Diana, this was a delectable post.  I have been dieting for the MuscleMania Galveston for about four months now, and this burrito looks absolutely delicious.  As a tradition, after every one of my competitions we usually go out to a big dinner.  This picture by Humza has whetted my appetite already, this will be a tough couple of days until Saturday evening when I can have a nice big "Melting pot" burrito!

Mona, Russ puts on a great show.  If you go back to some of his earliest episodes you can even find some great interviews with Ricochet's resident scholar Richard Epstein!

Illinois can beg the Fed for assistance, but there is no requirement to heed that begging.  Illinois is a sovereign state, if they default on their debts so be it, but there is no need for the Fed to bail them out.  I am sorry but we made the mistake of bailing out large banks and allowing them to avoid the ramifications of their mistakes.  No need to repeat the same mistake.

I think a new currency is unnecessary - that would just encourage more fiscal irresponsibility, increased inflation, and make federalism more difficult. Just do not bail them out. Reject the notion of "too big to fail." Math will impose harsh reality on these states. They will likely have their credit rating downgraded, the cost of new debt will susbequently increase, and these states will not have the option of inflating their way out this mess.

Good point, I think that is how a lot of libertarians feel at heart. But given the options between either gay marriage and straight marriage, or only straight marriage (the only options offered) I think most libertarians prefer the former. I know I do. At least it is an incremental move to increased liberty - meaning government will not discriminate on treatment of different couples.

For anyone who saw The Avengers, here is what they are hearing:

"I will free the world from freedom!"

He is not lying, he did make the ultimate call to ignore Pakistan's sovereignty for the sake of killing OBL; and he should absolutely receive applause and credit for that.  But I think this ad shows President Obama might want to move on rather than creating a divide between himself and the soldiers who were in harms way.

I think you are confounding two things, (1) scorn for pastor Jones whose speech is contextually idiotic, and (2) inculpation for the taking of a life. The former belongs to pastor Jones, the latter is the sole property of those who would kill Nadarkhani. The heckler's veto is not consistent with free speech for all - especially umpopular speech.

Thank you for this post Ben, I find this so fascinating and will likely be participating in Kickstart soon. Two of the biggest benefits - at the national economic level - are (1) the decreased odds of building a giant bubble, and (2) in the event a bubble does occur these investors are not "too big to fail." Rather than a large investment by one or a few 'certified investors' these ventures need to convince many small investors they are going to be successful, kind of like the competition fostered by federalism rather than everything going through one governing body (the federal government). The investments appear to be much smaller by each individual, for example the Wasteland 2 game has $2,933,252 pledged from 61,290 backers, averaging only $47.86 per backer.

This is just one example among many, but what about when something like this happens? First read this short article, then see the video.

Claire, there are many things worth "raising hell about" with regards to where out country has gone.  This is one of them, and it is a very bipartisan issue - See, e.g., Ron Paul and all his supporters on the left and the right - it just doesn't get too much traction with President Obama in office. 

I am not proposing a "conspiracy" by the MSM to ignore the issue, I just think it goes with our politics today.  Politics today focus on the two political parties and their leaders, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, who are in sync on this issue.  Obama would have used this issue four years ago, but today he is forced to run on his record, and his record involves expanding this security state.  Romney is adumbrating W's security state.  Thus neither of them see a need to focus on this issue.  Ron Paul, the one candidate who is focusing on this issue, is seen as coming more from a third party (Libertarian) - the left dislikes his economic views, and the right dislikes his social/foreign policy views - so he does not merit a lot of attention.

I respectfully disagree with the Young Guns - specifically Ben (or it might have been Keith) - about our generation. I see (1) a more liberal attitude by most of my peers on social issues; and what I call a form of fiscal conservatism (2) increased skepticism of regulation.

I have not reached a verdict, but I think that is quite presumptuous of you to assume this was a mistake because Zimmerman said he was unaware of Trayvon's lack of a gun. This is for two reasons: (1) it could be part of the self-defense claim; and (2) no self-defense law I am aware of requires the other party to have a gun. If you were to say it was a mistake because the prosecution could have used this to flush out Zimmerman's self-defense claim now - and the defense got lucky the prosecution didn't take advantage of it - so they have longer to refute the claim, then you would have a good point.

Would have loved to have been there, but my girlfriend is racing Lance Armstrong tomorrow in Galveston. Hopefully next time I can make it!

Joseph, Nixon proposed socialized health care as President, I would say we have moved public opinion vastly against government regulations since then.

Professor Rahe, great answer to Krugman's challenge, but I might add 3 things: (1) anyone who has the time should listen to the oral arguments from Tuesday you will hear Krugman's questions aswered there, I listened to them again today and Paul Clement was brilliant. (2) Not purchasing health insurance doesn't increase the costs those who purchase it have to pay, it just doesn't lower them. (3) Krugman may not like the fact that what he cannot do through the commerce clause he can do through the taxing power, but is a necessary deterrent, politicians will be hesitant to raise taxes (See Obama's constant denial of calling this a tax). This is not unprecedented, in New York v. U.S. Justice O'Connor noted how Congress cannot commandeer the states to adopt regulations though they can encourage them to adopt regulations through the spending clause (in Dole v South Dakota they did exactly this).