Previous 11 - 20 Next
Parkinson's Law: "Work expands to fill the time available for its completion." So when there's no work to be done -- or when there's no completion date -- what then?
"There will be real social costs to legalization." Perhaps not, on a sufficiently long baseline. There were short-term social costs to the repeal of alcohol prohibition, too. But social forces that counterbalanced them came into play within a few years, and presently things were better than before. Atop that: Prohibition required a Constitutional amendment. Why didn't the same requirement apply to the federal War on Drugs? Where's the Constitutional authorization for that?
In response to:

Patrolmen Without Borders

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Aug 06, 2014 6:56 AM
This calls to mind Samuel Francis's conception of "anarcho-tyranny:" a condition in which the laws that would actually defend the innocent are left unenforced, while the power of the State is used to ride roughshod over private citizens even in their most private comings and goings, for the State's own profit and the aggrandizement of its masters. May God and our ancestors forgive us for what we have allowed to consume our freedom.
"...human beings are awful, flawed creatures..." Speak for yourself, there, Bubba!
In response to:

Suicide By Stupidity

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Jul 31, 2014 7:52 AM
I don't often disagree with Derek Hunter, but this contretemps demands more clarity than he's afforded it. First: Has the president committed impeachable offenses? I certainly think so, particularly his unilateral rewriting of the terms of the Affordable Care Act, his decree that parts of the immigration laws not be enforced, and his unwillingness to act on the Operation Fast And Furious mega-scandal that cost the life of Brian Terry and others. So there's sufficient legal basis for his impeachment and trial. Second: What is the most effective way for the Republicans to draw a clear distinction -- the sort of "bold colored differences" of which Reagan spoke -- between themselves and the Democrats? Clearly, it would be to stand fast on Constitutional principles, which compel them to oppose Obama's usurpations of Congressional power and prerogatives. It's well established that only such a clear contrast between the parties galvanizes electoral sentiment. So impeachment and trial would probably be to the GOP's benefit in November. Third: Would the Democrats in the Senate vote against Obama's conviction? Almost certainly, which would reinforce those "bold colored differences" by making it plain that the Democrats are animated not by love of country or fidelity to the Constitution, but by their desire to retain power. They would be revealed as the ultimate partisans, unwilling to do what's right should it cost their co-partisan in the Oval Office his job. Therefore, the failure to convict and remove Obama would rebound further to the electoral benefit of the GOP. So: What else is pertinent to this issue?
In response to:

The Loophole is Obama

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Jul 31, 2014 7:39 AM
I had to read Coulter's argument twice before I caught the essential discrepancy. The terms of the law direct that if an ilegal alien child DOES have parents or guardians available in the U.S., then he IS to be deported rather than admitted. That might strike many readers as irrational, the reverse of what one would have expected, but those are the black-letter terms of the law. Amazing -- and another demonstration of the value of Ann Coulter, whose research and legal acumen are unequaled in the Punditocracy.
In response to:

Lambs to the GMO Slaughter

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Jul 29, 2014 4:48 AM
Fear mongering from Chuck Norris? Did I wake up in an alternate universe? Quick: Check whether Mr. Spock has a beard!
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.
Previous 11 - 20 Next