Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

From Affirmative Action to Diversity

Edward463 Wrote: Mar 14, 2013 9:49 AM
"Like Prohibition, affirmative action and then diversity were originally noble efforts…." I hate to disagree, but Prohibition and affirmative action were not "noble," not in practice, and certainly not in motive. Prohibition's origins were the result of a concerted, populist campaign against liquor consumption, something not constitutionally a concern of the government. Neither was affirmative action, which mandated that employers were forced to hire people based on their race or gender, and not on an employer's own measure of value. Both laws were grounded in the Utopian and statist premises that reflected their champions' personal vision of how men should behave, for the good of "society." The prohibitionist's motive was: I would prefer
In response to:

Educational Rot

Edward463 Wrote: Mar 13, 2013 10:15 AM
Nomad5: Bad money drives out good. Lousy or mediocre teachers in a government enforced monopoly (such as unions), outnumber and drive out good teachers. School administrators will not recognize or support good teachers because they are beholden to the unions, which resent good teachers and go out of their way to punish them for establishing benchmarks of excellence they don't think they need to measure up to. Beingbetter than a semi-literate or "average" teacher the unions regard as an imposition. Bureacracies tend to drown and suffocate outstanding talent. It's called "leveling the poppies."
In response to:

Educational Rot

Edward463 Wrote: Mar 13, 2013 9:18 AM
Never mind removing teachers' colleges, which are indeed a collective joke.. How about getting the government out of education? In Kevin Spacey's "House of Cards," the villain, a congressman, tries to get an education reform bill passed. Teachers' unions going through a draft of it insist that private "charter" schools get no federal funding, that public schools get all the funding, and that union teachers be exempt from any kind of evaluation or skills measure. People really ought to watch that Netflix series. It's a genuine education on how Congress really works.
In response to:

American Recessional

Edward463 Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 9:45 AM
I have a sneaking suspicion that Obama hopes that Iran will detonate a nuclear device somewhere in America – very likely one of the major cities – or even in Israel, so that he would have an excuse to impose martial law and remain in office indefinitely. It would explain why he ignores Iran's nuclear program. Look at the character of the man; he goes to Las Vegas in the midst of an attack on an American consulate, and prefers golf to dealing with crises. I don’t think that's puerile negligence, but rather calculated behavior. As a dedicated Marxist, he treats the presidency as an imperial one, assuming he can do whatever he wishes without consequence or recrimination. And the MSM is his de facto Ministry of Truth.
This is not a precedent. When George W. Bush visited troops in the Mideast, Iraw, and Afhantistan, the troops were not allowed in his presence with any weapons at all. They all had to disarm.
In response to:

Prophets and Losses

Edward463 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 8:04 AM
Further to my point: Are the "disinterested officers of the Government" so "disinterested"? No. Their jobs require an interest in exercising power. They have an "interest" in playing dictator of the dollar. It makes them feel good. And they're unelected. The Fed, together with the 16th Amendment, are the two worst things that passed under Wilson's tenure and which he encouraged and approved. He should be blasted in American history texts as just as bad a president as FDR and Obama. They all agreed that Americans should live for reasons other than their own, that they're servants of the state.
In response to:

Prophets and Losses

Edward463 Wrote: Feb 05, 2013 8:01 AM
Sowell quotes Woodrow Wilson, that the Fed could provide "a currency which expands as it is needed and contracts when it is not needed" and that "the power to direct this system of credits is put into the hands of a public board of disinterested officers of the Government itself" to avoid control by private bankers or other special interests. My mind stopped at that quotation and asked, "Needed or not needed by whom?" Obviously, by the regulators, so they can play witch doctors with their crystal balls and forecast formulae and other paraphernalia of omniscience. Or, one could call them card sharks who "need" a marked deck and magician's sleeves. Statists "need" power to steer things in their preferred direction.
Bill110 and Nullify Now: You apparently haven't read my whole post, because a word limit required that I post in three parts. You're forgiven for that, and I'm not God, either. You can call it "grace," or "salvation," or being royally dubbed with an invisible broadsword, it's still "faith" in the unprovable and metaphysically impossible. Nullify, the Old Testament has as much credibility as the Koran, it was a work knocked together over centuries by tongue-in-cheek monks in the Dark Ages trembling in fear of the barbarians and looters rampaging over Europe and the Mideast. Faith? One also has "faith" in the existence of the tooth fairy, jins, and poltergeists, until one accepts that they're metaphysically impossible.
No wonder they can't find "peace on earth." Earth is just a way station. Why bother with freedom? We can win God's approval and a place at his feet by living under tyranny, too.
Hawkins's column is one of the many reasons why I don’t trust especially religious conservatives to fight for freedom with any kind of sincerity. They really don’t "believe" in it. All actions, all events, can be ascribed to "God's will." Existing as a living human being is not important, we're all just "passing through" on our way to existence in some ethereal realm. Existence in a provable world is to be followed by existence in an unprovable world (heaven, hell, or purgatory). A "failed life" is one that eschews the need for faith in an all-knowing, all-powerful ghost (a creature imbued with contradictory attributes).
Most of the middle class can't afford the pricy tax lawyers and accounting firms that save the liberal 1% all that money. That's one reason the luxurious liberals can get away with being venal hypocrites; they can afford them. When you watch Brian Williams, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, or Michael Moore yakking away about how the really productive people in this country should pay their "fair share" of extortion, remember that they're not talking about their own squirrellled away fortunes and income.
Previous 11 - 20 Next