Reason announces winners. Runner up above:
[T]he invocation of the popular Where's Waldo? series forces the viewer to ask Where's Mohammed?, and to begin a hunt for a figure in the midst of an overstuffed scene. One assumes the black-robed character in the upper right-hand quadrant of the image is our quarry, but then what does it mean to confer on a small dot any significance whatsoever?
Contra Robert George, Damon Root defends Paul and makes the Libertarian case against segregation:
It’s…important to acknowledge that economic rights are not in some inherent conflict with civil rights. In fact, we have significant historical evidence showing that legally enforced property rights (and other forms of economic liberty) actually undermined the Jim Crow regime. Most famously, the NAACP won its first Supreme Court victory in 1917 by arguing that a residential segregation law was a racist interference with property rights under the 14th Amendment.
Finally, keep in mind that Plessy v. Ferguson, the notorious 1896 Supreme Court decision that enshrined “separate but equal” into law and become a symbol of the Jim Crow era, dealt with a Louisiana law that forbid railroad companies from selling first-class tickets to blacks. That’s not a market failure, it’s a racist government assault on economic liberty.
Very few things are as antithetical to freedom as government-enforced segregation. What's tragic about the arc of American conservatism is that it could have retained a Lincolnian long-term defense of freedom as a way to condemn both Jim Crow and affirmative action … until Nixon's cunning and Reagan's opportunity muddied the cultural waters. Now, conservatism is almost defined by Southern identity and regrets. As I said: tragic. And, whatever he meant to say, Rand Paul has just made it worse.
Seoul, South Korea, 6.45 pm
Not just Rasmussen.
At some point, they'll have to offer a minimal version of what they'd do, right? Or no? Is their cynicism and opportunism that great that they can continue to run against spending and yet refuse to outline what spending they will cut? They once backed a binding debt-commission; then refused to sign onto a non-binding one.
I saw one sliver of hope in Chris Christie's tough budget-slashing in New Jersey. But then this:
On a day marked by high drama and partisan brinkmanship, the Democrat-controlled Legislature passed measures that would enact an income tax surcharge on residents who earn over $1 million a year and use that money to restore rebates and other programs for seniors and the disabled. Within minutes, Republican Christie vetoed the bills, daring his political adversaries to corral the supermajorities needed to enact the tax through overrides.
Maybe it would be better if this revenue simply went to paying down the debt. But this aversion to all taxes, even on those earning over $1 million a year, seems utterly unhinged to me. In an ideal world, of course, we'd rather not. But with the debt we are facing? If the Republican mantra is no tax hikes ever – and outright opposition to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts – then there will be no deficit deal, no chance of debt reduction, and pure political posturing.
And it will be primarily because of Republican extremism, not Democratic intransigence.
Michael Wolff is loving the Eliot Spitzer comeback.
They get the maximum: 14 years of hard labor:
The BBC's Raphael Tenthani in Blantyre says Monjeza, who is unemployed, broke down in tears while Chimbalanga remained calm. … Some shouted abuse as the couple were taken back to jail. There were shouts of "You got what you deserve!" and "Fourteen years is not enough, they should get 50!"
The White House condemns the ruling. Dan Savage begins a campaign to cut off aid to Malawi. The whole thing is a reminder to me of the scale of oppression that the overwhelming majority of gay people still experience on this planet. In the West, we have great arguments about what equality means, priorities among reforms, what the limits of outing are, and the complex nature of human sexuality. For many gay people elsewhere, it is a triumph to stay alive, just as it has been for centuries, let alone find a love that can sustain you through your life.
Friedersdorf counters Ezra Klein.
The Onion gets a hold of Palin's speaking demands.
A reader writes:
Your dispassionate discussion of the Civil Rights Act in terms of libertarianism is cogent and well-argued, but it misses an important point about Rand Paul’s position on the issue of letting restaurants and the like discriminate in this day and time: it’s revolting. It doesn’t add anything to the national conversation; it merely sends out dog whistles to the Tea Partiers who say they’re going to “take their country back.” And we know who they think took it: this black man from Kenya. And once it becomes widely known where Paul stands, it will only inflame people on the other side of the question.
Another writes:
There are no purely intellectual positions for people who wish to be elected to government office. The consequences of their philosophies must be their responsibility. Balancing intellectual ideals with the reality of human action is what we expect from our leaders.
That's one reason I didn't go into politics. Another:
Rand Paul's defense of discrimination in the cause of "Liberty" would have been defensible in 1865, when it was very much an open question as to whether "freedom" would result in less racial discrimination. But 145 years later it is completely knowable that this approach in fact led to anything but.
The Dish 