Left wingers are busily constructing fantastical narratives about restaurant owners who wish to prevent gays from eating at their establishments, and cab drivers who want nothing more than to drive right past the gay man hailing him on the sidewalk. Meanwhile, here in the Land of Things That Actually Happen, nobody is proposing, nor condoning, nor anticipating, nor hoping for, nor looking to specifically protect that sort of thing. That sort of thing isn’t happening, and it won’t happen. It’s not an issue. It’s not real. It’s a fantasy. A lie. A total fabrication.
"Gay rights" is not about equality. It’s about coercing acceptance of an ideology. Read the whole thing.
"Unborn babies butchered in abortion mills? Sorry, not dehumanizing. One bakery in the entire country decides not to make dessert for a gay wedding? DEHUMANIZING."
Giving someone directions to another place of business who is happy to do a particular type of business? Dehumanizing. State-enforced coercion of a private business owner? Not dehumanizing.
In this article, I explain why, even if the revisionist empirical studies are accurate, it still does not follow that the proposed hike in the minimum wage will be a boon for low-skilled workers. I also argue that, because critics have raised many troubling concerns about these studies, we should not accept them at face value. I conclude that economists should maintain the standard view that employers have a downward-sloping demand for low-skilled labor and that raising the minimum wage will tend to destroy job opportunities for many of those whom advocates of the higher minimum wage wish to help.
The Obama administration laid out new restrictions on the marketing of junk food and sugary drinks in schools on Tuesday.
The new rules from the White House and the Department of Agriculture prohibit advertisements for unhealthy foods on school campuses during the school day, including sugary drinks that account for 90 percent of such ads in school. An ad for regular Coca-Cola, for example, would be banned from appearing on a scoreboard at a high school football game, though ads for Diet Coke and Dasani water, owned by the same company, would be allowed. Junk food ads like a Coca-Cola scoreboard would be phased out under the new rules and would not have to be replaced overnight.
“The idea here is simple—our classrooms should be healthy places where kids aren’t bombarded with ads for junk food,” First Lady Michelle Obama said in a statement.
The Obama’s revealed a new initiative to take place in the near future that will also tell Americans what they can think and where they can think it….you know…for the kids.
This is the ignorant, bizarro world we live in: the White House and its lapdog proxy, the USDA — “we’re here to protect you” — consider Diet Coke a “healthy” “food” when few things are farther than the truth.
“It is more important…to release the creative energy of individuals than to devise further machinery for ‘guiding’ and ‘directing’ them—to create conditions favorable to progress rather than to ‘plan progress.’ (261)”—F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (via sds)
Suddenly the whole world is talking about income inequality. But, as this debate goes on, it is beginning to look as though the thing is being misconceived. The income inequality debate is confusing matters more than clarifying them, and it is leading us off in unhelpful directions.
In the first place, to frame the issue as income inequality is to lump together different issues that are not especially related. What we call “inequality” is caused by two different constellations of problems.
"[Outside influence] played a factor, agrees Jon Healey at the LA Times, but "the fundamental problem is that the pitch itself wasn’t compelling." VW already paid its workers well, so what did they have to gain? UAW pitched it as a way to give workers a voice in company policy and make the entire company run more smoothly. "Right. And workers are supposed to pay for that privilege?"
"Many also blame the union for bringing down Detroit. The UAW needs to "give up on most social causes that have nothing to do with their members’ wages and work environment.""
"[The UAW] hobbled Detroit’s automakers with "with ridiculous and cumbersome work rules," and it’s so corrupt that workers can’t actually trust it to look out for them."
Certainly [George Herbert’s] poems are unashamedly intelligent. They are an example of the metaphysical school of poetry, which deliberately piled metaphor upon metaphor, and drew those metaphors from the cutting edge of contemporary science and philosophy. They flatter the reader by assuming a breadth and depth of political, theological and scientific knowledge.
They are also full of genuine emotion. This makes them feel much more modern than their date would suggest. For Herbert, religion is never simply a set of dogmatic assertions, or a collection of cultural practices, as historical religion is sometimes caricatured. Nobody reading these poems can be left in any doubt as to Herbert’s emotional engagement with his subject matter. The question Herbert’s poetry raises is eternally contemporary. The poems don’t ask us “Is this true?” but “How do I feel about this?”
It is this question that slipped under my guard as a teenager. It was easy to dismiss the truth of the 20 impossible things that religion seemed to expect me to believe before breakfast. It was much harder to dismiss my own emotional reaction to these poems: the beauty, the yearning, the enticing danger. They left me with the sense that I was standing on a cliff, staring out to sea, hearing marvellous tales of lands beyond the horizon and wondering if they were, after all, just fairy tales or whether the intensity with which the tales were told was evidence that the teller had indeed seen a barely imagined kingdom.
”—Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, one of the priests who instructed me for confirmation in the Church of England, recounting her experience with George Herbert (via wesleyhill)
Democrats who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline have thousands of dollars invested in direct competitors to the company looking to build the pipeline, public records show.
A recent environmental assessment by the State Department was seen as a step toward the pipeline’s approval, but Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.) remains opposed to its construction.
“In my view, there is now enough evidence to conclude that construction of this pipeline is not in America’s long-term interest,” Kaine said in a statement on the review.
The freshman Democrat has between $15,000 and $50,000 invested in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, according to his most recent financial disclosure. Kinder Morgan is looking to build a pipeline that would directly compete with Keystone.
The Obama administration is simply re-writing Obamacare on the fly, with no regard for the plain text of the statute. This is lawless behavior, as was the first big delay. The Obama Precedent is now firmly set. Future presidents may delay, postpone, or alter any portion of the this law that they find unworkable. Or politically inconvenient. Or…anything at all, really.
The administration has now twice bestowed major Obamacare delays on businesses (a tacit acknowledgement that the law’s effects are harmful to the job market and economic growth). At what point do average families and individuals get the same treatment? Millions are projected to pay the mandate tax in 2014 and beyond, most of whom are declining to obtain coverage because it costs too much. This administration has granted “hardship waivers" to some individuals who’ve lost their coverage because of Obamacare and can’t afford the new rates. Why not extend the same fair deal to all Americans? The individual mandate tax is deeply unpopular; a massive majority of Americans support its delay. Please, Democrats, explain why middle class families must comply with this ever-changing law, while businesses get special exemptions and extensions. Also, please explain why you were willing to shut down the government when Republicans tried to delay this law through the democratic process — yet this unilateral decree is just fine. They’ve struggled to articulate a legal justification for these Obamacare power-grabs in the recent past. Remember, the individual mandate was upheld as a tax. Can presidents just rewrite tax laws now? Again, think of the precedent being set here.
More shenanigans from our ex-Constitutional Law professor.
"Good morning, and welcome to Constitutional Law 101. Let’s get started. The first thing you need to know about the Constitution is — well, really the only thing you need to know — is that it’s a set of guidelines. And by ‘guidelines,’ I mean, ‘I can do whatever the hell I want.’"
“I wish we could sometimes love the characters in real life as we love the characters in romances. There are a great many human souls whom we should accept more kindly, and even appreciate more clearly, if we simply thought of them as people in a story.”—
"This is the first in a series of interviews about religion that I will conduct for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is Alvin Plantinga, an emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, a former president of both the Society of Christian Philosophers and the American Philosophical Association, and the author, most recently, of “Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism.”"
Alvin Plantinga is fantastic. His responses seem so effortless, genuine, and winsome.