Monthly Archives: August 2010

This video reminds me of what a friend said to me at Stout: “I long thought the Second Amendment was, at least, ambiguous. Then I read it.”

Or, just think about Cartman shouting at his mother “Mah! More Pie!”

The newest member of DuelingBarstools’ illustrious Magna Cum Blogroll is . . . drumroll . . . Jack Hunter a.k.a. the Southern Avenger, a columnist and radio show host in Charleston, South Carolina. He blogs here, as well as at the American Conservative Magazine. Here’s a snippet from a recent blog post titled Iraq and the Big Picture:

Those who advocate a reduced global American military presence are often accused by defenders of the status quo of somehow being naïve or unable to see the big picture. But the exact opposite is true — it is those who insist America must be everywhere at all times who are also all over the place in their logic, as their advocating for perpetual war continues to lead to permanent disaster.

Not to mention, as Gov. Gary Johnson would surely remind you, that 43% of every dollar the US spends is borrowed.

Take Iraq. Now that Obama has announced his own “Mission Accomplished” and is reducing troop levels, Democrats are praising the president’s leadership and Republicans are touting the Bush surge that made it all possible. But however stable or unstable Iraq becomes in the years ahead, what, exactly, did the United States get out of this war?

Did any of the reasons Americans were given for invading Iraq — that Saddam Hussein was a “threat,” that he possessed weapons of mass destruction, that he aided terrorists and was somehow connected to 9/11 — turn out to be true? When asked whether it would have been wise to oust Hussein during Operation Desert Storm, former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney said in 1994 that invading Baghdad would have created a “quagmire,” destabilized the region, caused civil war, empowered Iran, and led to U.S. casualties that would have been too high. “How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?” Cheney asked in ‘94.s

Did not everything Cheney once feared about invading Iraq come to fruition after 2003, and are these not the reasons Bush even had to surge or Obama still has to stay? Cheney was right the first time — how many dead Americans was Saddam worth? With nearly 5,000 soldiers lost, tens of thousands of civilian casualties, a more brazen Iran, and a $3 trillion price tag, what have we accomplished in Iraq that, in retrospect, was even remotely worth the cost? Those who still believe that it was necessary to invade Iraq would likely consider this critique the ramblings of a naïve fool who does not understand the big picture when it comes to fighting the War on Terror — but what has the Iraq War ever had to do in any conceivable way with actually fighting al-Qaeda, a group that did not even exist in that country until the U.S. invaded? It is not the Iraq War’s critics who have failed to see the big picture.

American foreign interventionism is like an abusive marriage — no matter how illogical or tragic it becomes, we always rationalize why we must stay. We went to Iraq to take care of the “threat” that Saddam had allegedly become — something, even if true, we created through years of aid and ammo to the Iraqi dictator in the 1980s. If Saddam ever had WMDs, we gave them to him. Why would we aid Hussein? As a bulwark against Iran, whom we perceived as a threat, and why? Because Iran took American hostages following their 1979 revolution in which they overthrew the Shah — a leader we installed and Iranians despised, engendering anti-American sentiment and sowing the seeds for revolution for decades. Today, the same people who thought the Iraq War was a good idea are clamoring for war with Iran. Why? Because with the overthrow of Saddam, Iran’s power and influence in the region has risen, making that country now also a “threat,” just as Dick Cheney once warned it might become.

And then there’s Afghanistan, where we fought the Taliban after 9/11, whose training and weapons came from the United States in the ’80s during the Cold War. The 1988 action movie “Rambo III,” in which Sylvester Stallone made new friends in Osama bin Laden’s social circle, ended with the following dedication: “This film is dedicated to the gallant people of Afghanistan.” Those gallant Afghans now make up the insurgency that persists in that country, where our current president is escalating troops for some vague reason, while simultaneously carrying out drone strikes in neighboring Pakistan, our supposed ally. Former Reagan official and foreign-policy critic Bruce Fein estimates that for every U.S. drone strike, 10 new insurgents are created — making the so-called War on Terror more a war for it.

That our interventionism only begets more interventionism, that our wars on terror only create more terrorists, and that virtually every military action we take in the Middle East results in further military action is the big picture that defenders of the foreign-policy status quo either cannot see or do not want us to. What do we ever “win” in the Middle East? What have we ever “won?”

Emphasis added.

Here’s an excellent op-ed in Huffpo by Gov. Gary Johnson regarding ending the war on drugs.

There were 72 bodies found on a ranch ninety miles south of the Texas border — obvious victims of a drug cartel massacre. Bullets have been hitting public buildings in El Paso, and the Washington Post is reporting that at least $20 billion a year in cash is being smuggled across the U. S. border each year. What is it going to take to convince the federal government that current drug policies are not working? The fact is that the current drug laws are contributing to an all-out war on our southern border — all in the name of a modern-day prohibition that is no more logical or realistic than the one we abandoned 75 years ago.

. . .

How are [illegal drug cartels] able to do this? Because America’s policy for nearly 70 years has been to keep marijuana — arguably no more harmful than alcohol and used by 15 million Americans every month — confined to the illicit market, meaning we’ve given criminals a virtual monopoly on something that U.S. researcher Jon Gettman estimates is a $36 billion a year industry, greater than corn and wheat combined. We have implemented laws that are not enforceable, which has thereby created a thriving black market. By denying reality and not regulating and taxing marijuana, we are fueling not only this massive illicit economy, but a war that we are clearly losing.

In short, let’s end the war on drugs because it’s stupid. I wrote about the interplay between marijuana and liberty – and championed Gov. Johnson’s common sense, liberty-first views on the mattter – a little while back.

Gov. Johnson also favors legalizing marijuana. Why? Because [] legalization of marijuana will eliminate a substantial portion of the criminal element of drug distribution, conserve human and law enforcement resources, and permit society to deal with drug abuse as a medical, not criminal, issue. More importantly, legalization of marijuana – unlike outright prohibition – is consistent with traditional American notions of liberty, the idea that we are born free to pursue happiness in the manner we see fit but may not infringe on the freedom of others. The principle that we should be free to choose – savor that phrase, Free to Choose – extends to choices that may be harmful, wasteful, or unnecessary. Motorcycles, for instance.

Legalization and common sense regulation of marijuana (e.g. no impairment and driving) is a better public policy than prohibition, and it is consistent with liberty.  Insofar as we disagree with our fellow citizens’ choices we may advocate against them. But we should not resort to government prohibition to prevent others from choosing, while establishing our choice as law. That is not limited government, and it is not freedom. Good government preserves our freedom to choose and holds us liable when the consequences of our choices adversely impact others.

For more information on Gov. Gary Johnson I heartily recommend his official facebook page, unofficial facebook page, official twitter feed, the OUR America Initiative homepage, and assorted grassroots organizations championing Gov. Gary Johnson for president.

Here’s a post I started on July 26 (the day before the California bar exam) but didn’t finish, for obvious reasons.

I’m taking the California bar exam tomorrow. And Wednesday. And Thursday. Reflecting on my experience with “higher education” I think that the fundamental problem with higher education is that rather than serving as a shortcut to gaining the skills and knowledge necessary to being productive in a particular industry it has become a prerequisite in too many industries, law included. Higher education’s economic and societal inefficiencies flow from that basic flaw.

I think short posts like this will become my norm. Rather than trying to comment on the news of the day I’ve become primarily interested in distilling key issues down to their core. I took a stab at this in July, when I wrote:

I can’t spot a difference between the legal argument against gay marriage and the now discredited argument against female suffrage. And from my view, the rationale driving the war on drugs is essentially the same rationale behind gun control. Take note, Republicans.

I’m in the process of articulating my political world view in a similar fashion to my ever-evolving manifesto on equal treatment. That should be up shortly. Until then, the Dialectical Playa has been busy. Check him out.

After nearly a year in the works, my law review article Who is Hawaiian, What Begets Federal Recognition, and How Much Blood Matters, has been published by the Asia-Pacific Law & Policy Journal. Go here to read it (caution, nearly 40,000 words inclusive of footnotes). Article abstract is below:

The Akaka bill proposes to federally recognize a Hawaiian governing entity similar to those of federally recognized Indian tribes. As the Akaka bill will institutionalize a political difference between Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, who is Hawaiian is a timely, and controversial, issue. Also controversial is whether Congress possesses the authority to federally recognize a Hawaiian governing entity. This article addresses three questions that probe the heart of the controversy surrounding the Akaka bill: who is Hawaiian, what begets federal recognition, and how much blood matters. After analyzing relevant Indian jurisprudence, this article demonstrates that political history, not indegeneity, begets federal recognition. As such, it is the political-historical, not racial, definition of Hawaiian that is legally significant to the Akaka bill. Since, however, the Akaka bill utilizes an ethnic Hawaiian blood eligibility criterion, another important question – and one Justice Breyer raised in Rice v. Cayetano – is how much blood is necessary to distinguish ideological self-identification from legitimate racial identity. To the extent racial preferences may coexist with the equal protection components of the Constitution, this article contends that a preponderance of preferred blood is the logical quantum, but a fifty percent requirement is the most practicable.

I’m back on the barstool. Here’s Gov. Gary Johnson for the uninitiated:

Gary Johnson is a father, entrepreneur, and former two-term governor of New Mexico.  As governor his common-sense business approach reduced taxes, cut spending, and consistently delivered the best government product at the lowest price to taxpayers.  He vetoed over 1000 new spending items, slashed government waste, enacted major welfare reform, and left office with a balanced budget and treasury surplus.  A staunch believer in individual liberty and limited government Gov. Johnson championed free choice initiatives such as school vouchers to foster entrepreneurship in education and provide parents of all income levels with options for their children.  Now the chairman of the OUR America Initiative Gov. Johnson travels the country advocating for a common sense business approach to federal governance premised upon significant spending cuts, a return to Constitutionally limited government, and loosening the bounds that restrain free enterprise.  This is necessary to preserve OUR America, and increase liberty and prosperity for every American.

Learn about Gov. Gary Johnson here (interview with the Reason.tv) (more Reason interview here), here (Salon article), here(three-part video of radio show interview), here (love from Kos), here (Liberty Point), here (Gov. Gary Johnson’s guide to good government), here (Gulf Coast Business Review), here (Wall Street Journal blog), here (Gov. Gary Johnson on States’ rights), here (Gov. Gary Johnson on immigration), here (Washington Examiner), here (Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish), here (Daily Caller), andhere (Gov. Gary Johnson on the war on drugs).

Finally, read about why and how to donate to the OUR America Initiative here. And if you don’t have money (or even if you do) contact me (I volunteer for Gov. Gary Johnson) to discuss setting up an event in your hometown for Gov. Gary Johnson to speak at. The dude is burning shoe leather (and bicycle tires) countrywide spreading the ideas dear to independents, moderates of both parties, and libertarian-leaning individuals. Put your time and/or money where your mouth/keyboard is and contribute to the OUR America Initiative.