It's a funny thing;The typical RightWingNut has no Problem the the Koch brothers or absolutely nameless Corporate Citizens buying the U.S. Government with untold (and I do mean *untold*, no disclosure necessary) hundreds of millions or even bilions of $$$ , but let an undocumented Mexican sneak over the border and scrub toilets for $2/hr AND THEY GO APLOPLECTIC!! Who knows wy? I sure don't, go figger.... Consequently, when talk turns to campaign finance reform they are all so *practical*, saying stuff like: "Oh, you'll never keep soft money out of politics. It's stupid to try. It's like tryting to stop water from flowing downstream..." But when it comes to THOSE LITTLE BROWN WETBACKS WHO TALK FUNNY, then it's a *very different*...

JAWOHL !!!!!!!!

Some employers do hire cheap undocumented workers instead of paying minimum wage or better for citizens. But for many other employers the choices are to hire the undocumented or go out of business. Small farms would fold w/o immigrant labor. A sensible guestworker program, like for example the Red Card program advertised on this website, would go a long way towards stopping the former practice while allowing the latter.

Sowell: "...A moral monopoly is the antithesis of a marketplace of ideas." I agree wholeheartedly, Dr. Sowell. Now, will you please do us (or me, anyway) a favor and point out that when your fellow Rightwing Commentators rail on and on about "Moral Relativism", what they are often really doing is trying to destroy this "marketplace of ideas" and replace it with a "moral monopoly" -- theirs? The right, moral course of action is not always clear. Sometimes there are difficult moral choices. It helps nothing & no-one to label the recognition of this as "moral relativism".

I think most people agree with these positions, or think they do, anyway.

All I'm saying is you cannot have it both ways, and this is what you try have when you complain about 'moral relativism' one the one hand, and decry 'moral monopoly' on the other. Your examples (aside from Benghazi, which of course should be examined) are difficult moral issues, concerning which you have very strong opinions about one viewpoint and totally reject all others.

Grant75: "The left has come to view morality as “choice” – not as “common law.”" Sowell: "A moral monopoly is the antithesis of a marketplace of ideas." Do you see any conflict, Mr Grant75, between what you write and what Dr. Sowell writes? Now, I am not saying that their is no truth in what you say. Many people -- and not all of them Liberals -- don't want to be bothered with morality, they just want to 'do their own thing'. But many times I think that people who make your accusation are wrong, & that they say such things because honest, moral people have confronted an ambiguous or difficult moral situation and and resolved it in a way that they don't like.

Sorry, '...nothing & no-one...'.

I do not believe that this is as uniformly true as you claim, but yes I do see a real "Liberal Orthodoxy" in academia, and I think it is wrong.

Sowell: "...A moral monopoly is the antithesis of a marketplace of ideas." I agree wholeheartedly, Dr. Sowell. Now, will you please do us (or me, anyway) a favor and point out that when your fellow Rightwing Commentators rail on and on about "Moral Relativism", what they are often really doing is trying to destroy this "marketplace of ideas" and replace it with a "moral monopoly" -- theirs? The right, moral course of action is not always clear. Sometimes there are difficult moral choices. It helps nothing & nothing to label the recognition of this fact as "moral relativism".

The WikiPedia article on hyperlinks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink ) cites a 1945 essay by Vannevar Bush as the first place where the concept that we now refer to as a "Hyperlink" was described. It was envisioned as a way to cross-reference documents on microfilm.