Category: Politics
One of the things that really bothers me in political discourse is this type of thing. This excerpt is from a TAC article by Florence King.
Everybody knows who Joan Walsh is. To liberals she’s a saint, and they just might have a point: her TV guest spots have established her as Joan of Fallen Archness. Editor-at-Large of Salon, she regularly turns up on the People’s Republic of MSNBC, wearing her trademark simper and oozing coyness, and obsequiously recites, “Yes, Reverend Al” to the honkyphobic views of Al Sharpton.
Why are attacks on the person so universally accepted? Isn’t this type of thing usually reserved for the paparazzi? The person’s ideology should be at issue, not their personality. When an article starts out like this, I stop reading. This type of political “reporting” is catty, bitchy, low-brow and pointless. It’s sole purpose seems to be to attract other low-brow and petty people’s acknowledgement. Picture me wincing.
Today is Milton Friedman’s 100th birthday. There are few people for whom I have as much respect, nor any I laud more frequently. In celebration of his birthday, I’d like to extend this idea.
What if, in the process of writing new legislation, a short treatise was required that referenced all the prior related legislation, what it was intended to do, where it failed or wasn’t being enforced and how the new legislation was going to fix the problem the previous legislation was unable to.
If we forced our legislators to look at the big picture, maybe we could get some to grasp reality and stop pushing out new legislation like so many deformed babies. Over-regulation is killing our business, our country and our freedom.
Milton Friedman said “The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.” Wise words from a very wise man.
One of the biggest problems we have as a society is the failure of the citizenry to attach reality to theory. In theory, if you take away all the guns, there would be no gun violence, but that’s wrong on so many levels. Gun laws just cripple the law abiding. This is such an obvious point I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t get it.
You can outlaw guns, but you can’t prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who wish to do evil. Even if you could, you still couldn’t prevent those wishing to do evil from fulfilling their intended actions so what, exactly, is the point? Evil will find a way.
I watched a video this morning by Bill Whittle on how operating only on theory has lead to some fairly large catastrophes. He quoted William M. Briggs. He said “The love of theory is the root of all evil.” In relating it to politics and belief in anthropogenic global warming. “Big elaborate theories are catnip to certain kinds of people . . . who are not so successful out in the practical world.” Unfortunately, that perfectly describes many of our legislators, more specifically Krugman, Obama, Reid and Pelosi.
Take a couple minutes to watch the video. I think Whittle nails it.
So back to gun control. The ONE thing that would solve the gun control problem as demonstrated in Aurora Colorado this week would be to make it mandatory that EVERY adult citizen pass a gun safety course and carry a side arm when in public. How would Holmes have behaved if he knew he would have been facing an audience of armed adults? I bet he would have stayed home and a hundred people would not have faced life altering trauma.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference between theory (taking away guns will fix the problem) and reality (arming everyone will prevent the problem). Don’t believe me? Check out this.
Here’s my favorite Libertarian Presidential candidate saying the same thing. And here’s J. Neil Schuman and Joe Klein saying the same thing.
Gun laws don’t work because they take guns away from people who should have them and are completely unable to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. The best solution is for everyone to have the ability to protect themselves.
Since the Obamatax decision came down from the Supreme Court, it’s been fascinating to listen to/read different people’s take on what the decision means, both short term and long. Of all the bits I’ve heard and read, I have found the perceptions of Randy Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center to be particularly interesting.
Barnett is a libertarian, the author of nine books and over 100 articles. He regularly publishes opinion pieces in periodicals like the Wall Street Journal. His Reason interview is going to be on my favorites list for a while. I’ve listened to it three times so far and will probably listen to it a couple more times before I move on. At almost 33 minutes, it’s a bit long, but it truly is fascinating listening. Barnett covers the Obamatax decision, how the Supreme Court effects our freedoms, interpretation of the Constitution and the move toward originalism.
At the end of the interview Damon Root mentions Barnett’s website and writings on the Volokh Conspiracy website. Barnett’s annotated Declaration of Independence on Volokh is both illuminating and educational.
This is part of our advanced citizenship, to understand what is happening, the impact it will have on us and how we can work toward restoring our Constitution and Bill or Rights.
If you’ve been following the news, you know SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) had hearings last week on three things involving the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act.
On day one they heard arguments to determine if they could hear arguments . . . it was one of those “it’s a tax!”, “no, it’s a penalty” things that involved defining the parameters of the argument based on past legislation and the wording of the law.
The second day had arguments about the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate (you MUST buy health care or pay a penalty). The most profound bit of that was the question “can the government create commerce so they can regulate it” and that whole thing didn’t go very well for the government. Their guy came across as far less than competent and prepared. The final guy arguing for striking down the mandate was brilliant, absolutely brilliant. I’ve listened to this bit more than once. The guy is brilliant.
The last day was on another bit in the legislation involving Medicare/Medicaid. That didn’t go so well for the defense either. In all, as CNN attested, the current administration got their collective butts kicked. It made me smile.
So POTUS (President of the United States) got all officious and up in the face of SCOTUS and said there was no precedent for SCOTUS to reject what the legislators had created, that it was totally constitutional, any rejection would be completely politically driven . . . blah, blah, blah. The next day he backtracked a bit but essentially said the same thing, how dare SCOTUS take into question the constitutionality of this “essential” piece of legislation.
This political faux pas caused great humor, commentary and apoplexy (2)(3)(4)(5) among the constitutionally more savvy set as they compared POTUS’s history as a student and professor teaching the Constitution against the completely false assertion that SCOTUS has no power to overturn legislation that lacks a constitutional base. In all, I find it pretty amusing. If you want a sampling of what’s out there beyond what I’ve listed here, plug this into your search engine and start reading obama constitution professor supreme court.
POTUS’s inadvisable comments caused another court to exercise a little judicial outrage. The federal judge in another case assigned the administration some apparently much needed homework.
…a federal appeals court judge in Texas — troubled by Obama’s remarks about the propriety of unelected judges striking down acts of Congress — ordered a Justice Department attorney to give him — within 48 hours — a three-page letter, single spaced, specifically referring the president’s statements and what they mean.
5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith said he wants to know the position of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the concept of judicial review.
“I want to be sure that you are telling us that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases,” Smith said.
The judge made the request during oral arguments in a separate challenge to another aspect of the federal health care law…
So we’re all waiting to see what the administration submits, if anything. More hilarity is sure to ensue.