Today's "Fifth of November" research link: Voluntaryist

After a surgically induced hiatus, Ben and Joel return and welcome their friend Rick Henderson, managing editor of The John Locke Foundation's Carolina Journal.

Topics covered in this podcast:

• What is with Ben's squirrel obsession?
• What are the flaws with President Obama's jobs plans?
• What can a liberal like about the plan?
• Why isn't the Fed doing more to push job creation?
• Is unemployment or inflation a bigger threat to the economy?
• What's the conservative plan for fixing the economy?
• Can the Supercommittee save us?
• Is AttackWatch.com a sign of Nixonian Big Brother paranoia on the part of the Obama Administration?
• Or is it simple political discourse in the 21st century?
• Are fact-checking operations really checking facts?
• Are liberals ready to join the Ralph Nader bandwagon?
• Have you ever voted for a presidential candidate with unalloyed joy?

The music of R.E.M. is heard in this podcast:

• "What's the Frequency Kenneth?"
• "Man on the Moon"
• "The Sidewinder Sleeps Tonight"
• "Stand"
• "Everybody Hurts"
• "Losing My Religion"

The podcast returns after a summer of discontent. Joining Ben for this edition is Ted Nordhaus, chairman and co-founder with Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute, "a paradigm-shifting think tank" founded in Oakland in 2003 with the goal of "modernizing liberal thought for the 21st Century."

Nordhaus and Shellenberger are co-authors of "Break through: Why We Can't Leave Saving the Planet to Environmentalists," published 2007 and winner of the 2008 Green Book Award.

And most recently, Nordhaus and Shellenberger have launched the Breakthrough Journal, a new quarterly founded shortly after the death of Daniel Bell. The journal embraces Bell's view that, "A new public philosophy will have to be created in order that something we recognize as a liberal society may survive."

Joel was preparing for Hurricane Irene and was unable to join us for this episode.

(Also... "breakthroughing"? Obviously, it should be "breaking through." That's what a lousy two cups of coffee at 8:00 a.m. on a Saturday gets you!)

Among the questions we discuss:
• What does a 21st century liberalism look like?
• Should liberals rethink the "entitlement state"?
• Why do some environmentalists say one thing about renewable energy and do another?
• Can $500 billion buy a green economy?
• What sort of innovation should the United States pursue?
• What's the matter with cap and trade?
• Do conservatives and liberals have anything to talk about?
• And more!

Music heard in this podcast:
• "Break On Through," DJ Disse
• "Bein' Green," Andrew Bird
• "Electric Uncle Sam," Primus
• "To the Left, To the Right," T Model Ford
• "Riders On The Storm / Pink Solidism," Yonderboi

Programming note: We've changed the way we identify the episodes. This episode of "The Ben and Joel Podcast" is Vol. 4, No. 5. You might be wondering, whatever happened with Vol. 4, No. 1? It's a mystery, not unlike Stonehenge or double rainbows.

Jacob S. HackerBen and Joel return with the second episode of a planned series on inequality in the United States. (Listen to part one here.) Over the next several months, Ben and Joel will discuss the problem of income and social inequality with some of the nation's leading thinkers, economists, political scientists and journalists.

(Read Joel's companion blog series on inequality at Cup o' Joel.)

In this episode, Ben and Joel interview Jacob S. Hacker, the Stanley B. Resor Professor of Political Science at Yale University, and co-author with Paul Pierson of "Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class" (Simon & Schuster).

Among the questions we discuss:

• What does inequality look like in the 21st century? How are the rich getting richer?
• Does inequality really matter in the United States?
• How far does raising taxes on the rich get us? What's an appropriate rate?
• Are Democrats to blame for inequality?
• Can America ever get back to the more equal distribution of wealth it saw in the 1950s?
• Is the welfare state too big? Too small?
• And much, much more!

Music heard in this podcast:

• "Winner Take All," Geraldine Hunt
• "Wealth Won't Save Your Soul," Solomon Burke
• "Capitalism," Eastenders
• "Taxman," Soulive
• "Big Money," Rush

Programming note: We've changed the way we identify the episodes. This episode of "The Ben and Joel Podcast" is Vol. 4, No. 4. You might be wondering, whatever happened with Vol. 4, No. 1? "Shut up," Ben explained.

William VoegeliWith this edition of the podcast, Ben and Joel launch the first of an ongoing series on inequality in the United States. Over the next several months, Ben and Joel will discuss the problem of income and social inequality with some of the nation's leading thinkers, economists, political scientists and journalists.

(Read Joel's companion blog series on inequality at Cup o' Joel.)

Kicking off the series with Ben and Joel is William Voegeli, a senior editor at the Claremont Review of Books and author of "Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State" (Encounter Books).

Among the questions we discuss:

• Is it true that America's welfare state is really limitless? Do the protests in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and elsewhere suggest that there are limits?
• How much government are Americans willing to pay for?
• What is liberalism's guiding principal, if any? Is liberalism an "ad hoc-racy"?
• How does conservatism identify and solve social problems?
• Is true income equality possible? Is it desirable?
• Is there a way to "turn the social policy dials" to correct social ills?
• Does California prove the limits of the "welfare state"? Can Jerry Brown save it?
• And much, much more!

Music heard in this podcast:

• "I'm Payin' Taxes, What Am I Buyin'?," Fred Wesley & The J.B.s
• "I'd Love to Change the World," Ten Years After
• "Bring It Home," The Bamboos
• "The Trees," Rush
• "New World Man," Rush
• "Damn Right, I Am Somebody," The J.B.s

Programming note: We've changed the way we identify the episodes. This episode of "The Ben and Joel Podcast" is Vol. 4, No. 3. You might be wondering, where is Vol. 4, No. 1? We're still editing it. Next ep! Promise!

The podcast returns with a vengeance, as Ben and Joel explore the mysteries of natural law and constitutional interpretation with Hadley P. Arkes, the Edward Ney Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College and author most recently of "Constitutional Illusions and Anchoring Truths" (Cambridge University Press). Ben and Joel asked Prof. Arkes to discuss the Supreme Court's decision last week in Snyder v. Phelps, the military funerals case involving the "Rev." Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church congregation. But in order to get to the Phelps case, we needed to establish a few first principles.Hadley P. Arkes

Arkes writes about the Phelps case at First Things on Wednesday. His discussion with us is a spirited elaboration on the subject. (And for earlier commentary by Ben and Joel, see here, here and here.) If you know nothing about natural law, this interview is for you. If you think you understand the current scholarship on natural law, you really should listen. And if you're already a fan of Hadley Arkes' writing, this interview will be a treat.

Among the questions we discuss:

• What are some constitutional illusions and what are the anchoring truths from which judges have become unmoored?
• Should the natural law have any bearing on our understanding of the Constitution?
• Is natural law just a secular gloss on a theistic understanding of the world?
• Would the natural law condone homosexual marriage in 50 years?
• What did the Supreme Court get wrong in the Snyder v. Phelps case?
• How should Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire inform our understanding of the Phelps case? (For a different take, listen to Ben and Joel's interview with University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone.)
• Should the law ban offensive language?
• What do Fred Phelps and Mark Steyn have in common? (The answer may surprise you!)
• And much more!

Music heard in this podcast:

• "Natural Science," Rush
• "Freewill," Rush
• "Also Sprach Zarathustra," Shawn Lee
• "The Rev. Fred Phelps is a Horrible Person," HedCas
• "Witch Hunt," Rush

Programming note: We're changing the way we identify the episodes. This episode of "The Ben and Joel Podcast" is Vol. 4, No. 2. You might be wondering, where is Vol. 4, No. 1? We haven't posted it yet.

Ben and Joel are joined by a stellar panel to discuss the books they would give as gifts this Christmas. Guests in this episode include Rick Henderson, editor of the John Locke Foundation's Carolina Journal; Pia Lopez, editorial writer for the Sacramento Bee (and Ben's weekly sparring partner in the Bee's "Head to Head" column, where they discussed books on Dec. 8); and Sam Karnick, editor of The American Culture and director of research at The Heartland Institute.

Music heard in this podcast:

• "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," Joseph Spence
• "Gabriel's Message," Sting
• "Little Drummer Boy," Los Straitjackets
• "O Little Town of Bethlehem," Shawn Lee's Ping Pong Orchestra
• "Must Be Santa," Bob Dylan
• "A Holly Jolly Christmas," Burl Ives

Books discussed in this podcast:

Some of my favorite records are collections of out-takes, b-sides, and other tracks that never quite made it onto albums. When carelessly curated (I'm looking at YOU, Anthology I, II, and III) they do little more gather cutting-room floor material for completists. But when assembled with care (or sometimes just luck) they can reveal something about an artist that their carefully-cultivated albums fail to. And since I haven't created a "Five Perfect" post in several years, I thought this would be a good time.

1. Robyn Hitchcock - Invisible Hitchcock
2. R. E. M. - Dead Letter Office
3. The Velvet Underground - V.U.
4. The Jesus and Mary Chain - Barbed Wire Kisses
5. New Order - Substance (disc two)

Honorable mentions: Black Market Clash, Still In Hollywood, side two of the cassette of Standing on a Beach, Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death, and Tom Waits' three-disc Orphans collection.

Daniel Okrent, the author of "Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition" joins the podcast to talk about the book -- and about his stint as the first "public editor" of the New York Times. He'll speak at the National Constitution Center on Monday night in Philadelphia; see the center's website for details.

Questions considered in this podcast:

• How did Prohibition happen in the first place?
• What was the role of race and gender in moving the movement forward?
• What lingering effects has Prohibition had on popular culture?
• What lingering effects has Prohibition had on our drinking culture?
• What's the relationship between taxes and Prohibition?
• What lessons can we learn from the last century about marijuana prohibition?
• Is the New York Times doing the right thing by publishing the WikiLeaks revelations?
• How has the Public Editor role at the Times evolved since Okrent originated it?

Music heard in this podcast:

• "I Drink Alone," George Thorogood and the Destroyers
• "Whiskey You're The Devil," The Clancy Brothers
• "Drinking Song From Hawaii," Andy Iona's Novelty Four
• "Little Brother," Grizzly Bear
• "The Drinking Song From De Fledermaus," The Blazers

TSA administrator John Pistole is making vague noises about backing down from the invasive security measures his agency is undertaking at the nation's airports. While we wait to see if those noises turn into action on this Thanksgiving holiday travel week, I decided to talk to the person I know who travels more than any other: My dad.

David Mathis is the senior vice president for sales and marketing at Golden Heritage Foods, located in my hometown of Hillsboro, Kan. He gets on a plane a couple of dozen times a year -- something he's been doing for, well, a couple of dozen decades now. And he's not all that bothered by the TSA's procedures. Weirdly, he agreed to let me interview him about this. Take a listen.

Back in August, the Economist apologized to President Obama for doubting the wisdom and efficacy of the General Motors bailout.

Many people thought this bail-out (and a smaller one involving Chrysler, an even sicker firm) unwise. Governments have historically been lousy stewards of industry. Lovers of free markets (including The Economist) feared that Mr Obama might use GM as a political tool

. . .

Yet the doomsayers were wrong. Unlike, say, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, who used public funds to support Renault and Peugeot-Citroën on condition that they did not close factories in France, Mr Obama has been tough from the start.. . .[B]y and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends. On the contrary, his goal has been to restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible. GM is now profitable again and Chrysler, managed by Fiat, is making progress. Taxpayers might even turn a profit when GM is sold.

The Treasury needs to sell GM stock for an average of $43.67 a share to break even on its entire investment, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

“We will only get our money back if we are very patient and if GM performs very well,” said Joe Phillippi, principal of consulting firm AutoTrends Inc. in Short Hills, New Jersey. “GM will really have to hit the ball out of the park in the next couple of years.”

Joel is joined by Dominic Tierney. He is an assistant professor of political science at Swarthmore College here in Pennsylvania, and is the author of three books: The newest is "How We Fight: Crusades, Quagmires and the American Way of War." The book informed his recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, and it forms the foundation of his speech Friday at Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia -- check the FPRI website for details.

Topics discussed in this podcast:

• What are the "crusade" and "quagmire" traditions of American warfare?
• Isn't it pretty easy to get Americans to go to war? And isn't it easy to sour them on the experience of war?
• Is there a good reason for America to conduct "nation-building" missions in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq?
• What did the Founders see as the role of the American military?
• Would re-orienting the military to a nation-building role make us more vulnerable to peer competitors like Russia or China?
• Where will the U.S. be nation-building next?

Music heard in this podcast:

• "War," Edwin Starr.
• "War Zone," Rob Zombie.
• "War Pigs," Black Sabbath.
• "War Ensemble," Slayer.
• "Dogs of War," Pink Floyd.

Steve Hayward mused about it, I made a couple of jokes about it, but Steven Stark at the lefty Boston Phoenix thinks the idea is just swell:

Who could play that role initially? Some are touting former Indiana senator and governor Evan Bayh, but he's untested and not particularly articulate. A far better bet is newly elected California governor Jerry Brown -- a kind of Eugene McCarthy-esque figure -- who once bragged that he was going to move left and right at the same time. He is, of course, a serial presidential candidate, having run three times previously (1976, 1980, 1992). Though he failed each time, he twice ran impressively, finishing third in '76 after entering late in the process, winning (or having friendly delegates do so) in Maryland, California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. In 1992, on a financial shoestring, he finished second -- winning Maine, Connecticut, Colorado, Nevada, Vermont, and Alaska, while losing California to Bill Clinton, 48-41 percent.

For Brown, the next nine months are critical, as he'll attempt to use his visibility as governor of the nation's most populous state to become a kind of Democratic Chris Christie, standing up to special interests and proposing bold new fiscal policies. If he does, he could be a formidable 2012 challenger, as he's shown a propensity in the past for running on populist themes (term limits, campaign-finance reform), while taking positions that could attract labor support (he was anti-NAFTA) and even backing from conservatives (he has supported a flat tax). As a Catholic, he does have some appeal to the working-class "Hillary Democrats" -- a part of the reason why he's done well in New England in the past.

Could he beat Obama? It's obviously a long shot. But the hope among some is that his entry into the race would so weaken Obama that Clinton might consider getting in, as Robert Kennedy once did, able to tap into a family-built organization in a matter of days. Some even harbor hopes that, under pressure from his own party, Obama might walk away from the job after one term. Stranger things have happened.

The reference to Brown's Catholicism caught me attention. I knew, of course, he was an ex-seminarian. I also was aware of his well-publicized trips to Asia to study Buddhism. Turns out, though, he married his wife Ann Gust in a Catholic Church in San Francisco -- which may or may not blunt his appeal to "working-class 'Hillary Democrats.'"

You heard it here... uh, second or third. (Tenth or twelvth, more likely.)

(Hat tip: Hayward, of course.)

That dubious distinction may well belong to the voters of Arizona's 7th Congressional District, who apparently decided to re-elect a man who called for the boycott of his own state. What's more, the voters chose a 62-year-old, ethnic chauvanist Democratic Party hack over a 28-year-old rocket scientist, for God's sake!

Somebody on the Sacramento Bee's live chat yesterday asked if any of the election outcomes surprised me. I said no. But that was before I heard about the outcome of this contest in Arizona. I realize it was always going to be a tough climb for Ruth McClung, but her defeat rankles a little. Glad I don't live there. Sure, Californians elected Jerry Brown again, but those Arizonans are really crazy.

I couldn't let this day pass without wishing everyone a:

Happy Guy Fawkes Day!

My Election Day picks were wrong. (You might even say "laughably wrong." Jerry Brown can't deport anybody. What the hell was I thinking? I blame Jello Biafra Jim Lakely Hiram Walker Johnson.)

A concered friend wrote me a cryptic, funny e-mail yesterday: "How far is the Arizona border? And how quickly can you pack?"

My reply, I think, sums up my take on why Tuesday's Red Tide barely made a ripple in California (which, incidentally, is the subject of the Scripps-Howard column this week.)

You're talking about California? I'm not too worried. Oh, sure, it's going to be a disaster, but it will be a great show. If I had my druthers, the entire GOP establishment in this state would be exiled or put on a barge and set adrift in the Pacific. They're worse than useless. But Jerry Brown is a politician and an opportunist par excellence. He'll surprise us, I think. (Maybe not pleasantly, but he'll surprise us just the same.)

Everyone needs to understand just how lame Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina were. Brown in the last week was airing a brilliant ad that put Schwarzenegger's statements and Whitman's statements side-by-side. They were practically word-for-word. I voted for her, God knows, only because I could never vote for Brown. But I had no doubt I was voting for Arnold in a pantsuit.

Fiorina constantly sounded a defensive tone, and a few days ago told a reporter she would probably have a voting record similar to Dianne Feinstein's. Way to close the deal, Carly!

What may be said of the candidates for governor and U.S. Senator may be said with even greater force about the down-ticket races, with the possible exception of Tony Strickland, who had no money or exposure in his race for controller. Lt. Governor Abel Maldanado sold out on taxes. Mike Villines, the former assembly leader running for Insurance commissioner, also sold out. Steve Cooley, who is still locked in a death struggle with Kamala Harris, the liberal Democrat D.A. of San Francisco, talked out of both sides of his mouth. The only solid stand he took during the one televised debate he had was to say he would happily accept two state pensions if elected. Naturally, Harris used that in an ad. Damon Dunn, the GOP nominee for Secretary of State, had never voted in an election in his adult life prior to May 2009. (By all accounts, by the way, Dunn is an affable fellow -- a former pro athlete and successful businessman -- with a future in state politics. Perhaps he should have picked a different race to run.)

I was disappointed with one, and only one, outcome on Tuesday night and that was the defeat of Prop. 23. What can I say? I did my best. But I'm glad Prop. 25 won. That one lowers the budget voting threshold from the two-thirds supermajority to a simple majority. (Tax increases will remain at two-thirds; and voters Tuesday approved a measure applying the supermajority to fees, too -- which may blunt Prop. 23's defeat in the long run.) But I doubt the current (dwindling) crop of Republicans will know what to do with the gift they've been given.

I don't think anything is certain here. The dynamic will change a bit in the aftermath of these elections. Now all we need are some Republicans with the skill and foresight to take advantage of it. What could go wrong?

Over at the L.A. Times, the Mighty Arnie Steinberg explains why Meg Whitman lost. Bottom line: "The vulgarity of Whitman's spending trumped any real connection with the voters."

Ladd Ehlinger at Film Ladd offers a 10-point answer to the question "What Went Wrong in California?" I don't agree with every word of it, but he makes some perceptive points and it's a fun read.

Meantime, Lance Williams at California Watch observes how "not all of the victors and the vanquished from California’s state election Tuesday were apparent from scanning the returns."

The Republicans will pick up 70 seats in the House, but fall just short of taking the Senate as Carly Fiorina, Dino Rossi and John Raese lose their contests narrowly. That's right, friends, get ready for six more years of Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray lighting up the World's Greatest Deliberative Body. Joe Manchin seems to have some good instincts on education reform, even if he's a flip-flopper on health care and no good on cap-and-trade. Take victories where you find them, and sometimes even where you don't.

Hi, I'm Jerry Brown...
Speaking of which, Jerry Brown will win in California. His first act will be to order the immediate deportation of all uncool nieces. Brown will resolve California's budget problems in a couple of months, leaving him plenty of time next summer to visit Iowa and New Hampshire in order to mount a 2012 primary challenge against Obama.

Prop. 19, the marijuana legalization initiative, will lose. I'm afraid Prop. 23 will meet the same fate. But I'm hopeful Prop. 26, which would extend the state's supermajority vote requirement for taxes to fees, will squeak through. In any event, this is no way to run a republic.

Sharron Angle will win in a nailbiter in Nevada. Christine O'Donnell will lose in Delaware, but it won't be the self-immolation the press expects or dreams about.

That's about it! Add your picks to the comments. And don't forget to vote.

(Cross-posted at Somewhat Reasonable.)

In this, the second part of what may or may not become an ongoing series of interrogations, Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis ask Robb Leatherwood (a.k.a. Monkey Robb) what it means to be a libertarian... or an anarcho-libertarian... or an anarcho-capitalist/paleolibertarian. You really need to listen to find out.

(Part one, with Joel, is here. Part three, with Ben, will appear in a couple of weeks.)

Among the questions we discuss:

• How would Robb describe his political philosophy? Libertarian? Anarchist? What?
• What's the matter with nation-states?
• What's the matter with the Constitution?
• What do anarchism and Christianity have in common?
• Why is smaller better? Is it always?
• When is authority permissible? And how does it coexist with consent?
• Is universal consent required?
• Is there anywhere in the world freer than the United States?
• Is Robb more or less libertarian than he was 20 years ago?
• How much has marriage and family shaped his outlook?

Music heard in this podcast:

• Don't Tread on Me, Metallica
• Anthem, Rush
• Know Your Rights, The Clash
• We Do What We're Told, Peter Gabriel
• Freedom, Jimi Hendrix

I have an op-ed appearing in Sunday's Los Angeles Times under the slightly ambiguous headline "A conservative's guide to the propositions."

It certainly is a conservative's guide -- my own. I'm not really telling anyone how to vote, just offering a somewhat eccentric perspective on this Tuesday's slate of ballot measures. I suspect I'll be hearing from my Republican friends about my take on Prop. 25, for example. And my libertarian pals won't like my equivocation on Prop. 19. Oh, well... you can't have nice things.

Keeping with my usual schtick these days, the Times presented my piece alongside a liberal's point of view -- namely, that of the estimable Harold Meyerson from the American Prospect and the Washington Post. Enjoy!

"We found ourselves in a hole that I didn't dig, but I have dug, dug and dug to try to get out of that hole." --Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), Oct. 22, 2010.

Today is the 27th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Grenada, which is apparently a holy day for those who worship at the Shrine of Reagan. I'm not sure if the Grenada triumphalism has always been part of the conservative victory parade, or if that's a relatively recent development, but it's embarrassing either way. The story of Grenada is this: Our big military defeated Grenada's tiny military to control an island of no strategic importance on a flimsy pretext. It wasn't difficult, it wasn't necessary, and it didn't deserve the Clint Eastwood treatment. It was a way for Ronald Reagan to look tough without the dangers of quagmire. Pride in that "victory" is a bully's pride, hollow and a little bit shameful.

Steve Hayward on NRO TV

Steven F. Hayward, F.K. Weyerhauser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, historian and author of The Age of Reagan, co-author of the annual Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, and cookbook aficionado, joins Ben and Joel for a freewheeling conversation about the coming election, the environment, and U.S. foreign policy.

Among the questions we discuss:

• If the Republicans retake Congress, what will they have to do to hold it?
• Should Obama emulate Ronald Reagan on the economy?
• Who is the most worrisome congressional Republican in the leadership? (It isn't John Boehner.)
• What is "post-partisan power"?
• Would a limited carbon tax work?
• Can California's Global Warming Solutions Act change the climate?
• What happens if Californians defeat Prop. 23?
• Could AB 32 be suspended anyway?
• Are liberals blind to their own domestic policy hubris?
• Are conservatives blind to their internationalist hubris?
• And much, much more!

Music heard in this podcast:

• "Power," Rainbow
• "I Pay the Cost to be the Boss," Blues De Picolat
• "Natural Science," Rush
• "Masters of War," Judy Collins
• "So It Goes," Nick Lowe

Three thoughts about "The Quick and the Dead":

* Sam Raimi's 1995 film is clearly a riff on the old Clint Eastwood "Man With No Name" spaghetti westerns with Sergio Leone -- encompassing everything from the credited name of Sharon Stone's character ("Lady") to the Ennio Morricone-light soundtrack. And I'm really fine with that: Hollywood westerns are basically American mythmaking, anyway, so revisiting and tweaking those myths to put (say) a woman at the center of the action is fine by me. No, it's not history. But it can be fun -- as this flick mostly is. Still, Clint Eastwood never cried in his westerns; I wish Sharon Stone hadn't cried in hers.

* Then again, Sharon Stone -- though she was a producer on the film -- may not have been quite up to the acting level of her compatriots in this film: Gene Hackman, Russell Crowe, Leonardo Dicaprio, Gary Sinise, Keith David and a bunch of other character actors whose faces you'll certainly recognize. It's a powerhouse cast, and that unfortunately makes Stone's line readings a bit more noticeably thin.

* Then again, while it's a really entertaining film -- and I'm kind of shocked nobody turned it into a "Street Fighter" video game -- there are some real howlers in the script-writing department. TQATD's final line is this: "The law has come back to town." Delivered, I believe, without any awareness of irony. But it is, unfortunately, hilarious. But Raimi directed, and he knows a thing or two about hilarity in extreme situations, so maybe I should give the benefit of the doubt. It is, however, Sharon Stone, so maybe I shouldn't.

* BONUS THOUGHT: Her persona has long since overwhelmed our notions of Sharon Stone, but I sometimes forget: She really was an extraordinarily beautiful woman back in the day.

Three thoughts about Clint Eastwood's "Space Cowboys":

* I'm shocked that Eastood and Tommy Lee Jones could appear in the same movie without Hollywood imploding under the weight of all that laconic.

* The movie was pitched to the public as an action-comedy, but it's a Clint Eastwood action-comedy. This means, among other things, that the movie is somewhat gently paced: It doesn't hit you with the gag-every-five-seconds pace of today's films. It also means, of course, that somebody sympathetic dies at the end. But it's a fun film, so it's a good death. Oh, Clint Eastwood.

* I think I prefer out-and-out science fiction and fantasy to movies set in the real space program. My mind keeps picking out discrepancies between Hollywood-NASA and real-NASA. Too distracting for an old space nerd like me.

Still, an enjoyable flick. Three out of four stars.

Ben and Joel are joined by award-winning author Ron Chernow, author of the acclaimed new "Washington: A Life," which offers a compelling and exhaustive new examination of America's first president.

Topics considered in this podcast:

* Is there anything new to say about George Washington?
* Is it fair to modern politicians to portray Washington and his colleagues as near-demigods?
* Just how smart was George Washington?
* Was Alexander Hamilton a Rasputin-like power behind Washington's power?
* How wide is the gulf between the man and the myth?
* What are we to make of Washington's ownership of slaves?
* Those dentures weren't actually wooden, were they?
* Are Tea Partiers right to stake an exclusive claim on the Founders?

Chernow will appear Monday, Oct. 18 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia to discuss the book.

The timing may not have been expected, but the outcome certainly was: Michelle Rhee, the controversial chancellor of Washington, DC’s public school system, announced her resignation this morning. I wrote about Rhee’s impending departure this morning at School Reform News, with comments from policy experts at Reason, the Pacific Research Institute, and the Foundation for Educational Choice. I also published an op-ed in Investor’s Business Dailya couple of weeks ago examining Rhee’s record and likely legacy as a reformer that’s worth revisiting, if I do say so myself.

Was Rhee overhyped? In IBD, I wrote:

Nobody is indispensable, and Superman lives only in comic books…

Rhee’s likely ouster shows the perils of placing the mantle of change in the hands of one person, however capable. Her charisma earned her plenty of fans among reformers—and the lasting enmity of the education establishment. Their money brought down the mayor who appointed her.

That view is echoed in the story today:

“Rhee was overhyped in the sense that reformers need to put broad systemic reforms in place, like the DC charter law, in addition to strong leaders,” says Matt Ladner, vice president of research at the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix. “Rhee lasted approximately the average tenure for an urban superintendent. Leaders come and go, but the struggle for reform goes on.”

But Greg Forster, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Educational Choice, disagreed with Ladner slightly.

“Rhee was not overhyped,” said Forster. “What was overhyped was the whole heroic reformer model that says the system can work as long as we put the right people in charge of it.”

“Now we know that if you ever really do get the right people in charge of it, the unions just pull out all the stops to destroy those people,” he said. “We need to change the system in a way that breaks the unions, and only universal school choice can do that.”

Lisa Snell at the Reason Foundation described Rhee’s tenure in DC as “a cautionary tale” of what happens when a supposedly strong leader attempts to reshape powerful bureaucratic institutions. Reform is sometimes easier said than done. Explained Snell:

“Charter schools are a case in point. While there are many charismatic charter school leaders, these schools still only thrive in states where the laws make it easier to open a charter school.”

Over at Cato’s @ Liberty blog, Adam Schaeffer calls Rhee’s resignation the “least shocking news of the year.”

“No man or woman, mayor, chancellor or superintendent can significantly and permanently reform the government education monopoly,” Schaeffer writes. “It is unreformable.” He goes on to say, “Only systemic reform that creates a market in education will bring sustained, continual improvement.”

Meanwhile, at Heritage’s Foundry, School Reform News contributing editor Lindsey Burke delves into Rhee’s reform legacy:

Since taking office [three] years ago, Rhee has fired hundreds of ineffective teachers and administrators, closed poor-performing schools, and reworked contracts to include performance pay. Not surprisingly, union opposition to Chancellor Rhee’s reforms has been strong.

In the nation’s capital and throughout the country, education unions have worked to thwart attempts to reform the failed status quo, seeing any opening for children to escape monopoly public school systems as a threat to their power. While Washington, D.C. still has a long way to go to improve the school system, Chancellor Rhee has worked to place the well-being of children ahead of the demands of special interest groups such as the education unions.

The Atlantic‘s Marc Ambinder muses on what the future might have in store for Rhee, and sums up what made her such a lightning rod:

It appeared at times as if Rhee was dismissive of her real audience: the educational bureaucracy. She seemed indifferent at times to the emotions of teachers, parents, and students, most of whom were black and didn’t trust her, initially, because she was just different. This sounds like a small point, but had Rhee kept her disdain for the current system and its leaders to herself, she might have built stronger and more lasting relationships with the constituencies she had to deal with. But Rhee doesn’t self-censor. That’s part of who she is.

It’s worth remembering that the American Federation of Teachers’ Randi Weingarten wasn’t Rhee’s only opponent. Diane Ravitch, who’s strange intellectual course has been widely documented, criticized, and speculated about, leveled some pointed criticism at Rhee’s management of DC’s schools after last month’s mayoral primary:

Rhee believed that mayoral control gave her the power to work her will and to ignore dissenters or brush them off as defenders of the status quo. Mayoral control bred arrogance and indifference to dialogue. She didn’t need to listen to anyone because she had the mayor’s unquestioning support. Mayoral control made democratic engagement with parents and teachers unnecessary. It became easy for her to disparage them and for the media to treat them as self-interested troublemakers.

… If D.C. had had an independent school board, Rhee would have had to explain her ideas, defend them, and practice the democratic arts of persuasion, conciliation, and consensus-building. We now have an “education reform” movement which believes that democracy is too slow and too often wrong, and their reforms are so important, so self-evident that they cannot be delayed by discussion and debate….

There may be a kernel or two of truth in this. Fact is, Rhee was not an effective communicator of her reform plans. She gave the Washington Teachers Union and the AFT ample ammunition to use against her. Consider it a valuable lesson in politics. But, as Matt Ladner told me earlier, “I suspect that Rhee and her allies and admirers are sadder, wiser and undeterred.” Indeed.

(Cross-posted at Somewhat Reasonable.)

Joel Mathis and I tackle the question of whether a multi-million dollar judgment against the contemptible Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church is an affront to the First Amendment. Joel elaborates on this post, in which he sides with Phelps and flatly asserts: "Either you believe in the First Amendment... or you don't." And Joel worries that "silencing Fred Phelps might be a step down the slippery slope to silencing us all."

This is simply hyperbole, I'm afraid. It's not a matter of merely "believing in" the First Amendment, because nothing is ever that simple. And while we should be ever mindful of slippery slopes, we should take care to avoid slippery slope fallacies.

But it's certainly fair to say Joel's position is shared by the American Civil Liberties Union, UCLA libertarian law prof Eugene Volokh, University of Chicago liberal law prof (and two-time podcast guest) Geoffrey Stone, the Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro, and the editorial pages of most major newspapers, including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal -- a lot of smart people who just happen to be wrong.

"Hard cases make bad law," Joel writes in the column. "Albert Snyder deserves our sympathy. But his hard case shouldn't lead the Supreme Court to make bad law for the rest of us."

Here's my take:

This isn't a hard case at all.

Fred Phelps and his congregation have the right to believe anything they please. They have a right to assemble peaceably and exercise their religious beliefs freely. They have a right publish newspapers and weblogs preaching against homosexuality. But the Westboro Baptist Church has no right to impose itself on a private funeral.

Context is crucial. When a group of people stands outside a military funeral -- even if it is 1,000 feet away -- holding signs saying "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and worse, you needn't be an Ivy League constitutional scholar to get the point.

As Sean Summers, Snyder's lawyer, explained: "(Phelps and family) turn funerals into a circus. They send out fliers in advance. There were... state, local, county police. There were ambulances. There were fire trucks. There was a SWAT team." Police even rerouted the funeral procession so the Snyders wouldn't see the protest.

In short, Phelps turned a private event into a massive public nuisance.

Phelps's broader message may be a sinful and unrepentant nation brings such calamities upon itself. But if you're the grieving family of a dead Marine, why should you have to entertain that idea for even one moment? What makes the case "hard" is the amazing logical contortions the Supreme Court has performed over the decades in the realm of First Amendment law. Fact is, the freedom of speech is not unlimited. We make exceptions for libel, slander, and "fighting words," for instance.

When free speech collides with the right to privacy, privacy should prevail. Phelps has a right to be "outrageous." But his outrageous speech in this particular context -- the context of a family privately mourning the death of a son -- is a breach of the peace, an assault.

Barring the Phelps circus from future funerals does no harm to the First Amendment whatsoever.

Given the space constraints of the column, some elaboration is in order here. (Click "Read More" below the icons.)