How Jay Leno Changed the Politics of Late Night

when I started hosting marijuana was illegal and you can smoke cigarettes any place you wanted I believe he did the greatest monologue ever and I think it was because of his political sensibility and the worst thing about losing this job I'm no longer cover NBC I'd have to sign up for Obamacare after 22 years as the host of The Tonight Show Jay Leno said goodbye to late night though he was no favorite of TV critics Leno held the top ratings spot for over two decades after succeeding the legendary Johnny Carson recent TV sat down with longtime Leno producer Dave Berg author of the book behind the curtain an insider's look at Jay Leno's Tonight Show to discuss lenez legacy of elevating politics and late-night talk Johnny Carson who of course is a legend the greatest there ever was he set the bar very high for all of us however Johnnie emphasized entertainers on his show I'm not saying he didn't have politico's from time to time he did but the emphasis was on entertainers well the strategy that we used to kind of expand and maybe get better ratings was to move beyond entertainers and I think that this is what distinguished Jay not only in the guests that he chose I mean basically we had every major presidential candidate from 1996 on but also in his monologue which he expanded it from Johnnie's with seven minutes and Jay expanded his to 14 minutes and added a lot of political humor he set the pace I believe he did the greatest monologue ever and I think it was because of his political Sensibility you talked about having presidential candidates the you guys were actually the first to get a sitting president when you had President Obama on can you talk a little bit about the story of how that happened five years before he became president I was watching him speak at the Democratic convention in Boston and that was in 2004 Kerry was the the Democratic candidate that year and and I had never heard of this unknown political Illinois and I thought oh my gosh this guy is the best speak I have seen since Ronald Reagan I'm not talking politics here I'm just talking about the ability to communicate and I was very impressed and the next day I started calling on his people to express an interest in getting him on the show now we did finally land him on the show as as an author the the audacity of hope' when he was a presidential candidate so when he did finally agree to appear as a president he had already been on he had already had a trust yet and it kind of a chemistry with Jay but nevertheless when he decided to appear on the show on his 59th day in office that was amazing because no other president had ever appeared on a late-night show it was actually considered unpresidential that was a huge moment and you know looking back at that why do you think it took so long for that to happen I mean do you think that politicians are kind of afraid of going on platforms like that because they're afraid of being made fun of I do and as I always told the political people actually we're much easier I'm not saying Jay didn't ask tough questions he did he certainly did but we weren't Meet the Press and Jays attitude about guests is he believed that that it was a family environment at the Tonight Show and and he actually acted as though guests were like guests in his house so he always said I'm not going to throw you a curve ball you don't have to worry I'm I will ask you a tough question I'll ask you this I'll ask you that but he never never asked gotcha questions so we were actually easier than Meet the Press it never seemed like he was really accepted among you know the comedic elite and here he is now he's going to get the Mark Twain humor award at the Kennedy Center this fall what do you think is so misunderstood about his success I think that the critics the Television Critics basically early on starting when Jay took over from Johnny Carson early on they said this guy doesn't have the chops he doesn't have what Johnny Carson has and by the way he's not cut from the same fabric as David Letterman it is so much more edgy and they are the ones that basically set the tone for for how J was perceived among if I may use the word among elitist not among the folks who live in the flyover States those wonderful flyover States but among the elitist who felt that J's humor was much too milquetoast actually I think J's approach was was exactly what it should be what you want to do is you want to tell jokes that appeal to a broad band of viewers we weren't narrowcasting we were trying to reach a wide group of people and I think J did that very successfully and I think the Mark Twain award is justification finally J gets the credit that he deserves and a lot of people you know would always try to tie a political label to him but you know because we have more of a libertarian audience do you think kind of that independent streak that he was more working-class he worked really hard I know you talked a lot about his work ethic in the book do you think that kind of came through the fact that he was just a little bit more independent and that's maybe why he broke through to such a larger audience I definitely do and again I think you could see it in his monologue jokes I think that resonated with people I really do the fact is in the last you know two three years none of the other late night hosts were doing Obama jokes well Jay felt well J happens to like President Obama but his feeling was you got to go after who's ever in power and he alone was doing jokes about Obama for a long time finally when Obamacare you know became the disaster that it was at least for a while the other host started following soon do you think that his willingness cuz I see it now with Kimmel yeah and a little bit with Fallon and Letterman they've kind of followed suit but do you think that that is kind of one of his main legacies as far as you know being an equal opportunity offender oh my gosh yes I mean I really think that distinguishes him and and yes if I understand your question properly there doesn't seem to be a healthy skepticism of those in power and that concerns me because late night is so influential especially among younger people I think yeah and you know there's also kind of this I guess you can call it a PC movement going on where you've seen a lot of comedians lately having to you know apologize for jokes do you how do you think that affects the material right or did it really come into play when he was crafting his monologue that was a big problem and I have to say that among the the comedy writers and comedians whether they were liberal a conservative they hate PC they do not like political correctness because that restricts them in their job and that was very damaging and it hurt a lot of jokes we had to sort of water down some of the jokes everybody did and and I think everyone suffers as a result you're you're missing SATA you're missing good satire when you look at who's out there now you have Kimmel you have Letterman as stepping down you have Colbert coming in now and now you have Jimmy Fallon who do you see kind of emerging as as that standard bearer of being the top dog I actually am a Jimmy Fallon guy and I like Jimmy Kimmel they're both really good I watched them both but Jimmy Fallon when he took over for Jay honestly I did not want to like him I didn't like the fact that Jay was you know being let go when he was doing so well but when I started watching a Fallon on a regular basis he won me over and I like him because he continues with that really positive upbeat attitude that that Jay represented and he has brought kind of a new perspective he has redefined late-night on his own terms now it's about comedy bits it's about performance the guests get involved they want to get involved Jimmy gets involved because he's so talented and he has done very well I would go so far as to call him the king of late-night he's going to be the guy to be that's my feeling

Don't Fear Independents Like Howard Schultz! Politics Should Be More Like a Starbucks Menu

I stand before you today to say these words I announce my candidacy for president of the United States of America nearly a dozen Democrats are already running for president so highlight so far include an interview about immigration live stream from a dental chair a former Harvard professor popping a beer like just plain folks on New Year's Eve and a draconian former prosecutor pledging her allegiance to Wakanda paid for by Kamala Harris Democrats are tripping over each other to pitch Medicare for all free college for all jobs for all and laying taxes on wealth as well as income and then there's Howard Schultz I think the Democrats need a little bit less caffeine right now the former CEO of Starbucks announced that he's considering a run for president as a centrist independent he says that the national debt threatens economic growth that we shouldn't demonize successful entrepreneurs and that the government can't be all things to all people both parties are consistently not doing what's necessary on behalf of the American people and aren't engaged every single day in revenge politics that brought public hate contempt and character assassination from every conceivable angle it's not just anti-globalist lefties on the attack the New York Times op-ed page says he's narcissistic delusional and fanatical his potential run his critics claim would be nothing short of reckless idiocy Schultz's belief that neither major party represents America very well is widely shared a plurality of Americans don't identify with either party and nearly three-quarters of us think the country is headed in the wrong direction which helps to explain why neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump when a majority of the popular vote in 2016 the two-party duopoly and its supporters in the media understand how widely disliked they are which is why they want to kneecap anyone who isn't on Team writer team blue you don't have to agree with Schultz to understand that having more ideas and more voices at the table at this point in the election cycle is a good thing especially when you consider the alternatives Democrats fear people such as Schultz because they think he'll drain votes from whoever their nominee ends up being giving Trump a path to re-election but that's actually a faulty analysis former Republican Congressman John Anderson was blamed for pulling votes from Jimmy Carter in 1980 but almost half of his supporters would have gone with Ronald Reagan as their second choice in 1992 the GOP fingered Ross Perot as a political saboteur but in fact the 19 percent of Americans have pulled the lever for the Texas billionaire were equally split between Bush and Clinton as their fallback the end of the day you don't necessarily need the choice of 23 underwhelming spray do for 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry if variety an armpit aroma isn't its thing I'd like to believe that the Vermont socialists still believes we should have more choices at the ballot box right now there are more forms of hepatitis than viable political parties in America so it's kind of fitting that the former CEO of a company that introduced infinite choice and coffee drinks is now being dragged for threatening to expand the political spectrum all the way from 8 see if American politics can't even stand the possibility of an independent candidate who praises capitalism opposes massive tax increases and wants to cut the federal debt we're already screwed in 2020

Gary Taubes on How Big Government Made Us Fat

science writer Gary tabs has a knack for subverting conventional wisdom sixteen years ago he published a groundbreaking feature in the New York Times Magazine arguing that decades worth of government approved nutritional advice attacking fatty foods and praising carbohydrates was flat-out wrong ideologically motivated and was contributing to rising rates of obesity and diabetes he was widely attacked including in the pages of Reason his 2007 book good calories bad calories followed on that story as did why we get fat and what to do about it which came out in 2011 today his thesis is gaining ground among health and nutrition researchers and has been highlighted in places such as the New York Times and Time magazine i sat down with tabs in his kitchen in Oakland California to talk about his latest book on nutrition the case against sugar which came out recently in paperback gary taos thanks for talking to Reason thanks for having me can you lay out the opening arguments that you make against sugar okay we have obesity and diabetes epidemics everywhere in the world worldwide they manifest whenever a population shifts from whatever their traditional diet is to westernized urban diet and so you could think of the Western diet and lifestyle is the vector that carries obesity and diabetes into these populations and the question is what is it in that diet describe the Western diet does that mean well so that's a question processed food sedentary living Totino's pizza rolls my meter all's Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonald's coca-cola so the whole reason that we live the things we wait for are the things that are killing us it's a simplistic way to think about it probably wrong though things many of us live for and it was this is the issue something in our diet lifestyle causes obesity and diabetes conventional wisdom is it's basically caloric overload we eat too much or were sedentary in the foods you get too much food available there there in a way that makes them irresistible they have too much salt fat sugar there's a whole host of theories around that idea but ultimately it comes down to we take in more calories and we expand that causes obesity obesity increases your risk of type 2 diabetes both those diseases increase your risk of heart disease cerebral vascular disease stroke cancer or Alzheimer's you name at every major chronic disease and we see these chronic diseases appearing in populations when they make this nutritional shift so the question is what is and the argument I'm making this book is that sugar is the prime suspect always been the prime suspect because you can track these epidemics back in time now you say it's always been a prime suspect but really you know at least in the past 40 or 50 years we've been told and this is a lot of your work what we've been told don't worry about sugar worry about fat worry about the meat and that beautiful arc of fat around the edge that you might bristle up a little bit that's key to the story that's how I entered into it as an investigative journalist is we have this belief system that began and is a hypothesis in the 1950s and we started to be tested in the 1960s and was never confirmed which is a dietary fat causes heart disease when it comes to calories that is the enemy so by the 1980s a healthy diet was being defined as a low-fat low-salt diet and this explains snack well cookies and things like that what a delicious way to cut the fat snack wells chocolate sandwich cookies one of the things that happened in the 80s when we embrace this low-fat healthy diet synchronicity is the government the CDC started telling industry to produce low-fat foods so we could take foods like the iconic example is yogurt the high-fat food by definition you remove some of the fat now you have this kind of insipid watered-down tasteless thing and to make it taste good you put back fruit and sugar high fructose corn syrup and now you've got a heart-healthy diet food that you sell these little packets and we see them everywhere did the shift from a higher fat or a more balanced I had actually to a low fat low fat low salt sugar did it achieve the goals that were predicted for it you could look at heart disease mortality and it's come down and the nutrition communities have a look people aren't dying from heart disease as much therefore our advice is right and then people like me say yeah but we're not interested in mortality because we're also selling billions of dollars in statins every year and billions of dollars in blood pressure drugs and we're doing you know hundreds of thousands of heart surgeries a year putting in stents you know doing bypass as if mortality wasn't coming down we'd have a real problem question is what's happening to incidents are we seeing less heart disease because we're preventing it with changes and die and there's no evidence you know you described an early battle over many of these questions between academic nutritionists who overwhelmingly took the energy balance approach to nutrition you know did you lose weight if you burn more calories than you take in versus what they characterized as quack doctors so you have an academic research community that's dominated post-world War two in the US by nutritionists who are studying animals for the most part 1959-60 rosin yellow and solomon Burson invented technology that allows hormones to be measured accurately it's the science of endocrinology finally has a tools they need to understand things like hormonal regulation of fat accumulation and yellow and Burson say look insulin drives fat accumulation so maybe this link between type 2 diabetes it'll be maybe the type 2 diabetics are obese because of the insulin and nobody cares because they know ok except the doctors so the doctors are like all of us they're getting fat right what do you do if you're getting fat well you try what everyone tells you to do which is eat less and exercise more and if that doesn't work which it doesn't then you look if you're smart you look for other methods so some of them read the diet literature and try various diets some of them actually read the same medical literature I did so Afghans famously read the same studies I read 40 years later there's a conventional thinking that carbohydrates are fattening bread pasta potatoes you know every women described them as going right to their hips maybe if I get rid of the carbohydrates and replace it with fat because that's the one macronutrient that doesn't stimulate insulin secretion maybe I'll lose weight so if you try it and it works so it is a place where kind of people outside of the official research community were you know desperate to get skinny or have their patients get skinny so they tried a bunch of different things obesity is one of these subjects where it helps to have a weight problem if you don't understand what it's like to get fatter and fatter you're in and you're out regardless of what you do or to be fifty pounds fatter than your schoolmates in high school regardless of what you do you just don't understand obesity were you you're a trim guy were you a fat load at some point in their life LP when I was a kid it was one of the interesting things my brother was a mathematician was you know you could see every vein on his body and I was a chubby you know he was tolerance thin I mean he couldn't gain weight if he wanted to and I was just a chubby kid puberty you know helped yeah and then I became an athlete and that helped but my brother and his peak was six foot five weighed about 195 was a rower number Freud said Anatomy is destiny so he wrote crew and I was 6 foot 2 and could get up to 240 and I played football we both ate as much as we could that's what we did we were kids you know and I often wonder it's like why would you possibly think that I was thicker than him because I ate more exercise less I was just thinking than him that was my body in the book you documental long history of public nutrition advice being intertwined with politics in this case so let's talk about the sugar lobby how did king sugar you know get its crown in in the American economy and kind of been American diet well sugar used to be very expensive it's hard to grow it's only grows in specific in tropical regions you if you can't just transport the sugarcane around the world in them we're finding the sugar out of it afterwards if we got to get the sugar out quickly I'm refining it's a horrible job it was done by slice it was done by slaves the sugar industry is at the heart of the slave trade the industrial revolution comes along getting in the late 18th century and suddenly sugar gets cheaper and cheaper to refine and 1840s the candy industry the chocolate industry and the ice cream industry I'll start off the soft drink industry in particular just explodes by 1900 we're consuming about 90 pounds per capita which is almost a 20-fold increase in that century every industry it's like an arms race nutritionists say no no no and the marketers say if we don't do it also we're out of business and they fall one after another and by the 1960s you've got cereals that are 40 50 percent sugar and and that are advertising assets right this is like Sugar Smacks honey and sugar make it different and wonderful a circus of fun to eat you've got all of the like the smartest minds in Madison Avenue a PR industry creating not just cartoon characters to sell but entire Saturday morning cartoons and once we grew up on like Rocky and Bullwinkle I loved Rocky and Bullwinkle is for juices come in in the 1930s okay Sunkist coalition of California orange growers don't know they have to do something with their oranges you can't sell enough and you can't move enough so you turn them into juice you sell them as juice and you advertise them as healthy because of the vitamin C we're coming off this age of the new nutrition which was all about vitamins and vitamin deficiency diseases you go back to what we evolved to eat and the sugar and those apples and kids are now getting that within 20 minutes awakened up in the morning and they're not going more than an hour and a half two hours over the course of the day without yo and the course of a day they're consuming almost a year's worth of what they evolved to eat and you're you know at various points the USDA or other government agencies that kind of gave dietary recommendations wouldn't even think to say oh well you know glasses of apple juice or orange juice or sugar to this day when you're told to eat a lot of fruits and vegetables it's because they're vitamin rich in one the conventional thinking orange juice is healthy because it's full of vitamins and in the alternative thinking the world I live in now it's unhealthy because it's basically sugar water you could take coca-cola and the vitamin C you know tablet and you got the same thing talk about why the government would kind of push that or would have that blind spot and the role of the sugar industry okay what the sugar industry they're always a very powerful Lobby because sugar was a very uh I mean it was a vital product the import the food industry was dependent on it so the sugar Lobby was always considered incredibly powerful beginning in the 1920s the industry creates his sugar Association basically to help advertise sugar consumption post-world War two when the artificial sweetener industry begins to come of age and people started thinking and hey you know I'm getting fatter I could drink these sugar free calorie free drinks as well and the industry starts producing in the newspapers now have something to measure which is the amount of diet sodas being produced so they can write about the diet craze and the sugar industry has a problem because people are saying sugars fattening so this sugar Association start saying calories a calorie that's the general it's the bedrock belief of the nutrition obesity community so they start advertising widely and starting PR campaigns to combat this argument that sugar is fattening and they do it by basically just taking what the nutritionists are giving them the nutritionists are giving them bad science the obesity researchers are giving them bad science and all serves to exonerate sugar here's the sugar lobby actually paying for studies or they they are paying for research they began paying for Church in World War two but then again that was common practice a sugar industry kind of pioneered and I don't think they did it for public relations reasons they wanted to find other uses for sugar so they funded some of the best sugar biochemists in the world and they wrote about it in science magazine would annually we're on articles about the sugar industry you know who they were funding and why they were funding it because of a good thing it helped cement some allies later because if somebody's been paying your bills for twenty years you tend to be fond of them and that's where the conflict of interests come in and then in the 1960s with this idea that dietary fat was a problem dietary fat caused heart disease some of the people pushing that having to be longtime recipients of sugar industry large ass now they could pay those people to write articles saying dietary fat is a problem not sugar and this was conventional thinking the only people who were claiming sugar were the problem with these sort of Fringe British nutritionists who were perceived as quacks so what about the attack on artificial sweeteners so saccharin or certainly cyclamates was banned in the late sixties or seventies yeah saccharin was almost banned or it was for a bit but it carries a warning on it yeah where did that where did the interest in saying these were carcinogenic or these well that came from the sugar industry so the saccharine and cyclamates were direct competitors um interestingly the beverage in hears about the beverage industry and the sugar industry split as a beverage industry was happy to sell artificially sweetened on artificial sweeteners are cheaper but the sugar industry thought his direct threat to their body billon and it was and there's a quote in the New York Times that I quote my book a sugar industry executive hopping to spending a half million dollars on research trying to find anything that an artificial sweetener does it's damaging they would give female rats the equivalent of 60 cans a day of soda and hope that they would produce rats with birth defects so they could say you know it's as bad as the little mine I mean they were looking for anything and this executive in the New York Times is quoted as saying if someone could undersell you one cent to a dime wouldn't you throw a brick bat at them if you could if our government and and other public health institutions universities whatnot if they're consistently offering bad nutritional advice and bad dietary guidelines what do you do about that would it what is what's the response the problem because they're a solution here or do we just kind of say screw it and you know in the science as I was in which I was raised so physics and the people who taught me science when I wrote my first two books in physics and chemistry and hard sciences it's a it's the last thing you want to do is get an assumption in accepted into the theory of how things work without rigorously testing and because then people will build on it from there and it'll grow and infect the whole sort of thought construction and you'll end up with them gonna beat this metaphor to death sort of a house of cards and there'll be no way to go back on and then those are Sciences that have no influence on everyday life so in a field like nutrition and obesity research you've now got these enormous institutional dogmas built in that that you know I and others are arguing or simply wrong who do you trust and how do you get the institutions to change their belief system so right now and you know co-authoring an order the British Medical Journal was running a series of nutrition policy and their way of dealing with it is by assigning writers from these different belief system song I'm a co-author on an article on dietary fat along with the former head of the Harvard nutrition department who thinks I'm the worst journalist he's ever met and who does a form of science that I consider a pseudoscience but that is kind of the Enlightenment model of science right that you you have competing truth claims and then you kind of put them in you know a cockfighting ring well saying what's the cockfighting ring that's you know the cockfighting ring is experimental tests is hypothesis and test you have a hypothesis you do an experiment you intervene limiting the number of variables you change the problem with these Sciences which is it says you can't really test these hypotheses they're too hard to do I mean you could if you had enough societal motor base if you're willing to spend 10 billion dollars the way we do to try and find out if the Higgs boson exists and the high-energy physics and build you know you get everyone to work together you identify the key questions and you spend whatever money is necessary do you think food producers you know obviously they have you know institutional legacies that they want to protect but they also I mean private industry spends billions of dollars a year on research are they capable of doing disinterested research well the assumption is no yeah so you know nowadays there's a whole journalistic industry of identifying conflicts of interest when researchers do take money from industry there are models which work better where you just have the industry you know donates basically money for research to clearinghouses or the government which then identifies what things have to be studied but um you know if I'm right the arguments I'm making is you have an entire multiple generations of nutrition and obesity research to really fundamentally don't know how to do science they don't know how to think critically how to keep multiple hypotheses in their head at one time how do what it means to rigorously test hypotheses so if you even if you had them do the studies they would probably do a bad job at various point you compare sugar sugar to a drug you know to kind of go into a different register of government malfeasance the you know the government has arbitrarily declared certain drugs good and certain drugs that licit the war on drugs has been a failure the war on tobacco I guess has been successful in terms of helping to drive down the amount of people who smoke are you proposing anything along the lines of a war on sugar no no a government interference were is me the same way I think it worries you guys is you know the whole this whole story is about government interference and when arrived if they had stayed out of things in the 60s through the 80s and never inflicted us with this what I think are incorrect ideas and a healthy diet is inherently it's sort of low in fat low in salt we might the scientists might have had the time to get the science right and we might have really understood what's happening there is that structuring think we're obviously you know I guess this actually came up in the Obamacare debates about whether or not the government could mandate you buy broccoli etc it's never as direct as that but when the FDA or I guess more likely the USDA the Department of Agriculture sets up federal guidelines those influenced how people talk about things how grants get given what gets served at school lunches which then it changes tastes etc yeah so there's a real indirect power by which the government really does get to set a lot of dietary practice yeah and I have what is maybe too simplistic a notion you know we have these obesity and diabetes epidemics it's unambiguous we identify the cause now we know what we shouldn't be eating and if we get that message across I don't know how much government regulation how people cut back on smoking and how much the awareness that smoking causes lung cancer did I didn't quit because of government regulations I quicks I don't want to kill myself and that was coughing all the time and it was clear that was cigarette related so if we could get people to understand if assuming I'm right sugar is the problem and you get rid of sugar and refined high glycemic index carbs if you don't want to be obese and diabetic I think yeah those are awful disorder diabetes prevalence in this country is increased 700 percent since the early 1960s we have to get that straight as long as we think it's eating too much and exercising too little and sedentary behavior and the obesity diabetes community oh say these are multifactorial complex diseases which means the NIH funds thousands of researchers to look at hundreds of things and we're going to say it's all a little bit of this a little bit of that some things triggering the epidemics everywhere and it's probably the same thing everywhere and that no hypothesis should be it something simple and sugars not just at the scene of the crime when it happens in populations at the scene of the crime in the human body which is the liver there is a cause and if we understand that then we then I think there'll be a societal move to fix it but again we have to get it right we have to get the science right well we will leave it there we have been talking with Gary tabs he's a science writer whose most recent book is the case against sugar out in paperback Gary thanks for talking to reason Thank You Nick for reason I'm Nikolas

The Politician Behind California High Speed Rail Now Says It's 'Almost a Crime'

high-speed rail lines began popping up in Europe and Asia in the early 80s and passengers were exhilarated trades are for lack of a better word sexy going at 200 miles per hour on land sounds very exciting very futuristic politician see opportunity for a legacy for themselves with high-profile rollouts in France and Japan bullet train mania was underway and then reality set in [Applause] unfortunately the costs of building such projects usually vastly outweigh the benefits supporters who claim that most high-speed rail systems operate at a profit use accounting tricks like leaving out construction costs and indirect subsidies if you tabulate real costs to high-speed rail lines in the world operated a profit rail is more of a 19th century technology we don't have to go through these headaches and cost overruns to build a future transportation system what we're talking about is a vision for high-speed rail in America but politicians can't resist the ribbon-cutting ceremonies and imagery of sleek trains hurtling through the lush countryside so the projects keep coming don't be afraid of the future California's high-speed rail line was sold to voters on the bold promise that it will someday whisk passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under three hours nine years later the project has turned into such a disaster that its biggest political champion is now suing to stop it from happening I say we cannot afford not to pass proposition 1a and build high-speed rail in California it is full and it is almost a crime to sell bonds and encumber the taxpayers of California at a time when this is no longer a high-speed rail an icon of California politics known as the great dissenter Quentin Kopp introduced the legislation that established the rail line and became chairman of the high-speed rail authority the litigation which is pending will result I am confident in the termination of the high-speed rail authorities decieving plant voters supported the bond measure to pay for construction on the condition that the train would be self-sustaining according to one recent estimate the project's latest iteration would suck up at least a hundred million dollars in annual subsidies the ballot measure prohibits taxpayer subsidy and that was an important part of convincing voters in 2008 to a the bond measure in the meantime lawsuits have multiplied private investors have fled and even the official price tag has nearly doubled from 33 billion to 64 billion dollars when the legislature cleared the way for the Rail Authority to begin selling the voter approved bonds in early 2017 the agency declared it a milestone cop was livid its deceit that's not a milestone it's desperation because high-speed rail authority is out of money you've got to do what you promised the voters and you can't change that without going back to the voters attorney Stewart Flashman has represented environmental and transportation groups in several lawsuits against the Rail Authority he now aims to stop the project on the grounds that the agency broke numerous promises to voters they're going the wrong way there they're basically doing this in a way that is very inefficient and will not work Farouk Feigenbaum says that starting construction even though there isn't enough money allocated to finish the project is part of a deliberate plan to extract further taxpayer subsidies their strategy is to get enough of it built so that basically there's going to be so much money sunk in the project that they're gonna argue it's gonna be cheaper to complete it then it's going to be to abandon it cop and flash Minh however still believe in high-speed rail it's just that this particular train has been hijacked by special interests right now it's a boondoggle I have to agree with that and it's sad and why couldn't they do it right because they'd made a bunch of political promises to people along the way we'll go through your city oh and we'll go through your city its winding its way around adding something like 70 miles beyond the most direct route since rail projects are driven more by politics than consumer demand nonsensical design decisions are typical that's true even in France and Japan where a couple of the first high-speed rail lines were actually profitable after building those lines both of those countries built a bunch of other lines that have no help of ever being profitable not because the rail folks necessarily wanted to build them but because the politicians said hey city a has rail I want it in my city Fleshman says the California project has also become a land grab this was going to go right through middle of Kings County right across people's farmlands and we had a farmer whose land I was going across fellow named John toss and his name is on the lawsuit by design high-speed rail lines require wide swaths of land which often means seizing property even getting rural land can be a problem there's a project in Texas that is proposing to build a high-speed rail line between Dallas and Houston and one of the reasons why it may not be viable is the large amount of rural land they have to cease from ranchers ranchers have had this land in their family for generations they might be growing crops on it and they're not real interested in selling that land as for the often promised environmental benefits of high-speed rail flash Minh acknowledges they won't materialize in California ironically doing this high-speed rail construction with a huge amount of concrete and steel involved is actually increasing greenhouse gas production it would probably take 50 to 8 years in order to negate all of the greenhouse gases emitted during the building of the line California's project is extraordinary in some ways as envisioned it will be both the slowest bullet train in the world and the most expensive they're using a blend to track so it won't get to the speed they promised because it's going through the Central Valley it won't meet the timetable that was laid out in the ballot initiative it will be conventional rail which in a way is parallel to existing Amtrak service it will also be competing with air travel at a time when a new generation of quiet supersonic planes is about to take to the skies autonomous vehicles will soon give passengers the same freedom to sleep work or read as train travelers and then there's Elon Musk's plans for Hyperloop pod transport in a near vacuum tube at speeds up to 800 miles an hour I say let Alton must develop it because I'm not advocating using taxpayer money for unproven intestins constants I think if government gets out of the way of deciding which transportation modes we need in the future the private sector will do a much better job of innovating and creating profitable transportation modes that people want to use instead of walking in a suboptimal choice from the 19th century

Stossel: How Government Caused 'The Boy Crisis’

[Applause] these students at the University of Toronto are angry because the so-called men's rights activist was speaking at their college his words are hate speech they said they stopped people like this man from getting in to see the Lexus the so-called men's rights advocate speaking inside was Warren Farrell for the first time in US history boys will have less education than their dad Farrell is an odd person to call anti-woman he was actually an early feminist movement leader here he is with Gloria Steinem but as he learned more he started to disagree with parts of modern feminism I don't agree with the part of feminism this says men are the oppressors and women are the oppressed that part of feminism is sick men are running the government they run most companies they make more money our dads and our grandpa's they made sacrifices to make more money and then the feminist movement turned all of that sacrificed on the part of men against men and they haven't said you were discriminated against men in your own way you were obliged to earn more money or we wouldn't even be thinking about marrying it we wouldn't be thinking about having children with you in his book the boy crisis ferrule notes that both sexes struggle today boys are almost 1/3 less likely to get college degrees than girls twice as likely to commit suicide why is no one talking about this because we have believed for the last 50 years that men had all the privilege and men had all the power men and boys started falling behind when government began subsidizing single mothers they tear the family apart by giving the money to mothers when fathers are absent and not giving money to mothers when fathers are present that policy part of the welfare system created in the 60s helped lead to more households without fathers Ferrell says that hurts boys most why are boys more affected than girls boys tend to not have many skills at developing friendships and developing emotional connections and so when the family connection breaks apart it affects them more profoundly than it does their sisters this 1989 CBS interview captured the changing attitudes after welfare programs started I think I can make it as a single parent but don't you think you might need help in raising that baby from a man it doesn't make any difference whether she needs a man it makes a difference that her children need a father what happens when the kids don't have fathers children do worse in 70 different areas they're far more likely to be disobedient delinquent drop out of school fathers are critical says Farrell because men tend to parent differently for example men roughhouse more with kids why is that important roughhousing creates so many skill sets the father's creating a bond with the child so the children don't mind the discipline because the discipline is the price they pay for more fun with dead people think that mothers tend to be better parents because on average they're more attentive to children's needs mothers are more empathetic as a rule to the children than dads but an empathetic parent does not create an empathetic child an empathetic parent is someone who's always thinking of the children's needs which teach the children to always have his or her needs thought of the empathy is created by the father or the mother requiring the child to think about the father's needs the mothers needs their brothers needs in fact he says helping children too much is harmful dr. Phil covered that in this video clip mom is rewriting your essay to eat you need to start with mom I'm in middle school I'm not my school yet you want me to try let me try moms are filled with love and they want to make sure their children do well so they often do for the children dads are filled with love but the way that dads love is to feel that I need to love the children by having the children learn how to do for themselves having both an involved mother and father leads to the best outcome for kids a government summary of studies notes children who live with their fathers are more likely to have good physical and emotional health to achieve academically to avoid drugs violence and delinquent behavior we need men to be involved in the fathering role to a much greater degree than they are and have been even when we control for the amount of money a father and mother earth children with dads still doing much better

Why Government Money Can't Fix Poverty

it's not all about money I think it's a scapegoat we had more money we could hire this or do this it's become fashionable to say oh it's a waste it's a cesspool the problem is in what happened once the money got Camden I think people often forget how poor the city is there's just a sense of hopelessness that this is just a cycle that I'm stuck in there's not many streets in Camden you can drive down that you don't how is this houses in New Jersey houses right next to a Collingswood or a Cherry Hill or a hat infield you can go on one Street and it looks like there are 14 houses and 12 are abandoned and closed up Camden New Jersey is the poorest small city in America but it's also a case study in how government programs have proven tragically ineffective at ameliorating poverty state and federal taxpayers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on various revitalization projects in Camden over the years but the money never ended up where it was supposed to and nothing changed by far the largest initiative to combat poverty with government largesse has been directed at Camden's public schools New Jersey spends about 60% more on public education per pupil than the national average or about $19,000 in 2013 in Camden per pupil spending was more than 25 thousand dollars making it one of the highest spending districts in the nation and yet all that extra money hasn't changed the fact that Camden schools are among the worst in the state known for their bismal test scores high rates of in-school violence dilapidated buildings and high dropout rates the story of how Camden became one of the nation's best funded and worse performing school districts begins in the early 1980s when a small nonprofit called the education law center filed a landmark lawsuit called Abbott V Burke at the time poor cities in New Jersey like Camden we're getting about 25 percent less funding for their schools the New Jersey's more affluent suburbs Rutgers law professor Paul Trachtenberg was one of the legal architects of avid Birk so he had the winners and the losers and typically the winners were white suburban students and the losers were the growing number of black students living in in cities and the disparities in what was spent on their education and in the quality of the school buildings and the school programs and the class size was dramatic it's not all about money Saul Cooperman was the state education commissioner under New Jersey Governor Tom Kane and he fought Abbott V Burke on the grounds of the school districts in cities like Camden were rife with mismanagement waste and corruption schools were money pots so it was patronage on a huge scale and also contracts you could set up corporations to go for contracts you could subcontract that out and though I saw some good people in urban schools ah mostly I saw politicized problems at the top but Trachtenberg along with Maryland Moore Hauser a former nun and civil rights activist who litigated avid fever framed the issue in stark moral terms more and more of these kids are disadvantaged how can you not give the kids money they didn't want to go in and see what the exact problem was and was it a money problem I don't want to make this ad hominem but you've got in Tom Kane and Saul Cooperman two white suburban guys who knew pretty much zero about urban education we've created this kind of Mythology which is very handy for white suburban Heights to say well we don't want to send money to those corrupt inefficient ineffective places children of color are citizens just as fully as are their counterparts in wealthy suburbs there's no person I know who doesn't believe that Maryland Moore Hauser was a saint and there's no person I know who doesn't think that the goal of equalizing funding in the districts wasn't the right one pursue the problem is in what happened once the money got there Saul Cooper moons warnings would turn out to be prophetic after the abbot money started flowing out of Trenton in the late 1990s the state launched an ambitious school construction program targeted at fixing the dilapidated school buildings in Camden and the other so-called abbot districts and what we found was that less than half of the proposed schools got built and a billion dollars of money got lost the audits of the of the conditions afterwards were very clear people were paying out their friends the cost overruns were unbelievable they're the same things that still go on jobs and contracts jobs and contracts that's money that doesn't go to kids mismanagement and corruption also continue to weigh on the day-to-day operations in Camden and many of the other Abbott districts a 2008 audit of Camden's district office found a chaotic management culture a lack of standard accounting practices and questionable use of state funds such as 13 million dollars spent over two years on travel expenses for school staffers to attend education conferences the state Supreme Court also mandated that New Jersey fund universal preschool in Camden in the other Abbott districts so that thing has been good I think the problem is that people sell pre-k as the answer to k12 dysfunction and if you don't fix k12 you waste the gains of pre-k it's become fashionable to say oh it's a waste it's a cesspool its money down the rat hole all these not very complimentary phrases but the state is the ultimately responsible actor for education so that being the case to the extent there are failures in the administration of schools in the proper use of money it's the state that's ultimately responsible and that that's undeniable as a matter of law it is easy to say that is the state's responsibility because it just absolves every district of their complete and utter fiscal and educational failure for kids over the last 30 years a lack of resource is not a problem I actually despise that argument um I think it's it's a scapegoat we need more money if we had more money we could hire this or do this it's just a band-aid to the problem why not address the real issue which is what's broken right in front of you Bridget Kusano Rosa is the principle of freedom prep one of ten charter schools in Camden just as the Abbott money started to flow in the late 1990s New Jersey's first charter schools began opening and they've demonstrated that it's possible to do an effective job of educating kids from poor backgrounds with significantly less money charters get about 70% of the funding per pupil as traditional public schools but they're also more insulated from the corrupting influence of politics for one thing they have to pay for their school buildings out of their own budgets freedom prep is located on the fifth floor of a hospital you find a way to make it work you cut out things that are incidentals that don't matter and pushing a child to college if you put the focus on your teachers and your scholars education everything else you can figure out is money important yes the teachers must be well paid or you can't recruit teachers to work in Camden New Jersey City or Elizabeth but if you're paying the teachers well and I submit you look at urban salaries and they are paid very very well as are the principals and superintendents so that's not a money issue there are no quick generalizations and the proof of the pudding is hasn't changed because of the money my father was a homeless drug addict before I get from walking tall I wasn't supposed to make it out I wasn't supposed to graduate high school I wasn't supposed to go to college [Applause]

The Government's War on Cameras!

there's a dangerous new weapon on the streets it's scaring police officers across the country more and more people are carrying it as it becomes cheaper and more available every day that weapon is the camera the laws surrounding public photography and the recording of police encounters are vague and complicated subject to variance from one local jurisdiction to the next software developer and libertarian blogger Antonio Moussa Mechi found himself in the midst of this legal fog in late 2009 I had come across a story randomly about this fellow named Julian hi : 77 or 78 year old at the time who was doing jury nullification outreach in Manhattan not far from where I work hi Clint is a legal activist known for passing out jury nullification literature outside of courthouses and often getting arrested for doing so in his particular style of passive resistance antonio met up with hi clan at the daniel patrick moynihan United States courthouse the federal courthouse Julian has selected for the day's protest Monday November the 9th at 11:30 I get there a little earlier than he was planning to be there I had a little spy cam on my on my belt and I had a cannon fs100 flash camera it's about the size of soda can eventually he showed up and almost instantly – I suspect court officers showed up and looked like they were giving him some grief stand here can I just seeing what's happening they tell me can't be there he disagrees clifford barn then shows up the arresting officer and the jurisdictions of which I'm aware there's no prohibition on video recording or photographing things when you're standing in a public place and you're looking and add another public place Eugene Bullock a law professor at UCLA who runs the popular law blog the valk conspiracy explains that citizen ignorance of the law sometimes allows police to get away with more than they otherwise would not everybody knows what the law is and sometimes not even old police officers know what the law is not film the building why is it illegal is there a law so there sometimes are myths that spring up about how this is supposedly illegal that supposedly illegal 12 states have laws banning the audio recording of conversations in which both parties have not consented this is how many cases involving filmed police encounters are prosecuted my civil liberties are being violated at this moment quite a videotape but as it happens the unfortunate reality is that often police officers can intimidate people into and not doing things they otherwise legally could officers employed intimidation tactics against moose amici as they arrested protestor Julian hi : News Agency okay mister your ID absolutely you do I'm a listener of free talk live it's a libertarian radio show out of New Hampshire the people who run the show often say well if you're approached by a cop and they ask like why are you there why you filming you know tell them you're a producer for free talk live because anyone can call up the show and provide news well I did that and they assumed that it was commercial and so he instantly arrested me without warning officers actually arrested and charged Moussa Mechi for a federal code prohibiting commercial photography of a federal building they seized one of his cameras and issued a $75 citation Musa Messi brought the case to the NY CLU we have long been involved with helping people who have been harassed by law enforcement officers while engaging in photography mr. Musa met she was at federal court and he had problems with federal officials and since 9/11 we had been concerned about and have received reports about harassment by federal officers at federal buildings here in New York City so this was an opportunity to pursue that the NY CLU filed suit Unruh Symmetry's behalf the government almost immediately recognized that what they had done was improper or that the rule they were enforcing could not be enforced against photographers on public property outside of federal buildings and consequently very quickly agreed to a settlement in which they would recognize as they have done that this sort of photography is completely lawful there's no prohibition against it the government agreed in the settlement in this case to send written directive to all Federal Protective Service officers informing them that there was no prohibition against photography from public property of federal courthouses and the rule is very clear people can engage in public photography of federal buildings while the issue of filming on federal property may be closer to resolution the question of recording encounters with police is still an open one here's what photographers should keep in mind it's legal to film federal buildings in public spaces know your local wiretapping laws before filming ask which ordinance is being enforced if challenged by law enforcement but unless federal courts make a ruling the law will remain necessarily murky explains bollock First Amendment applies to all states and to the federal government but the Supreme Court has never made it quite clear what the rules are with regard to news gathering under the First Amendment and in a new media world where every blogger with a cell phone camera is a potential journalist the umbrella of news gathering protection may need to be quite large turn that goddamn thing off and get out of here no one could imagine a pretty aggressive view newsgathering rights which is that if you're in a in a public place if you're not trespassing on private property you're entitled to gather information because how can you effectively speak if you can't gather the information necessary for you to speak a lot of these laws were written with an eye towards protecting privacy even when they involve communications that really have little to do with privacy as we generally understand the term as most of us understand it well the laws about recording encounters with public officials remain vague musa Mechi and many others will have to continue risking arrest to test the boundaries of free speech and unfortunately law enforcement officials have confused public photography with dissent or espionage or criminal activity and that's just wrong when you're talking about police officer interactions citizens by and large there's there's a lot of benefit to to having them be recorded and then be monitored most government action ends up being better done when it is done in public there's nothing better than being able to you know provide objective reality you know this film footage and then just putting your little spin on it and it'll say well you know make your own decision that there's just nothing the government can do about it without outright banning you know cell phone cameras for reason TV I'm Hawk Jensen you

Judge Andrew Napolitano: President Trump Obstructed

Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News has long argued a hardcore libertarian position on the nation's largest cable news network consistently holding George W Bush Barack Obama and now his friend Donald Trump accountable for alleged abuses of power in the judges analysis the Muller report on Russian interference in the 2016 election lays out multiple instances in which President Trump attempted to interfere with the investigation thus making him guilty under federal laws governing the obstruction of justice if he had ordered his aides to violate federal law to save a human life or to preserve human freedom he would at least have a moral defense to his behavior but ordering them to break federal law to save him from the consequences of his own behavior that is immoral that is criminal that is defenseless and that is condemnable the president responded with a series of hostile tweets claiming that among other things the Politan Oh had asked to be named to the Supreme Court and had requested a pardon for a mutual friend Napolitano sat down with reason to defend his name lay out his case against the president and put Donald Trump's presidency in a historical and constitutional context judge welcome thank you the thing that got this started was your reaction to the Muller report you've said that the president the president claimed that the report completely exonerated him and its campaign showing no collusion and no obstruction of justice you disagree where is the president wrong first I reject the word collusion that word was insinuated into our vocabulary very shrewdly I might say by Rudy Giuliani so that he could say the president's not guilty of collusion and by the way occlusion is not a crime well that's a circular argument the crime is conspiracy an agreement to accept something of value from a foreign national which is unlawful in a federally monitored campaign I I didn't see the underlying evidence but a hundred and twenty seven communications between the Trump campaign or the Trump Organization and Russian intelligence in a 16-month era would be enough to prick my curiosity and want to look a little deeper but that's not what I'm challenging him on I'm challenging him on whether or not there was enough basis to prosecute him for obstruction of justice and there clearly was the reason in my view Bob Muller did not ask for permission to seek an indictment and under the bill Barr managerial ship of the DOJ you had to ask the Attorney General for permission to seek the indictment as Barr has this bizarre narrow view of the obstruction statutes which would have caused Barr to say no I'm not gonna let you go to a grand jury with this in attorney general bars of you it is impossible to commit obstruction unless you actually committed the crime being violated and you're trying to obstruct efforts to investigate the crime that you've said Barr is saying because there was no conspiracy there there couldn't be any obstruction trying to make sure that if this were so then Richard Nixon couldn't be charged with obstruction of justice unless he was actually one of the Watergate burglars underbars theory that's how absurd it is we also know that it's been rejected uniformly Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit was convicted of obstruction of justice for interfering with an investigation into his extramarital affair not a crime Martha Stewart was convicted of famously of obstruction of justice for interfering with a prosecution of her for insider trading even though the insider trading charges against her had been dismissed and very tellingly at the very moment that bill Barr was making his you must be guilty of the insider crime nonsensical Jesuitical sophistry arguments his own Department of Justice was announcing an indictment of a Massachusetts Superior Court judge for obstruction of justice her crime she has before her an illegal immigrant was there on a disorderly persons charge he was drunk and disorderly was a nonsense charge the back of the courtroom are ice officers this is the government's version not hers she says to the ice officers we're gonna release him into the lobby of the courtroom courthouse her sheriff's officers released him to the parking lot and he escaped she was indicted for obstruction of justice the underlying crime re-entry into the United States after deportation what she couldn't possibly have committed so by bar accepting this narrow view and I only know two people that hold this view the Attorney General and former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz Bob Muller knew that that didn't even pay to recommend pursuing him pursuing the president obstruction says what's an example of him actually trying to obstruct me oh they're that like many of his minion cases they'll do his bidding greater obstruction is defined as impeding or attempting to impede for a corrupt purpose with an investigation or a judicial proceeding a corrupt purpose is defined as one that benefits the obstruct er so if for example he said to katie mcfarland my former Fox News colleague oh there's this problem with the ambassador in Flint you know just put a letter in the file and claim that this is what they what the conversation was about knowing the father was about to be that's an effort to impede he says to Don begin you said what to the FBI go back and tell them you were wrong you want me to like uh packets on your room that's an effort to impede so there are numerous examples depending on how you read them there's either 10 or 12 of those examples in the Muller report this one that's a little interesting there such as something about the president's character we now know why he was so determined for general Flynn not to be prosecuted in general Flynn was lying at prosecutor for lying to the FBI about a conversation that may have been lawful or may not have been lawful conversation with the Russian ambassador Kissel yak about sanctions why do you have that conversation general Flynn and his plea negotiations told Muller the president told him I have a conversation if the president I'd revealed that I don't think that Mike Flynn would have been prosecuted but that revelation never came what the president wanted to hide is that he is the originator of the conversation why does he fear it because it happened before he was president and so if the incoming but not yet their administration says to Russia don't worry about sanctions we're gonna take care of you once we're in office that violates a federal statute which prohibits interfering with the country's foreign policy as a matter of law is it settled whether or not a sitting president can be indicted on criminal charge that is a very good question the Justice Department you probably don't know this because it's never been explained properly on in the media has three opinions one says no the other says no the third says yes but they all say if the statute of limitations is about to run the president can be indicted the indictment can be sealed and he won't be prosecuted until he's out of office all three of them agree on that so do you think that's likely to happen no but it should have it won't happen while bill bars the Attorney General because of this view that he has the supposedly academic view but there's no support for it of you must be guilty of the underlying is bar a particularly bad Attorney General Oh Nick I mean the built bar that I know when he was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the early years of the George HW Bush administration so that's the think tank within the DOJ that tells the rest of the DOJ what the law means and from there he became the Attorney General wrote the original memo to the president about the constitutionality and virtues of mass warrantless surveillance so right there it's very difficult for me to find good about him it would be an unbelievable good would be angels coming down from heaven type good to outweigh an evil that pernicious and pervasive because from that single memo developed the 60,000 domestic spies we have now that work for the NSA so let's talk about Donald Trump in the context not not about his personality per se but as a president he's coming on the heels of George W Bush Barack Obama to president Julaine basted for massive kind of violations of constitutional strictures on power when you think about Trump from a constitutional point of view or from executive power is he the same as these guys is he worse or is he better we certainly not better he's either the same or worse me broughal you tell me which is bad which is worse Barack Obama using drones to kill people no due process and no declaration of war but reporting the killings Donald Trump using drones to kill people and not reporting the killings and well not which is Burnett various points he's like we got to get out of stupid Wars it doesn't get us out yeah yeah I mean do you think that what's happening in Caracas is happening without the CIA's involvement I mean if they topple Maduro who's gonna pay for assuring up their economy right like your great-grandchildren mr. government doesn't have the money they have to borrow it so what do you see in the Democratic nomination the people running for the Democratic presidential nomination is there anybody there who is good from a kind of presidential power constitutional perspective where is this is it just you know darkness all the way down I think it's darkness all the way down again it depends on what you mean that's good when I talk to Democrats on eronel and I say what is the overriding issue they all say one thing it's not Medicare for all it's not redistribution of wealth it's not warren piece it's not marijuana it's not civil liberties it's defeating Donald Trump they wouldn't care who defeats Donald Trump or what the person's ideology is as long as it's anybody but Trump that's their attitude there's there's not a libertarian drop of blood not one drop in all their bosses will have what are we doing to take that back yo Bernie Sanders has some libertarian inclinations when it comes to spying and civil liberties what about Joe Biden who's currently you know riding not only is he you know writing the top of the pulse among Democrats but you know he's he would if the election was held tomorrow he would beat Donald Trump yeah how bad is he in terms of kind of civil liberties and constitutional limits on power well Barack Obama ran as a civil libertarian which as you know this is very divisive amongst our friends enticed some people to vote for him and his record as a United States Senator from Illinois was fairly commendable when I came to civil liberties he became the president and he did a 180 degree flip I don't know where Biden would be on these things I think the government would be a lot more bipartisan and civil if he were president but in terms of civil liberties I don't think it'd be any better than the president under whom he served there must be some horrific temptation once you're inside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue I think Grover Cleveland was the last president who ever vetoed legislation because it was unconstitutional did you ask to be nominated to the Supreme Court I did not but I was asked by him to discuss the court for about three hours in to 90-minute conversations both alone and with others and you said you gave a spiel what is what's the elevator pitch of like not that you want to be on the Supreme Court but what would you bring to the Supreme Court well I I described to him I was describing Neil Gorsuch and him thought I was describing myself you know I described a courageous libertarian revolutionary who would undermine the administrative state or at least seek to do so the only one of nine votes who would you know undermine and I ticked off a couple of particular Supreme Court opinions that vastly expanded federal power and he found those arguments appealing do you feel the court is moving in the right direction in terms of you know kind of what Steve banning called deconstructing the administrative stage well on deconstruct in the administrative state yes on the primacy of the individual over the state absolutely not what do what do you mean by that what well the the conservative wing of the Supreme Court is is not into individual or civil liberties the Fourth Amendment is going to be shoved in a drawer and a couple of years what we have politicians who don't care about individual rights right we have justices who don't care about individual rights right where does where does change come from in this scenario well we have a president that doesn't care for individual rights but we haven't had a president who cares about individual rights in our lifetime I don't know where where the impetus will come from even the so-called libertarians in the Senate you know Herriman take out my iPhone so what's in here personal professional medical financial intimate if Brett Kavanaugh is world the government does not need a search warrant to get in here they get us get in here electronically did you hear that discussed at his confirmation hearings absolutely not did anybody bring that up Liberal Democrat or conservative or libertarian Republicans no there were more interested in how many ice cubes he spat out at some woman at Yale 30 years ago because both parties are in favor of big government and the and the surveillance state I don't know that's going to be cracked short of a bloodless revolution where does that revolution is it is it in our hearts this is I start in the heart Sam Adams Tom Jefferson I don't know if you know parts of the country will start to ignore Washington Washington will be so bankrupt it can't pay its bills no one will lend it money I mean Trump's borrowing a trillion dollars a year and even the Republicans and the senator probably gotta let him borrow another trillion he had some agreement just the other day with mrs. Pelosi and Senator Schumer two trillion dollars we're gonna repay route 84 the George Washington Bridge to the Oakland Bay Bridge where's the two trillion going to come from you already borrowing a trillion a year they don't care about the potentially catastrophic consequences of debt which will be ignoring the government so it might work out they bite okay what we're gonna leave it there thank you so much for coming ending on a happy Judge Napolitano yeah finally final lap back so much pleasure

Stossel Confronts Politicians About Corruption Allegations

I'm not gonna bend it back and forth with you thank thank you you had your time you me sit down that Mayor was unhappy with me because I just asked if he and his fellow politicians were on the take I asked because they want to seize a valuable piece of land check out this view wouldn't you like to have an apartment with this view of the New York City skyline it's a rare gorgeous location right on the Hudson River right now there's nothing here but dirt so this man who works for the developer Maxell group wants to build apartments like these thousands of people could live here with this great view and this whole pier would be open to the public they'd also build a facility for ferries so people on this side of the river could commute to Manhattan on ferries like that one ferry will come right in here and go from here straight midtown Manhattan sounds good to me but then the politicians in this town said no forget about it we're gonna seize the property and spend millions of taxpayer dollars to put our Department of Public Works here this little department it has just 13 employees plus these trucks the garbage trucks were like this is a green you're absolutely right the city does say we'll also put in a park and parking but at taxpayer expense max'll offered parking in parks at no cost parks we were offering mass transit and all at no cost to taxpayers plus the town would collect an additional twelve million dollars in taxes every year why would Edgewater say no to that the unsuccessful barrier is a fellow named Fred Davies told us you will never be able to develop this property Fred Davies says he's the biggest apartment developer in town he also says you can't be in Edgewater and not be affiliated with me Davies also controls this New Jersey Bank and I wonder if he controls the politicians in town too because the lawsuit filed by Maxell alleges corrupt transactions between Davies and edge waters leticia ongoing relationships with them jobs undervalued rentals loans for their business purposes through a bank that mr. Davies started and has the controlling interest in sounds like mr. Davies controls the town that seems unfortunately self-evident Edgewater Mayor Michael McPartland connected to Davies the mayor lives in this building it's quite elegant with statues and fountains and it happens to be owned by 4ad abies according to the lawsuit the mayor pays below market rent though the mayor told the New York Times he doesn't pay below market rent the mayor and City Council's say they have a good reason for using eminent domain and taxpayer money to seize maxwell's development they same axles project was just too much the developers proposal is too big says the mayor they just approve a larger project with a more intense density and guests for whom for Fred Davies work is already going on on his site because somehow Davies got approvals for a density of and population of people that would occupy it in excess of what we were seeking 250 more apartments for giant buildings twice as tall as Maxwell's proposal we tried to ask for a Davies about all this but he didn't respond to our calls and emails how can the town justify approving dense development for Davies while rejecting a smaller proposal from a competitor I tried to ask Edgewater's mayor and the City Council about this but not one would agree to talk so I came here to a City Council meeting and I asked are you limitate I should explain why I'm asking that in a largely empty room the council session was full earlier but questions for people like me weren't allowed until most everyone at left are you on the tape because you're rejecting one building in favor of the one owned by the guy where you live understood and I'm certainly not with that tone I said you wanna do you want to say if you want to ask those questions that pertain to the town anything's going on you're more than welcome to use your vitamins to do that so I tried the big developer in town said more or less nobody developed here but me and that's the way it's turned out and you're gonna put the Department of poet workers there and it said you know you better ask questions well like I said we answered when you're finished and when you will be close to me when you finish with your comments at this point I thought I might actually get my questions answered is it true that four of you are getting loans from mr. Davies Bank and is it true that you get a discounted apartment in mr. Davies building but no no answer he's not very good is there anyone else in the public that was to be did was wish to hear anyone was meeting to the public should I stick around someone will talk to me or not thank you thank you have your time you be sit down and that was that Maxwell's lawsuit claims the mayor and the council have engaged in corrupt transactions to favor fred davies so he's killing off the competition it's as simple as that a great thing about capitalism is that the way to get rich is to serve your customers well developers can't really be thugs they can't use force they can't tell other developers you can't build here unless they have cronies in government and that's not capitalism that's crony capitalism actually it's corruption to me that sure seems to be what's going on here