1 - 10 Next
In his book "The Vision of the Anointed," Thomas Sowell tells of a survey firm determined to "prove" that increasing the minimum wage does not lead to business failures at the margins. It did this by surveying businesses that SURVIVED the mandatory minimum wage hike. As Sowell notes, using that procedure, you could prove that no one died during World War II.
-- In recent years, our society has become more worried about the criminals. Thus, more “humane” forms of execution have been used. Gone are the firing squad, the hanging at the public square and even the electric chair. -- I've lost the link, but another op-ed writer has posited that the reason earlier forms of execution are gone is that **they upset the audience,** not that they imposed an unacceptable degree of suffering upon the condemned. It sounds right, especially in the case of the gas chamber. Liberals want the death penalty done away with completely. When he was a Supreme Court Justice, Arthur Goldberg instructed his clerk, Alan Dershowitz, to develop a brief against it on the basis of "evolving standards of decency." The argument ultimately failed, because the Constitution makes explicit reference to the death penalty and the conditions that would disqualify it. So the liberals decided to attack the various methods of execution instead, hoping that by eliminating them one after another, they might make capital punishment disappear by the "back door." Unfortunately, this approach is working...and condemned men are suffering worse than ever as a result. They who believe the penalty of death should be abolished should approach it as a Constitutional issue, requiring an amendment...but that's **so** difficult! So we get this instead. Remember that when next some capital-punishment opponent prattles about the "cruelty" of the current method.
-- It’s become an all too familiar story: politically favored companies work the system to enrich themselves and their wealthy investors at the expense of taxpayers and consumers. If Washington has any genuine interest in protecting consumers, they’d blow the roof off this scheme. -- Yeah, right. Rather than repeal a misguided federal intervention into the market, "correct" for it with...ANOTHER INTERVENTION! Don't you understand incentives? Or are you just one more liberal who routinely denies their existence?
I would say that's a big part of the left's push for a national sales tax on goods ordered online.
-- Companies like AbbVie and Medtronic are abandoning America "to avoid paying taxes but expect to keep receiving the full benefits that being American confers, and for which everyone else is paying." -- Did Mr. Sloan happen to specify what benefits he has in mind? In any case, the shrillness of what's quoted above makes him sound unappealing, to say the least.
"...almost as offensive as the name itself." "As an African-American man, I’m not crazy about words like..." "I and other black Americans understand thoroughly that words can leave deep wounds." No, you're not crazy; you're simply a would-be censor. The above self-exculpations render your argument unconvincing -- particularly since eminent-domain proceedings require the government to pay for the asset seized, which you know full well. Property rights deserve a defender who doesn't constantly back away in horror from the very things he purports to defend.
Well said. Fundraising specialist organizations often take the overwhelmingly greater part of what they raise as fees. It's not just true in politics. The problem manifests itself in every venue in which a cause organization subcontracts its fundraising. Donor beware, indeed!
In response to:

Is Obama Waging Jihad?

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Jul 18, 2014 5:12 AM
"We have to take our President at his word." Why should we, when Obama regularly, even habitually, says one thing and does the exact opposite? Do not make the fatal mistake of projecting your own moral-ethical structure into the mind of your enemy.
"I suspect that many of them have come to accept a large, "energetic' federal government..." You suspect? You ***SUSPECT???*** You're normally more insightful than this, Mr. Limbaugh. The Republicans -- the GOP Establishmentarians, at least -- are merely the Democrats' dance partners. The preservation of certain illusions is crucial to the maintenance of our political status quo. The very definition of an establishment is that group which is embedded in and maintains the status quo in its demesne. In particular, our political Establishment is determined to defend the cherished myth that the federal government can be trusted with a degree of power over private Americans and their businesses many orders of magnitude greater than that the Founding Fathers fought a revolution to overthrow. They who seek to wield power love power. When out of power, they will struggle to regain it. They will not attack power itself. Neither will they attack the institutions through which they might some day wield it. Thus, they will defend even those institutions of power that are in an adversary's grip. They hope to displace the adversary and take the power he wields into their own hands. To allow the utter and complete corruption of the federal government of these United States to become plainly visible would evoke a popular revolt that would pull it down and destroy it. Never mind that that's exactly what it deserves. Never mind that that government now "rules by naked force." (Glenn Reynolds) Never mind that it isn't even candid about its premises and its agenda. They who seek to wield its powers will protect it from the just consequences of its worst excesses. With or without music, the Potomac Two-Step will continue until we take the musket down from the mantel and march.
It's an Alinskyite principle that ridicule is a weapon against which there is no countermeasure. Inasmuch as liberals consistently lose when they try facts and reasoning, and have been largely deprived of the "race card" and other attacks on their adversaries' motives, ridicule might just be the last tactic available to them. Unfortunately for them, it's a sword that can cut both ways, as that reporter learned to his dismay.
1 - 10 Next