Quote of the Day
America believes in education:the average professor earns more money in a year than
a professional athlete earns in a whole week.
Evan Esar
Image of the Day
 |
| Via Antony Price on FB |
 |
| Via Patriot Post |
One of my pet peeves is when I venture onto free market websites, and routinely see diatribes against these mythical corporations who are a law onto themselves, plutocrats pulling strings of powerful politicians, milking taxpayer money and bailouts, and huge taxbreaks. Basically, they have no clue that the morally hazardous policies they create have unintended consequences.
America is suffering from rampant, run-away corporatism and crony capitalism. We are increasingly a plutocracy in which government serves the interests of elite financiers and CEOs at the expense of everyone else. You know this and you complain loudly about it. But the problem is your fault. You caused this state of affairs. Stop it.
We told you this would happen, but you wouldn’t listen. You complain, rightly, that regulatory agencies are controlled by the very corporations they are supposed to constrain. Well, yeah, we told you that would happen. When you create power—and you people love to create power—the unscrupulous seek to capture that power for their personal benefit. Time and time again, they succeed. We told you that would happen, and we gave you an accurate account of how it would happen.
You complain, perhaps rightly, that corporations are just too big. Well, yeah, we told you that would happen. When you create complicated tax codes, complicated regulatory regimes, and complicated licensing rules, these regulations naturally select for larger and larger corporations. We told you that would happen. Of course, these increasingly large corporations then capture these rules, codes, and regulations to disadvantage their competitors and exploit the rest of us. We told you that would happen. - Jason Brennan (HT FEE)Oops, Remy Does It Again...
SCOTUS Imposes "Gay Marriage" On All 50 States 5-4: Thumbs DOWN!
If there was a surprise, it was that the vote was EXACTLY the same after last year; the only reason I was modestly surprised is that SCOTUS had failed to accept any cases from appeals of traditional state statutes being overtuned or sustained thereof at the appeals level. It was inconceivable that they would rule that some states could retain their traditional regulatory right and responsibility but not others based on which court of appeals heard their case. The fact that they agreed to hear the appeals by the few "marriage equality" advocates who lost made it obvious that SCOTUS intended to set a single standard. (For a more detailed rant, see here from Patriot Post.)
From my April 28 post:
- SCOTUS Reconsiders the Topic of "Gay Marriage". Thumbs DOWN! I'm somewhat encouraged by Justice Kennedy's concern about the unintended consequences to changing an institution which has evolved over thousands of years, but I'm skeptical that the same SCOTUS that has let stand reversals of several states' legitimate popularly-enacted traditional marriage laws will suddenly reverse the groupthink of all but a few lower courts.
And this is from my Jan. 17 post, where I clearly predicted the Court would make a 14th Amendment finding:
SCOTUS Agrees To Review Four Cases Upholding Traditional Marriage Cases: Thumbs DOWN!Facebook Corner
Okay, I'm not a lawyer, but this outcome is so obvious that you can phone it in. Look, before the recent Supreme Court ruling, over 30 states had constitutionally reaffirmed traditional marriage; today, at least a plurality of those states have had their laws vacated by federal court fiat, despite Kennedy's opinion recognizing traditional state regulation of marriage. More important, SCOTUS has refused appeals from those states essentially sustaining lower court reversals. This is troubling on several scores, one of them being I think it takes just 4 justices to pick up an appeal--which one might expect from Kennedy and/or the original 4 dissenting justices. I can only speculate--it could be Kennedy telegraphed a stronger ruling this time around.
This means that the fact that SCOTUS is picking up the cases affirming traditional marriage law is not a good thing. Refusing to hear the cases would have affirmed state sovereignty (plus an incoherent status quo where some states were more equal than others in state sovereignty). Agreeing to hear the cases seems to signal an almost certain sweeping reversal.
I realize the hearing is weeks away, but for me, there are 2 major questions: (1) what argument will carry the day, and (2) will the 4 justices capitulate to give a sweeping "right to marry" decision so-called moral authority of a unanimous decision? Let me give a guarded guess the answer to the second question is no; I don't see, for example, how Justice Thomas would validate federal reversals of over 30 state referendums; it would all but nullify the tenth amendment. The first question is harder to answer, but I expect just like Kennedy ignored the California Proposition 8 vote, he'll accept the recent reversals as a fait accompli and then argue a fourteenth amendment argument, saying the minority holdout states are discriminating against gay couples from out of the majority of other states
(Cato Institute). On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage in more than a dozen states in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Today, that same court held in a 5-4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.
This is the constitutional case for marriage equality
This is disingenuous politically correct, intellectually dishonest garbage. There is no legitimate comparison to anti-miscegenation laws. A defining function of marriage is a socially-accepted norm for procreation. Race-based differences are not salient to the functionality of procreation. I will note that the Catholic Church agitated against these restrictions on marriage, but the Catholic Church has an unchangeable opposition to non-traditional marriage, e.g., "gay marriage" and polygamy.
(The Independent Institute). "If the government protects individual rights, then government should have nothing to say about marriage. Marriage is a contract between two people, and if the contract is entered into voluntarily, the law should recognize and enforce it. What those people call the contract is irrelevant. If they want to call it marriage, or domestic partnership, or anything else, that should be up to them. Marriage, as such, should be no business of the state."
I think this may be the first libertarian thread I've seen (vs., say, Cato Institute, Reason, FEE, Libertarianism.org) which did not simply cheer on judicial whores imposing socially experimental policies on local communities/states.
Marriage, divorce, birth and death needs to be recorded by the government. That's it, folks. No religious protections. You don't need to be religious to be born or die. Yes, same as women's medical decisions and doctors' rights to make professional medical decisions do not belong in a government ruling.
This is illogical gibberish. The OP seems to think just because a plurality of marriages are faith-based, there is no alternative to government-sponsored marriage. There can be non-religious privatized, e.g., marriage counselors.
(Sen. Lee). Just as America has mostly avoided traditional conflicts between Protestants and Catholics, Christians and Jews, Sunni and Shia, atheists and believers — so too Americans’ commitment to tolerance, diversity, and dignity is perfectly capable of making room for the rights and dignity of those who disagree about the meaning of marriage.
But good-faith compromise — of the sort that is Americans’ unique political genius — is possible only if the government gives us the space to find it.
And those tempted by fundamentalism will be loathe to afford us this space, lest they let a manufactured crisis go to waste.
So Americans who believe in religious liberty have have an important job now.
We cannot hide this issue under a bushel and hope no one asks us about it.
We will have this debate. The only question is whether we start a conversation or we let the fundamentalists pick a fight.
The American people need and deserve to have this debate, so their representatives must engage it — with candor and compassion — in the most publicly accountable venues possible.
That is exactly why Rep. Raúl R. Labrador and I have introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which would prevent the federal government from discriminating against anyone who believes that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
It's sad but necessary to preserve the rights of those organizations and institutions, especially religious ones, which would no doubt be attacked by rogue administrations (e.g., over ObamaCare) over faith-based policies.
(A related comment from Senator Lee)
Today five Justices took a vital question about the future of American society out of the public square, imposing the views of five unelected judges on a country that is still in the midst of making up its mind about marriage. That is unfortunate, but it is not the end of the discussion, as Americans of good faith who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman will continue to live as witnesses to that truth.
I am nonetheless heartened by the majority’s reassurance that the religious liberty rights of all Americans, including those who advocate a traditional view of marriage, must be protected. As Justice Kennedy states in the decision, "the First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”
Our focus now must be on defending these crucial rights of conscience. That is exactly why Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) and I have introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which would prevent the federal government from discriminating against anyone who believes that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
(Justin Amash). Throughout history, different cultures have defined marriage according to their own customs and practices. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, and atheists do not share identical views on marriage. In fact, significant differences regarding marriage exist even within Christianity.
What makes marriage traditional is not its adherence to a universal definition but rather that it is defined by personal faith, not by government. For thousands of years, marriage flourished without a universal definition and without government intervention. Then came licensing of marriage. In recent decades, we've seen state legislatures and ballot initiatives define marriage, putting government improperly at the helm of this sacred institution.
Those who care about liberty should not be satisfied with the current situation. Government intervention in marriage presents new threats to religious freedom and provides no advantages, for gay or straight couples, over unlicensed (i.e., traditional) marriage. But we shouldn't blame the Supreme Court for where things stand.
To the extent that Americans across the political spectrum view government marriage as authoritative and unlicensed marriage as quaint, our laws must treat marriage—and the corresponding legal benefits that attach—as they would any other government institution. So, while today's Supreme Court opinion rests upon the false premise that government licensure is necessary to validate the intimate relationships of consenting adults, I applaud the important principle enshrined in this opinion: that government may not violate the equal rights of individuals in any area in which it asserts authority.
No, I disagree with Amash's analysis, i.e., the insidious notion that government confers "rights". The only rights are from God. This ruling was an unambiguous violation of the principle of federalism. Marriage for example is not a matter of interstate commerce; it should have been handled from the principle of Subsidiarity.
However, I do think Amash is on better ground when he talks around the issue of privatizing the institution of marriage.
(IPI). The Chicago Sun-Times: Ald. Proco Joe Moreno (1st) is looking to slap a 20-30% tax on smokeless tobacco.
If and when you tax, you need to spread the costs of government as low and uniformly as possible; picking on tobacco users may be politically correct or popular, but it's discriminatory, unfair and morally corrupt.
(IPI). This week, House Speaker Mike Madigan has been circulating the "good news" of business growth within the state to members of the Illinois House.
However, when taken in totality, the data actually offered more bad news for Illinois, as the growth in Illinois business establishments was not matched by jobs and wage growth.
Poor Illinois, having to suffer through a Republican governor that's going to tear the state apart and blame everybody else. Blame the Democrats blame the families that helped build the state to what it is.
Instead of working together he's following Scotty walkers footsteps and Governor Brownback's footsteps .
Fling bullshit to the wall to see what sticks. Instead of working together as a team for the betterment of the people of Illinois.
Besides the Republican Way divide and conquer. Blame everybody else well at least every Democrat you can find. Yeah Illinois problems but everybody's pulling in different directions is not going to solve them
Fascist OP trolls and their corrupt political whores think they have the moral authority to spend other people's money.
(Cato Institute). "Most of the country now supports gay marriage. Libertarians were there first...That’s no surprise, of course. Libertarians believe in individual rights for all people and equality before the law...Many Libertarians argue for the complete privatization of marriage...thus removing any need for state recognition of marriages. As long as marriage is licensed by government, however, same-sex couples are entitled to equal legal rights....Libertarians would like to get government out of most areas, but as long as government is involved, it must treat citizens equally."
It's not just that the author is completely delusional about the numbers favoring "gay marriage", that he is hypocritical about fascist judges trumping local communities and states in long-standing traditional standards that reflect the role of marriage and procreation/family as a social norm for societal preservation--which is wholly inapplicable in the context of gay relationships, but he ignores the fact that the government has not really sought to regulate gay relationships (and the libertarian response should be it's not in the interest of gays to do so), gays have always had contractual rights on an individual-equivalent basis, it's totally weird for libertarians to argue that State-conferred "rights" bundles are the reason for "marriage equality", and as a social issue, I've seen statistics showing the gay percentage of the population ranging from 1.5-4%, gays as a whole are notoriously promiscuous and don't have long-term relationships. We are really talking about divisive politics that really affect a tiny number of people to the point of stastical insignificance who have never, in thousands of years, felt the need to co-opt the heterosexual marriage construct: this is all about their wanting to use the power of the State to force recognition and acceptance of their relationships in straight communities. Guess what? You lose. The fascists can't compel our right to free expression.
(IPI). Americans once stampeded into Illinois in search of opportunity.
Now, the opposite happens.
In a Gallup poll from 2014, people who planned to leave Illinois made clear their top reason why. They wanted a state with more work and business opportunities.
The problem is the state spends, taxes, and regulates too damn much! Don't forget regulations; they are an indirect form of taxation; it's not politicians aren't doing anything; it's just when they do anything, they dig themselves deeper in the ditch. What you need in Springfield is a big spring cleaning.
Marriage and Family
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Glenn McCoy via Townhall |
 |
| Courtesy of the original artist via Patriot Post |
Dionne Warwick, "Do You Know the Way to San Jose?"
