It isn’t often that I can say Bob Lonsberry is exactly correct about something. This article is one of those few cases.
UPDATE 04/18/2008 11:03AM: Guy Murray at Messenger and Advocate has an even better rundown on the weakness of Texas’ case after the first day of hearings.
H/T Alienated Wannabe
Unless you already know what the Monty Hall Problem is or are just a freaky genius who never falls victim to logical errors you should read this article and then be a little more humble about your assumptions from now on. I know I will.
The Monty Hall Problem is excellently explained in the game linked in the article.
H/T LDS Science Review
Here is an interview Brian Schweitzer (Democratic governor of Montana) recently had with NPR. It is very short and sweet and forceful explanation of the foolishness that is “Real Id”. Give the interview a listen then try to imagine Gov. Huntsman being that cool. Pretty hard eh?
It would sure be nice to have a chance to support a candidate like Mr. Schweitzer in Utah. Do you think it is possible that a state like ours, so heavily influenced by cultural Mormonism, could ever elect someone known for his willingness to kick butt in the fight for our freedoms and rights instead of someone well-known because he’s really rich, really pretty, and really Mormon?
I saw my dentist on TV this morning offering free dental work for people who can’t afford to pay for it. We need more people like him who are willing to actually do something on their own to solve the problems our society faces instead of turning to government for solutions.
Thank you Dr. Preece. A great dentist and a great example.
Derek Staffanson at A Liberal Mormon has completed his three part series on the topic of Social Justice.
Post 1: The Need To Help The Poor - We need to help the poor. We don’t usually do that. That is a problem.
Post 2: The Moral Conservative Criticism of Social Justice - Conservative hypocrisy supports little basis for a moral criticism of social justice…whether publicly enforced or privately donated.
Post 3: The Libertarian Criticism of Social Justice - Libertarians are against enforcing social justice through use of government’s guns…they should make louder and more frequent arguments for private charity or else get out of the way of government efforts at social justice.
Go check out his thoughts and join the discussion. Major props to Derek for all the thought and excellent writing skills he expended on this effort!
Here is a short summary of George W. Bush’s anti-conservative policies while in office. I blog this mostly for personal future use next time someone tries to claim Republican leaders are actually conservative.
If you were trying to defend a government policy of revoking constitutionally protected rights what rhetoric would you use to try to convince the public that you were in the right?
AG Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn’t say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.
Not a bad entry.
Hat Tip: Hit and Run
UPDATE: 1/19/2007 11:51
Thank you Part of the Plan for linking video of an extended part of the conversation between Sen. Arlen Spector and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Everyone should hear what the chief law enforcement officer of the Bush administration thinks about the U.S. Constitution. His argument seems to be that habeas corpus isn’t expressly granted in the Constitution so the prohibition in that document against taking it away is basically meaningless. The extended conversation is even more damning than the brief portion I quoted above.
Glenn Reynolds, the guy who inspired me to start blogging a few years ago, interviewed Mitt Romney for a podcast. I want so badly to like Romney. He seems like a great guy and he has tons of charisma. He doesn’t come off as a slick but stupid hillbilly like our current president and he isn’t a creepy ghoul like John Kerry.
Romney responded in his interview to this video recently posted at YouTube. Anyone interested in Romney should watch the video and compare it with his current conservative campaign agenda. He seemed pretty passionate about a woman’s right to choose an abortion in that debate and about how important it was for the Boy Scouts of America to admit gays. For him to now just declare, “I was wrong.” doesn’t cut it. Of course I can’t see into his heart and know for certain whether or not he really has changed his mind but his changes on these positions are quite the waffle. It really seems that he said what was necessary to try to win votes in Massachusetts and now he is saying what he has to say to win a Republican primary election.
Watch the Romney video and listen to the “Glenn and Helen Show” podcast and ask yourself if you are really comfortable in the belief that this guy actually believes what he is saying. I’m not convinced that he does. The last thing the Republicans need is another candidate who doesn’t actually believe the conservative propaganda he spews but is willing to say anything necessary in an effort to placate the party’s conservative base in the Primary election.
UPDATE 1/11/2007: I listened to the “Glenn and Helen Show” podcast again this morning and noticed that Romney never really repudiated his specific positions held before he began to eye a national political race. He said “…of course I was wrong about some positions back then, I’m not embarrassed to admit that.” He then encouraged us to look at his record as governor. I can’t find any part of his record as governor where he repudiated his basic support for safe and legal abortion as provided in Roe Vs. Wade despite his personal distaste for the practice. Nowhere in his record as Massachusetts Governor did he go against his support for equal legal protection for gays and lesbians. These positions don’t dissuade me from supporting Romney and in fact I could easily be convinced that I was too hard on Romney in this post originally.
As a libertarian I’m concerned about his arguments later in the Podcast in favor of government mandated health insurance, support for a surge in the number of troops in Iraq, and positions supporting bigger government involvement in areas which should be provided by market forces instead. That said…I still think he is my favorite major party candidate for President in 2008 at this point.
My mom gave me Free To Choose when I was 12. I read it then and again a couple years ago. It is still one of the clearest economic treatises ever written. Thank you Mr. Friedman, you will be missed.
Libertarians (when I use the word libertarian alone I am referring to believers in libertarian ideology not members of the Libertarian Party) believe America has a history of being great because it has a history of being the nation best at preserving private property rights and civil liberties. We desire a government that has the power needed to maintain law and order so an environment exists where property rights are protected and people feel confident enough to sink all of their time and effort into increasing their property without fear of it being stolen from them. This is the definition of the right to property. Libertarians also desire a government that doesn’t dictate moral values to its citizens. Consenting adults who wish to violate the mores of society should be free to do so in any way they wish until their actions perpetrate demonstrable harm to someone who didn’t voluntarily take part in those actions then government should step in to redress resulting grievances. This is civil liberty. Libertarians are deeply distrustful of anyone arguing that some of their property should be forfeit to government so it can be re-distributed to anyone else for any reason other than protection of property rights and civil liberties (police, courts and military).
I’ve always believed that neither major political party has been good at implementing libertarian ideals in government. For most of my life I’ve believed Republicans were better at maintaining my property rights while Democrats were better at maintaining my civil liberties. It is clear that both parties have been very willing to compromise both of these values throughout our nation’s history. In my opinion Democrats are currently the lesser of the two evils when it comes to violating my economic freedoms and my civil liberties. That is why I’m a Democrat and that is why I urge other libertarian leaning individuals to support the Democratic Party over the Republican Party.
(I’ve just written in two short paragraphs what the “great” Markos Moulitsas couldn’t effectively communicate in this giant essay. Not that I’m being cocky or anything.)
I’ve been meaning to blog lately but I can’t think of anything I really want to say so I’ll just point everyone to this. Thanks Radley.
Read this commentary entitled Liberty, Equality, Mediocrity by Charles Krauthammer. Krauthammer perfectly analyzes and explains the current French unrest/riots and the root causes. Here’s a bit of it:
And now, in a new act of revolutionary creativity, the French are at it again. Millions of young people and trade unionists, joined by some underclass opportunists looking for a good night out, have taken to the streets again. To rise up against what? In massive protest against a law that would allow employers to fire an employee less than 26 years old in the first two years of his contract.
That’s a very long way from liberty, equality, fraternity. The spirit of this revolution is embodied most perfectly in the slogan on many placards: CONTRE LA PRÉCARITÉ, or “Against Precariousness.” The precariousness of being subject to being fired. The precariousness of the untenured life, even if the work is boring and the boss no longer wants you. And ultimately, the precariousness of life itself, any weakening of the government guarantee of safety, conformity, regularity.
That is something very new. And it is not just a long way from the ideals of 1789. It is the very antithesis. It represents an escape from freedom, a demand for an arbitrary powerful state in whose bosom you can settle for life.
I wonder what lessons America can learn from the complete failure of the French way of life? Read the whole thing.
Hat tip Instapundit.
The idea of starting my blog up again inspired me to check out a few sites I’ve never been to that I thought might be interesting. I found one. Check out this post at The Baron of Deseret with analysis on the question of life the universe and everything from both the LDS and Athiest points of view.
In an interesting online discussion (in the comments section of this post) about the origin and evolution of life I posted a response to an argument questioning my religious belief in a divine creation with this closing paragraph:
In the end it doesn’t really matter that we disagree on this. If I die and my conciousness ceases to exist than I guess you were right and I was wrong. Congratulations. If not…well then…cool for both of us! I don’t have a pure knowledge of which its going to be but I know what I would rather believe.
When I first wrote that I thought I was being rather clever….now I realize I was just being glib. Maybe it does matter that men disagree on this topic. If people disagree on the whole point of our existence is it any wonder that they would profoundly disagree on what principles of societal organization and economy are best for mankind?
(more…)
I just added a new blog to my bloglines feed.
Favorite line regarding the recent presidential debates:
As for who won, I’d have to say we all lose. As I just realized when talking to a colleague, this isn’t about picking the lesser of two evils–it’s about distinguishing between two different but equally horrible kinds of evil.
Well said. You should also check out this post regarding means testing for social security. The writer’s idea about changing social security in name and structure so it is clearly a welfare program for seniors and the disabled is outstanding for the reasons explained in that post and more. Great webpage.
