1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Mob Rule Economics

Beyond Category Wrote: Sep 13, 2014 8:11 PM
William Blackstone in his Commentaries cites two early laws Stat II Eliz. 5. and 6 Geo III 26 where the justices at sessions, or the sheriffs of the county were empowed to settle the wages of persons who were compelled to work because they had no visible effects. This is probably the first time that the English Government set wages between private parties. In 1790's Edmund Burke wrote against subsidizing farming in years of bad harvests. In 1795 the magistrates of Berkshire, a county adjacent to Burke’s Buckinghamshire, met in the Pelican Inn in Speenhamland, and adopted a scheme to ensure laborers a living wage. A minimum wage was fixed, which varied with the price of corn; if the wages actually paid fell below that, they would be supplemented from the poor rates.
In response to:

War -- Past, Present and Future

Beyond Category Wrote: Sep 03, 2014 6:50 PM
Let the record show that Germany and the Soviet Union were allies from August 23, 1939. Both powers connived the destruction of Poland. Germany and the Soviet Union were allies until June 21, 1941. Japan and the Soviet Union were neutral powers until August 9, 1945 when the Soviets declared war.
In response to:

Militarization of Police II

Beyond Category Wrote: Aug 30, 2014 9:38 PM
On Jan. 25, 1787, Daniel Shays and regulators marched into Springfield to seize the federal arsenal. These insurgents were repulsed by a force of militia under General William Shepard when he ordered the artillery aimed at the center of Shays' regulartors to fire . As George Richards Minot observed "This measure was not without its effect. A cry of murder arose from the rear of the insurgents, and their whole body was thrown into the utmost confusion. Shays attempted to display his column, but it was in vain. His troops retreated with precipitation to Ludlow about ten miles from the place of action, leaving three of their men dead, and one wounded on the field." So back in 1787 a citizens militia (paid for by private donations) used the most advanced equipment and tactics to restore public order. This lesson seems to be lost on today's libertarians.
Ms O'Brien asks if the police offier really needed six bullets to restrain Michael Brown. Thomas Sowell answered this question in his column published August 20, 2014: Then there are the inevitable bullet counters asking, "Why did he shoot him six times?" This is the kind of thing people say when they are satisfied with talking points, and see no need to stop and think seriously about a life and death question. If you are not going to be serious about life and death, when will you be serious? By what principle should someone decide how many shots should be fired? The bullet counters seldom, if ever, ask that question, much less try to answer it. Since the only justifiable reason for shooting in the first place is self-protection, when should you stop shooting? Obviously when there is no more danger. But there is no magic number of shots that will tell you when you are out of danger. Even if all your shots hit, that doesn't mean anything if the other guy keeps coming and is still a danger. You can be killed by a wounded man. Different witnesses give conflicting accounts of exactly what happened in the shooting of Michael Brown. That is one of the reasons why grand juries collect facts. But, if Michael Brown -- a 6 foot 4 inch, 300 pound man -- was still charging at the policeman, as some allege, there is no mystery why the cop kept shooting. But, if Michael Brown was surrendering, as others allege, then there was no reason to fire even one shot. But the number of shots tells us nothing. None of this is rocket science. Why bullet counters cannot be bothered to stop and think is a continuing mystery.
The Korean Central News Agency referred to President Obama as "a wicked black monkey" http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2014/201405/news02/20140502-22ee.html. There were also other vituperative and ugly statements made about the President in DPRK media, so the current spate of criticism from the DPRK is, shall we say, insincere.
In response to:

Obama fails History 101

Beyond Category Wrote: Aug 28, 2014 6:02 PM
In this essay Hanson argues that Obama doesn’t have much on the ball, and this has left the President unfit and unprepared to handle multiple foreign disasters which have befuddled him recently. It was only last January in an essay that appeared over at National Review Online that Hanson argued that the President’s foreign policy choices displayed a “consistent strategic coherence”. Here are two paragraphs from that essay: “The Obama administration believes that past administrations’ strategic objectives and the methods of achieving them not only were flawed, but led to the sort of world that is not in our interests as defined by the Obama team. The contemporary world landscape is an unfair place. “Have” nations exploit the “have-nots,” in large part because of the rigged postwar system of free-market commerce, alliances, and politics that the United States created. While it would be dangerous and indeed impossible to abruptly disown our responsibilities — we can still hunt down bin Laden, kill terrorists with drones, and jawbone rogue dictators — we can begin to withdraw our sponsorship from the mess that, in a variety of ways, we were responsible for. Our past and most secure alliances — the special relationships with Britain and Israel especially — are now seen as having alienated more people than they encouraged. Islamist movements in Turkey and Egypt were either inevitable or justified, given historical grievances against the West and the fact that they reflect grass-roots indigenous support.” I’d like to know what Hanson actually thinks. It’s either one or the other; there is no third way. Either the President is a dolt and a poseur who is insincere in his bearing and actions, or he is a committed to achieving a re-positioning of American power throughout the world.
Barone shows that he knows the difference between an actual quotation, and an attributed quotation. Opinion writers who do not know how to do this make fools of themselves.
In response to:

Facts vs. Visions

Beyond Category Wrote: Aug 26, 2014 5:09 PM
Sowell has the good sense here to favor the rights of property and business owners over criminals, but he turns a blind eye to criticism from the libertarians and conservatives for he only takes issue with the political left. Fisher Ames in a letter to George Richards Minot November 30, 1791 wrote about those who believed in defending property by steady laws and those who did not. "Instead of facts," he wrote, "I will notice to you, that the remark so often made on the difference of opinion between the members from the two ends of the continent, appears to me not only true, but founded on causes which are equally unpleasant and lasting. To the northward, we see how necessary it is to defend property by steady laws. Shays confirmed our habits and opinions. The men of sense and property, even a little above the multitude, wish to keep the government in force enough to govern. We have trade, money, credit, and industry, which is at once cause and effect of the others. At the southward, a few gentlemen govern; the law is their coat of mail; it keeps off the weapons of the foreigners, their creditors, and at the same time it governs the multitude...&c., which is of double use to them. It is both government and anarchy..."
Don't believe for one minute that "Chicago teacher unions compensate their rank and file." The Chicago taxpayers etc pay the Chicago teachers, not their union.
The ordinary public duties of an American citizen are to assist the peace officers in preserving the public order and serving legal processes, and to obey all commands of the officers to aid in the suppression of all riots, insurrections and other breaches of the peace... Christopher G. Tiedeman A Treatise on the State and Federal Control of Persons and Property in the United States
1 - 10 Next