didn't the Dems, who hold a freaking majority in the House, not pass the bill on a party-line vote? Did you get that above about the Dems? Pelosi delivered the votes, but just not enough of them. WTF? That's like a line from Pravda.

Actually, according to the morning yak shows, she gave passes to tons of congressfolks in "tough" re-election fights, and to various other folks who didn't like the bill.

In any case, here are two non-ideological reasons why it's great that this bailout went down the tubes faster than you can say "Bearstearnswachoviaaig":

1. This thing was The PATRIOT Act of the financial world. That is, it's a bill designed to address an enormously complicated situation that will have incredibly far-reaching implications probably for decades. Warren Buffet and others have invoked Pearl Harbor to conjure up the need for speed when it comes to the bailout. But this isn't war. Or terrorism. Or even a depression. We've got time to work through the details, which are all that matter. There isn't any need to pass virtually any bill in seven days, or even seven weeks, or even seven months. Especially important ones. That's one (of many) lessons of The PATRIOT Act experience.
2. This thing is gigantically unpopular with the American people. Polls show large majorities against the bailout, which suggests that, at the very least, the Hank Paulsons, George Bushes, Barney Franks, and Nancy Pelosis of the world have done a real crap job of selling the bill to people. At least since federal soldiers illegally kicked the Cherokees out of the Southeast, the government has had a credibility gap wider bigger than Lyndon Johnson's earlobes. That trend has, er, only accelerated under President Bush for reasons that don't need to be rehearsed here. And Pelosi, remember, came into office saying the Dems were going to be the party of fiscal responsibility—and then larded up a farm bill with more lard than a Golden Corral parking lot. This bailout came with a "Trust Us" sticker on it. And no one is willing to trust the government (a good thing, actually).

If you believe in, coff coff, "Free Minds and Free Markets," there are plenty of other reasons to be glad that any bailout effort tanked. Most of which are rooted not simply in anti-interventionist ideology but in pragmatic concerns over the ways that rules work and how institutions are governed. You can read about them by scrolling through the past week's, month's, and (40) year's worth of economics coverage in reason. So there's no need to go in to them right here. But if you want to, start here.