Ron Paul 2008: Quest for the Vice Presidency

Posted on August 20, 2008, 4:19pm | David Weigel

Carey Campbell, chairman of the Virginia Independent Green Party, is a stand-up guy. He read yesterday's post about his effort to put Mike Bloomberg and Ron Paul on the Virginia ballot and walked up to reason world HQ (located somewhere between Mount Rushmore and the Atlantic Ocean) to chat about his plans. I've boiled our free-form talk into this Q&A.

reason: Why did you decide on these two candidates?

Campbell: Ron Paul could have had the nomination of all three of the "major minor" parties if he'd wanted them. I know that from talking to David Cobb and Pat LaMarche of the Greens, I put calls in to Bill Redpath [of the Libertarian Party], and I talked to people in the Constitution Party. He could have been the candidate. But he only had $35 million—well, $4 million now. And that wasn't enough. You'd need $500 million to make a go at this, and who has $500 million to spend? Hmmmmm. It all comes together.

reason: But you've thought of Bloomberg for a long time.

Campbell: I set up a draft organization and approached the mayor about this in 2005. We were reaching out to a number of people. We reached out to Daniel Imperato when we heard he had money. Remember, Bloomberg didn't rule out a third party run until this February.

reason: I talked to Paul's communications director yesterday, and he pointed out that, while flattering, the Bloomberg match-up was odd because Bloomberg and Paul don't agree on much.

Campbell: They agree on the most important issue: Our money. Just think of the two of them as stewards of our tax dollars.

reason: It doesn't quite make sense to me.

Campbell: It made a hell of a lot of sense to the people who signed these petitions. The reaction was nothing like anything I'd ever seen. More positive even than when I was getting signatures for Perot.

reason: What else are you doing, vis-a-vis this ticket?

Campbell: We have three weeks to get this ticket on enough ballots to access 270 electoral votes. I've talked to the Independence Party in New York. I've been talking with all three of the major minors, and what I've suggested is that they call new conventions to nominate this ticket. Bloomberg/Paul gets past the media blackout. Another way to get past that blackout, something I've suggested to Shane Cory [of the Barr campaign], is this: 50 states, 50 debates, 50 days. Stop whining about the two party debate and force the media's attention on you.

reason: I don't think that could work, logistically.

Campbell: It might be physically impossible, but it's a nice idea.

reason: But what's the end game? What do you want to be doing in November?

Campbell: On November 5, if I had my way, I'd be working on the Bloomberg/Paul transition team and being vetted for a job as national comptroller. I'm an accountant by trade, so that's what I'd be angling for. If this doesn't work, we've at least laid the groundwork for this kind of quicksilver effort to take off in four years.

Moby Drives China Over the Edge

Posted on August 20, 2008, 3:57pm | Katherine Mangu-Ward

China has been working hard to maintain a delicate balancing act of putting on a nobody-here-but-us-freedom-loving-semi-capitalists act for the Olympic tourists and athletes, while keeping its citizens inside the cone of silence. And this week they finally cracked.

iTunes is blocked in many parts of the country today. And who drove China to distraction in the end? Why Moby and Alanis Morissette, of course. Singing about the Dalai Lama (or something) on the Songs for Tibet album just released on the site. On Monday, "the US-based Campaign for Tibet organisation claimed on its website that "over 40 Olympic athletes in North America, Europe and even Beijing" had downloaded the album." As usual, China offers a hilariously illogical explanation for its hugely disproportionate response to 40 downloads via its quasi-official news site:

Angry netizens [internet users] are rallying together to denounce Apple in offering Songs for Tibet for purchase. They have also expressed a wish to ban the album's singers and producers, most notably Sting, John Mayer and Dave Matthews, from entering China.

Gee, those angry Chinese netizens, they sure have a lot of power over China's Internet policy.

Of course, maybe the regime is right to freak out. Your people get ahold of a few good tunes, and the next thing you know, you might have a Singing Revolution on your hands. 

Why Hillary Won't Be VEEP

Posted on August 20, 2008, 3:51pm | Nick Gillespie

Columnist Ron Hart totes up the reasons, including the following:

Part of Hillary's problem was her insistence on staying in the race against Obama after she was mathematically out of it. She felt that math was elitist, and because many Democrats are not good with numbers, she kept going. Unlike "American Idol," where Americans actually take their vote seriously and when you lose you have to go home immediately, the Democratic primary allows losers to linger and make life hard for those who beat you. And linger she did.

More here.

Change Amazon.com Can Believe In?

Posted on August 20, 2008, 3:16pm | Damon W. Root

GalleyCat has a great summary of the brouhaha over publishing house Chelsea Green's decision to offer Amazon.com print-on-demand coupons for its new book Obama's Challenge at the Democratic National Convention, making the book available exclusively on Amazon for a full three weeks before it hits the streets. (Full Disclosure: Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com, is a donor to Reason Foundation, the nonprofit organization that publishes this website.) As Chelsea Green president Margo Baldwin put it, "This election is too important to wait around for traditional publishing lead times." Strong words, though as Publishers Weekly reports, America's long-suffering independent booksellers see things differently. PW quotes one Hut Landon, the executive director of the Northern California Independent Booksellers Association, who chastises Chelsea Green for its "decision to exclude independent booksellers" and derides Amazon for its "purposeful decisions to avoid sales tax collection in most states" and for "sell[ing] books at a loss when it suits their purposes." Those blackguards!

But it isn't just the mom & pop shops that are upset with this nefarious scheme. The once powerful Barnes & Noble is feeling left out, too. As company spokeswoman Mary Ellen Keating told the Associated Press, "Our initial order was based on the book being available to all booksellers simultaneously—an even playing field." In retaliation, Barnes & Noble has refused to stock the book in stores. Times certainly have changed. Remember the salad days of 1998, when Meg Ryan's charming little bookstore was menaced by the Barnes & Noble stand-in run by Tom Hanks? How far the mighty have fallen.

In possibly related news, Billboard is quoting an unnamed source that says Guns & Roses' long-awaited epic, Chinese Democracy, may be released exclusively through either Wal-Mart or Best Buy. I don't know if that counts as a minus or as a plus for America's independent record shops, but there you go.

Now Playing at Reason.tv: The United States vs. John Stagliano—the obscene prosecution of a pornographer

Posted on August 20, 2008, 2:30pm

In April, the government indicted pornographer John Stagliano in a federal court in Washington, D.C. on multiple charges of obscenity for producing and distributing two fetish movies, Milk Nymphos and Storm Squirters 2: Target Practice, and a trailer for another porn collection. All appeared on his company's adult-only website, evilangel.com.

If convicted and sentenced to maximum jail time on each charge, Stagliano, one of the most popular, innovative, and award-winning XXX-rated movie kings in history, effectively faces a lifetime sentence. His next court date is scheduled for November, shortly after Election Day.

In April, reason.tv's Nick Gillespie talked with Stagliano in a candid, wide-ranging 20-minute conversation about the government's case against him and his defense strategy, the role that porn plays in the average viewer's life, how he came to his libertarian beliefs, how contracting HIV was the best thing that ever happened to him, his record of innovation in the adult-film world, and much, much more.

To listen of an audio podcast, go here.

To read a partial transcript of the interview, go here.

For related articles and websites, and to embed the video on your site, go here.

To watch the interview, click on the image below.

On the Showdown at Saddleback

Posted on August 20, 2008, 2:22pm | Michael C. Moynihan

For the purpose of promoting debate at H&R, allow me to crib a post from Andrew Sullivan, who provides an excerpt from conservative columnist Kathleen Parker's latest. I know nothing of Parker, but hers strikes me as a eminently brave (and sensible) position to take over at Townhall.com. Indeed, the site's readers have rated the column a measly two stars out of possible five. So here she is asking what seems to be a fairly obvious question regarding the Showdown at Saddleback:

"At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister -- no matter how beloved -- is supremely wrong. It is also un-American.

For the past several days, since mega-pastor Rick Warren interviewed Barack Obama and John McCain at his Saddleback Church, most political debate has focused on who won... The winner, of course, was Warren, who has managed to position himself as political arbiter in a nation founded on the separation of church and state. The loser was America...

His format and questions were interesting and the answers more revealing than the usual debate menu provides. But does it not seem just a little bit odd to have McCain and Obama chatting individually with a preacher in a public forum about their positions on evil and their relationship with Jesus Christ?"

Why yes, it does.

Rudy Can't Fail

Posted on August 20, 2008, 2:04pm | David Weigel

Seriously, he can't. After his Wile E. Coyote-worthy faceplant in the primaries—$60 million in fundraising for half as many votes as Ron Paul and zero delegates—America's Mayor is giving the GOP convention keynote.

Giuliani was close to McCain before they faced off in the GOP primary and, after his disappointing third-place finish in Florida, the former New York mayor quickly threw his support to McCain. 

Since then he’s been a frequent surrogate for McCain but has received no mention as a veep prospect. The keynote slot offers Giuliani, who is said to be considering a New York gubernatorial run in 2010, a high-profile opportunity to reestablish himself and tout McCain’s national security credentials.

Don't call it a comeback, he's been here for years. "Here" being "in the pro-choice ghetto of the GOP, trotted out for parties and then trundled back into his northeastern cave."

This news wouldn't be so interesting if it wasn't that the other people responsible for Giuliani's partial-birth abortion of a campaign were also falling upwards. His communications director?

Maria Comella, a former campaign spokeswoman for Giuliani, will serve as press secretary for John McCain’s vice presidential pick — whomever that turns out to be.

A tireless worker, Comella had the mostly thankless job of tending to the daily wants and needs of the Giuliani travelling press corp.
...
She also earned her stripes in Rudyland — where loyalty is prized above all else — by sticking around to help Giuliani even after he dropped out of the race.

His campaign manager?

ABC News has learned that Sen. John McCain's campaign has hired Mike DuHaime as political director, the first new hire by Steve Schmidt in his capacity as the person in charge of day-to-day campaign operations. ... DuHaime most recently managed the failed presidential campaign of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. DuHaime brings years of experience, organizing on behalf of Republicans at the state and local level, to the job.

Is this the Kevin Costner principle at work? Are political operators who've eaten dirt and woken up in ditches more loyal than the smug types whose campaigns didn't go all Hindenburg?

My ill-fated profile of the 9/11-centric GOP's never-dimming star is here.

Can Rising Motorcycle Fatalities Be Blamed on a Lack of Helmet Laws?

Posted on August 20, 2008, 1:21pm | Jacob Sullum

The number of fatal motorcycle accidents rose in 2007 for the 10th consecutive year, hitting 5,154, 7 percent higher than the 2006 total. Meanwhile, car fatalities fell by 8 percent and light truck fatalities fell by 3 percent, "pushing the overall death rate [for motor vehicle accidents] to a historic low," The New York Times reports. The share of motor vehicle deaths caused by motorcycle crashes has more than doubled since 1997, from 5 percent to 13 percent. Although advocates of helmet laws will be inclined to blame their repeal in several states for the rising motorcycle fatalities, the chief culprit recently seems to be higher gas prices, which have encouraged people to take advantage of motorcycles' vastly superior fuel efficiency:

Motorcycle ridership appears to be rising even as the total miles for all vehicles drops....The highway safety authorities say that about 75 percent more motorcycles are registered today than 10 years ago. They suspect each motorcycle is ridden more miles, but the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says it does not have a reliable measurement of use.

The lack of such data makes it difficult to tell how much of an increase in fatalities following repeal of a helmet law results from less helmet wearing and how much results from more riding. The Times avers that "ridership has probably become more dangerous mile for mile," but without reliable information on miles ridden, it's impossible to know for sure. Assuming the Times is right, less helmet wearing is not the only explanation:  

Safety officials say many of the [newer] riders are middle-age or older men who rode when they were young, gave it up as they raised children and have recently gone back to the bike. "They think they still have the same reflexes," said James Port, the safety agency's deputy administrator.

Motorcycle riding is inherently dangerous. While wearing a helmet reduces the risk of certain injuries, research suggests the overall impact on fatalities is modest. The unimpressive numbers are one reason motorcyclists have been so successful at defending their right to decide what, if anything, to wear on their heads. "We are the only industrialized country in the world where there is an organized effort to weaken or repeal motorcycle helmet laws," complains Russ Rader of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Is that a sign of backwardness or a point of pride?

Milk Cow Blues

Posted on August 20, 2008, 1:18pm | Jesse Walker

John Schwenkler pens a detailed exposé of the government's war on raw milk. An excerpt:

[O]nce the fallacy in this initial rationale was pointed out, the [California Department of Food and Agriculture] was ready with plenty of other justifications for the new standard. It was, they suggested, a matter of public safety. But when raw milk advocates argued that coliform bacteria are not themselves a health threat and that raw milk dairies were already subject to extensive pathogen testing, this justification was abandoned. Instead, the CDFA claimed that, given the growing public concern over food safety, the new regulations were really being put in place for the good of the industry. (How Claravale, which had just spent 11 years and a million dollars building a new dairy to improve their product and help conform with the state's preexisting regulations, was going to be "helped" by AB 1735 is anyone's guess.)

That last rationale actually makes sense, if "the good of the industry" is code for "the good of the biggest companies in the marketplace":

In the midst of all this controversy, California's "conventional" dairy producers--whose representatives have donated an average of just under $300,000 a year in the last five election cycles--have been strikingly silent. Ron Garthwaite argues that we should not take this at face value: "Big corporate dairy" has indeed been a factor in the controversy--but as a behind-the-scenes force aiding those who are against raw milk. Its representatives have been pushing legislation like AB 1735, and "spending lots of time and money" to do so....

This sort of cozy relationship between regulating government and regulated industry is not uncommon, and its results are not always a loosening of the regulatory bonds. Lawrence Busch, director of the Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards at Michigan State University, explains that regulatory standards are often manipulated to key constituents' ends. Busch points to the recent push by large juice manufacturers for laws requiring the pasteurization of juice--a demand which, he says, would make "lots of small cider producers, among others, incur considerable extra costs." By taking a practice that they already have in place, or a standard they've already managed to meet, and making it mandatory across the board in the name of industry uniformity or public health, established corporations can use their political influence to put their rivals at a competitive disadvantage.

[Via Rod Dreher.]

The Loser Now is Later to Win

Posted on August 20, 2008, 12:11pm | David Weigel

For the first time since he locked up the nomination, Barack Obama has dipped to a tie with John McCain on the electoral map and to a deficit in some of the national polls. Tell us why, John Zogby.

The reversal follows a month of attacks by McCain, who has questioned Obama's experience, criticized his opposition to most new offshore oil drilling and mocked his overseas trip. The poll was taken Thursday through Saturday as Obama wrapped up a weeklong vacation in Hawaii that ceded the political spotlight to McCain, who seized on Russia's invasion of Georgia to emphasize his foreign policy views. "There is no doubt the campaign to discredit Obama is paying off for McCain right now," pollster John Zogby said. "This is a significant ebb for Obama."

The dynamic of the race now is summed up by the usual batch of oddly sexual verbs: McCain is "pounding" or "hammering" or "drilling down" on Obama, while Obama is flustered and defensive. But I try to pay more attention to the ads and messaging in swing states than the groaning of cable news, and there, Obama has been running negative ads on McCain. Here's one. Here's another. Hey, here's another. If you live in, say, Ohio, you're seeing this stuff as often as you see McCain's latest claim that Obama's a celebrity who wants to send tax collectors to put a ball gag in your mouth and lock you in the basement.

But that's just it! Not only are McCain's attacks all about character and weakness; Obama's responses basically validate them. That guy says I've got ladyparts and I hate America and want to raise taxes: In fact, I want to cut some taxes and raise others! Obama, accused of being a wimp, waves his calculator.

What could Obama do, though? There's a character case to make against McCain, whose shifting issue positions and bloated sense of self-importance are almost Obama-like. But every attack on McCain's character comes up against the iron wall of his POW days. This is the irony of that weird meme of a few weeks back that Obama "couldn't take a joke" (after that New Yorker cartoon portraying him as a terrorist): It's McCain who can't be mocked without holy hell unleashing. When the host of one of the Sunday shows accusing a guest of "questioning McCain's integrity" for pointing out that he's changed positions, you've got a problem. The Clintons are/were better aggressive campaigners, but how would the sleaze and naked ambition of that family be matching up against this? The only hope the Democrats ever had of making this easy was a Mitt Romney nomination. That guy made Thomas Beatie look like John Holmes.

Also: Democrats had better hope Zogby's up to his usual accuracy standard. If McCain leads on the economy, as he does here, there's not really any fjord Obama can paddle through to get to the White House.

When Does a 'Slave' Become a Slave?

Posted on August 20, 2008, 11:38am | Jacob Sullum

The first time Jodi met Glenn Marcus, he whipped her and used a knife to carve the word slave on her stomach. During the next five years she kept coming back for more, engaging in BDSM sessions with him that included handcuffing, branding, whipping, and choking. Marcus posted photographs of the sessions on his website, which also featured Jodi's diary entries. In October 1999, she testified, she had "a moment of clarity," and from then on her relationship with Marcus was nonconsensual. Yet she continued to meet with him periodically for four more years, moving from the Midwest to Maryland and later to New York City at his behest. She also worked on his website. She said Marcus at one point told her he would show her pictures to her family and the news media if she left him. She also claimed that she overheard Marcus threaten to harm the family of Joanna, another BDSM partner.

Given the nature of the relationship and Jodi's decision to continue it for years after it supposedly became nonconsensual, there seems to be plenty of room for reasonable doubt that anything Marcus did violated her rights. But as Brian Doherty noted in March 2007, a federal jury convicted Marcus of violating the "sex trafficking" and "forced labor" provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). In September he received a nine-year prison sentence. Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit overturned (PDF) the convictions, noting that the TVPA was enacted in October 2000, while the actions by Marcus that prosecutors claimed violated the statute occurred between January 1999 and October 2001. The judge failed to instruct the jury that Marcus could not be held liable for violating a law that did not exist. Since it was possible that Marcus was convicted based on his conduct before the TVPA was enacted, the 2nd Circuit said, "the convictions violate the Ex Post Facto Clause."

Marcus can be tried again, based on his post-TVPA conduct. And given the difficulty that the first jury had in distinguishing between a BDSM "slave" and an actual slave, he may well be convicted again.

Phoenix New Times Under Fire for Kiddie Pics

Posted on August 20, 2008, 11:22am | Mike Riggs

Contrary to the normal dynamic of alternative weeklies antagonizing cops, the Phoenix New Times is defending its decision—in the face of another police investigation—to run nude pictures of staff photographer Betsy Schneider's kids:

The Phoenix Police Department is looking into whether it should open a criminal child pornography investigation into photographs shot by a Tempe artist and published last week by a Valley newspaper.

Experts in the department's sex crimes unit have asked for the opinions of city, county and state prosecutors on whether artist Betsy Schneider or the Phoenix New Times newspaper violated any laws by showing artistic, nude photographs of Schneider's children in print and online, Phoenix police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill said Monday.

The photographs accompanied a story written by New Times editor Amy Silverman about how Schneider's work pushes the envelope of cultural acceptance.

The artist's work includes numerous photographs of Schneider's children in various states of dress. In some, the children are wearing no clothes at all....

Barnett Lotstein, a spokesman for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, acknowledged that the office has been contacted by Phoenix police and is looking at the issue closely.

"It concerned me," Lotstein said. "It concerned people in this office that maybe there was some exploitation of children going on."...

Lotstein, who called the photographs published last week "very disturbing," emphasized that there was no investigation on his office's end.

However, Lotstein added, "There's not a blank slate on free speech."

Overkill? Unquestionably. Broadening the definition of child pornography to include artistic nude photographs of one's children is itself an act of perversion. The PPD is wasting its own resources as well as the wellspring of public outrage—both of which serve a purpose in cases of genuine child pornography—in its quest to bully an artist, who is also a parent, into compartmentalizing her two identities for the sake of propriety. (Not to mention that Schneider's photography is hardly cause for worry—unless of course, you find contortionists distasteful.)

A successful case against the Phoenix New Times, or Schneider, would likely resonate with alternative weeklies everywhere, as no publication pushes the obscenity envelope quite like my favorite hometown, sex-worker-accomodatin' rag, the Orlando Weekly. If the New Times has anything going for it (besides, you know, the First Amendment, artistic integrity, and clear evidence that Phoenix cops are out for revenge) it's that the paper knows its way through the Arizona court system. My guess/hope is that the investigation will end with no more than a staunch finger wag. 

Radley Balko blogged about the ongoing battle between the forces of light (Phoenix New Times) and darkness (Sheriff Joe Arpaio) here.

Tracking Your Movements

Posted on August 20, 2008, 9:57am | Matt Welch

More evidence that our kids will not believe there ever was a time you could board an international flight with a one-way ticket (or any ticket at all) without attracting suspicion or having your vital information entered, for between 15 and 75 years, on a government database:

The federal government has been using its system of border checkpoints to greatly expand a database on travelers entering the country by collecting information on all U.S. citizens crossing by land, compiling data that will be stored for 15 years and may be used in criminal and intelligence investigations. [...]

While international air passenger data has long been captured this way, Customs and Border Protection agents only this year began to log the arrivals of all U.S. citizens across land borders, through which about three-quarters of border entries occur.

The volume of people entering the country by land prevented compiling such a database until recently. But the advent of machine-readable identification documents, which the government mandates eventually for everyone crossing the border, has made gathering the information more feasible. By June, all travelers crossing land borders will need to present a machine-readable document, such as a passport or a driver's license with a radio frequency identification chip.

Whole Washington Post story here.

FCC Continues Assaults on Cable; To Invade Poland by End of Year

Posted on August 20, 2008, 8:36am | Nick Gillespie

From The Wash Times, comments from Federal Communciations Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin, more evidence that the agency is pushing like Germany into Poland for more real estate to regulate:

"Today, consumers pay double what they paid less than a decade ago and they have fewer choices, not more, and they have to buy a bigger and bigger bundle of services if they want to get anything," Mr. Martin told editors and reporters at The Washington Times on Tuesday. "If you want to buy the Discovery Channel for your children, you have to buy a package that includes a whole bunch of channels that you don't want."

Why is he talking about cable in the first place? And why has he been pushing this stat: "Cable channels have doubled, but the average number of channels that subscribers watch has increased only from 13 to 15"?

Because Martin wants to force cable companies to offer so-called a la carte pricing, in which operators would have to offer single channels for sale. A coupla-three years ago, Tim Cavanaugh explained why de-bundling channels would hurt the Mother Angelicas of the world—the oddball small channels that pull devoted but tiny audiences only their all-forgiving God (and cable operators desperate to offer whatever might pull in an additional viewer at marginal costs) could love. His back-of-the-envelope calculations convincingly show that there's no way that the chintziest a la carte menu wouldn't cost at least the same as most basic cable packages, which offer dozens of channels (plus music).

Indeed, there's no evidence that a la carte pricing would reduce the price to the average consumer (who can always skip or de-program offending fare to begin with), but it would help get the FCC more in the mix of what's on the cable-fed tube. The agency is already trying to push its "fleeting indecency" rule on broadcast TV and radio and it's no secret that Martin would like to extend content regulation to cable and satellite services. Indeed, whenever Martin, or other FCC folks start talking, it's worth remembering that the nanny-state impulse runs through them like child-molester jokes did through last night's Comedy Central roast of Full House star Bob Saget. Here's a money quote from Martin a couple of years ago that should be remembered always:

"You can always turn the television off and, of course, block the channels you don't want. But why should you have to?"

I really don't want a guy who thinks like that making any decisions for me.

New at Reason: Jacob Sullum on Mandatory Calorie Counts

Posted on August 20, 2008, 7:00am

In his latest column, Senior Editor Jacob Sullum explains how menu labeling laws have crossed the line between informing and nagging.

Read all about it here. 

You Can Buy Wine Online—As Long As You Can Be There in Person

Posted on August 19, 2008, 8:16pm | Jacob Sullum

In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned restrictions on wine sales that discriminated against out-of-state vintners. Since then (and before then too), liquor wholesalers have sought to protect their government-granted privileges by portraying direct shipment of boutique wines as the average teenager's favorite way to catch a buzz. In Indiana, for instance, preventing underage alcohol purchases is the rationale for a requirement that any consumer seeking to have wine delivered directly to his home must first have a "face-to-face meeting" with the producer, which is not exactly convenient if you live in Indianapolis and your favorite winery is in California or Oregon. Several Indiana consumers challenged this rule, arguing that it puts out-of-state wineries at a disadvantage.

In a decision (PDF) issued a couple of weeks ago, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit disagreed. Although visiting one California winery might be more difficult for a Hoosier than visiting one Indiana winery, Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, "Many oenophiles vacation in wine country, and on a tour through Napa Valley to sample the vintners' wares a person could sign up for direct shipments from dozens of wineries." By contrast, "Wine tourism in Indiana is less common, and the state's vineyards—which altogether have fewer than 350 acres under cultivation—are scattered around the state, making it hard for anyone to sign up at more than a few of Indiana's wineries."

Easterbrook likewise was not impressed by the argument that requiring an adult's signature upon delivery and/or online verification of age would be at least as effective at preventing sales to teenagers as requiring face-to-face contact between buyer and seller. Nor does it matter, he said, that teenagers have plenty of other ways to obtain alcohol that do not involve paying premium wine prices and waiting a week or two for delivery. "It is important to remember that we are dealing with effects on the margin," he wrote. "Make it easier for minors to get wine by phone or Internet, and sales to minors will increase."

Although the court left the face-to-face requirement intact, it did overturn a rule barring any winery that sells directly to retailers in other states (thereby acting as "its own wholesaler") from shipping wine to consumers in Indiana. "The statute is neutral in terms," Easterbrook noted, "but in effect it forbids interstate shipments direct to Indiana's consumers, while allowing intrastate shipments."

In short, Indiana oenophiles who find the selection offered by local retailers inadequate may now enjoy the convenience of having any wine they like shipped directly to their homes, as long as they're willing to travel across the country for the privilege.

[Thanks to Nicolas Martin for the tip.]

Draft Pigasus!

Posted on August 19, 2008, 4:00pm | David Weigel

Back in May reason hosted a forum on libertarian politics with Libertarian Party presidential candidates Bob Barr, Wayne Root, and Mike Gravel, and Republican congressional candidate Vern McKinley. As we were setting up our cameras, a dapper middle-aged man named Carey Campbell walked in and introduced himself as the chairman of the Virginia Independent Green Party.

"Of course!" I said. "You nominated Gail Parker for Senate in 2006."


"Oh, let me tell you what we're doing this year!" Campbell said. The party was gathering signatures for a Mike Bloomberg/Ron Paul ticket, a natural fit for Campbell, who led (leads, I guess) the Committee to Draft Michael Bloomberg. I didn't know what would come of it, but lo and behold:

Late last week, "Indy Greens" Chairman Carey Campbell got word from the Virginia state Board of Elections that his minor party's petition drive to get Bloomberg on the ballot had been successful.

"Yes, it's true," an exuberant Campbell declared. "In eight months and 15 days, we collected over 70,000 signatures. Right now, we're the only state in the nation that has Michael Bloomberg on the ballot for President."

Seventy thousand signatures is a lot: Seven times what you need to get on the ballot, actually. (And you need to collect at least 500 from each congressional district.) The IGs burned a lot of gasoline doing this, but they're on a mission. (Over there on the right is a picture of Parker with Bloomberg in New York.)

I called up Paul spokesman Jesse Benton and asked what Paul thought of the scheme. "We were just talking about it," Benton said. "He thinks it's kind of neat that libertarian message has crossover appeal. Obviously there's not much Ron has in common with the mayor, so it's a bit of a publicity stunt. But they wouldn't have thought of him as a candidate if his name didn't have some pull."

Paul will not challenge his ballot status. "We're not going to take any action to get his name off," Benton said, "but at the same time we're not encouraging it." Does Paul have any common ground with the mayor who brought you the smoking ban? "As a fan of Michael Bloomberg's news network, Ron recognizes they have a lot of differences on monetary policy and the size of government."

So, yes, it's a stunt. I tend to think any minimal Bloomberg vote will hurt McCain, since the election's being framed day by day as a choice between Obama and not-Obama. And it's not like anyone who'd vote for a Bloomberg stunt candidacy will know about his issue stances, which place him a little closer to the Democrat.

California's Egg Shortage

Posted on August 19, 2008, 3:19pm | Kerry Howley

In 2004 California passed Proposition 71, allocating $3 billion to stem cell research. The same measure banned compensation for women who would provide raw materials for said research. Thus:

Facing a human egg shortage they say is preventing medical breakthroughs, scientists and biotech entrepreneurs are pushing the country's top funders of stem cell research to rethink rules that prohibit paying women for eggs.

"You need to have enough eggs to make this thing work, and when you have enough eggs it does work," said Dr. Sam Wood, chief executive of Stemagen Corp. in La Jolla (San Diego County).

The restrictions are necessary, supporters say, to avoid creating a market for human eggs that encourages women to risk their health for speculative science.

But last month, the California institute's new president, Dr. Alan Trounson, said research into therapeutic cloning was "floundering" because too few eggs are available.

The risk of death from egg donation appears to be less than that of pregnancy. Even the small numbers we have (between 1 fatality per 50,000 cycles and 1 fatality per 450,000 cycles) are probably exaggerated, since most people who experience serious complications are pregnant women who have had their own eggs removed and implanted. It's difficult to disentangle the effects of the retrieval from those of the pregnancy itself. 

But let's say the risks of egg vending are found to be unacceptably high by some mysterious calculus of female danger. The authors of Prop 71 apparently believe that it is all right for women to take this extremely serious risk; it's simply unacceptable to compensate young women for putting themselves in harm's way. They're quite welcome to "risk their health for speculative science" so long as they do so out of feminine self-sacrifice. (Money would just confuse them, the poor dears.) I'm still waiting for someone to demand that we stop paying American soldiers to avoid creating a market that encourages men to risk their health for highly speculative military initiatives.  

Retreat from Gori, Skirmish in Poti

Posted on August 19, 2008, 3:07pm | Michael C. Moynihan

Russian tanks are retreating from Gori, but have taken prisoners and commandeered American military equipment in the occupied port city of Poti. The AP reports:

Russian soldiers took about 20 Georgians in military uniform prisoner at a key Black Sea port in western Georgia on Tuesday, blindfolding them and holding them at gunpoint, and commandeered American Humvees awaiting shipment back to the United States.

The move came as a small column of Russian tanks and armored vehicles left the strategic city of Gori in the first sign of a Russian pullback of troops from Georgia after a cease-fire intended to end fighting that reignited Cold War tensions.

The two countries on Tuesday also exchanged prisoners. However, Russian soldiers also seized Georgians in Poti - the country's key oil port city - and commandeered four U.S. Humvees that had been used in U.S.-Georgian military exercises.

It was the latest example of Russia still demonstrating its military prowess, leaving Georgians to wonder if Russia planned an extended military occupation or was still inflicting punishment before adhering to a promised troop withdrawal.

The Columbia Journalism Review expands on a theme I mentioned last week—the "tremendous failure on the part of the blogosphere" (CJR's words) to provide unique coverage of the Georgia conflict.

Reason Writers Around Town: Ron Bailey on Hyping Health Risks

Posted on August 19, 2008, 3:00pm

At The Wall Street Journal, Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey looks at how activists, regulators, and scientists distort or magnify minuscule environmental risks.

Read all about it here.

Newt Gingrich: Inflate Your Tires, Inflate Big Oil's Profits?

Posted on August 19, 2008, 1:46pm | Ronald Bailey

Former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich told Sean Hannity that Barack Obama's suggestion that properly inflated tires save gas will actually put more money in the pockets of greedy oil companies. First, who knew that Gingrich was an enemy of Big Oil?

Gingrich's information is impeccably sourced to an email from a former military officer who apparently asserted that the profit margins on air pumps are higher than those at gas pumps. As the highly partisan folks at Think Progress point out, gas station owners rather than Chevron-Texaco, BP, Exxon Mobil or Shell garner any profits from air pumps. So Gingrich is now evidently against small retailers. 

In any case, how much gasoline might one save by properly inflating one's tires? Information varies. The folks at the consumer auto rating site, Edmunds.com, ran some tests and found only a modest improvement in gas mileage. Popular Mechanics cites U.S. Department of Energy figures that suggest that underinflated tires cost about 3.3 percent on fuel economy. PM further notes: 

Will maintaining proper tire pressures make a huge difference in the enormous amount of oil we import? No. But it can make a dent, albeit a very small one. According to the Department of Energy, underinflated tires alone cost the country more than 1.25 billion gal. of gasoline annually—roughly 1 percent of the total consumption of 142 billion gal. According to the Annual Energy Outlook 2007, published by the Energy Information Administration, offshore drilling would increase domestic production of crude oil by only about 1 percent. 

We opened this discussion with Sen. Obama's assertion that we can offset the need to reopen offshore drilling—and save money at the pump—by keeping our tires inflated properly. He's right, although he's ignoring the potential for making a serious dent in natural gas production rates.

Finally, inflating versus drilling is a false partisan dichotomy. Why not do both?