[First]  [Previous] |    784     785     786     787     788     789     790     791     792     793    | [Next]  [Last] of 807 page(s)

Why Liberals Cheer When Conservatives Die

The American Spectator

by Aaron Goldstein

March 1, 2012

Earlier today, Quin Hillyer ripped Matt Yglesias a new one after he went on Twitter to delight in the death of Andrew Breitbart.

Well, Yglesias was outdone by Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone who wrote this afternoon, "Good! F#*k him. I couldn't be happier that he's dead." I would call on Rolling Stone to fire Taibbi but they'll probably give him a raise. All of which raises two questions...

Why Not "Opt Out" of Government Control?

reason.com

by J.D. Tuccille

November 7, 2013

From bootlegging to working off the books, we've done it many times before, and it's getting ever-easier to exit the system.

Balaji Srinivasan, a Stanford Universty instructor and genomics entrepreneur, recently offered some radically individualistic advice to aspiring tech innovators. Speaking at at this year's Startup School, sponsored by tech "seed accelerator" Y Combinator, he warned members of the audience that, despite (or maybe, because of) the liberating and enriching qualities of technology in people's lives, the tech industry faces a backlash from old-line power centers. In response, he said, technological innovators should publicly state their case, but also be prepared to exploit a market opportunity to help people escape government control, no matter the law. Their innovations, he suggested, should allows fans of the old order to "enjoy" the rules and structures to which they're attached, but offer the rest of us a means of exiting an increasingly authoritarian system. In other words, to hell with arguing for more freedom, let's take it.

Why Not Renew the "Assault Weapons" Ban? Well, I'll Tell You...

kontradictions.wordpress.com

by Ulysses Ronquillo

August 9, 2012

After a decade of failure, why assume that the bans will reduce violent crime THIS time around?

It's not easy being a leftist who loves guns. It's like being a Republican who listens to NPR or supports single payer health care. But being a leftist, I get exposed to all the liberal publications and media that invariably call for gun control every time someone does something stupid with one. Being a gun enthusiast, I also get exposed to the political Right's oversimplification of those liberals as somehow lacking moral fiber or true appreciation of freedom. Rather than agreeing with both, I tend to end up arguing with both. It's exhausting to always feel like I'm apologizing for the other "side". This article takes a point of view, but aims to do so in a way that members of both sides of the political spectrum can understand. I'll try to give some idea as to why we on the political left roll our eyes at the rhetoric of the NRA, and how we in the "gun culture" can possibly defend something called "assault weapons".

Why Obama is demanding tax increases

The Real Revo

by R.D. Walker

July 19, 2011

What kind of tax increases? The kind that seize more revenue from Americans than at any time in history.

Of course the lie is that this will be a simple tax increase on the rich. It most certainly will not. It will necessarily tax everyone and transfer substantial portions of buying power from households and businesses to the government. It represents an erosion of not just private financial control but a further erosion of the right to do with your property what you wish. It is an erosion of liberty.

Why Obama won't use the 14th Amendment "option"

Hot Air

by Ed Morrissey

July 29, 2011

Barack Obama won't unilaterally raise the nation's debt ceiling through an executive order. Note, however, that I didn't say "can't."

Can Obama, in perfectly practical rather than legal terms, issue an executive order that unilaterally raises the debt ceiling in order to avoid a default? Of course. But it won't work, for two reasons, and it would be a political disaster even if Obama succeeded, for another two reasons.

Why Obama's Ads Help Romney

The American Spectator

by Aaron Goldstein

October 9, 2012

I am not sure why the Obama campaign keeps releasing TV ads featuring Mitt Romney drubbing their candidate in last week's debate.

First there was the "How Can You Trust Romney?" ad which disputes Romney's assertion that he is not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. It is the ad which asks, "If we can't trust him here then how could we ever trust him here?" The heres in question are the debate podium and the Oval Office, respectively. The problem for Obama is that Americans do trust Romney at the debate podium. As for Obama, the American people put their trust in him four years ago and yet he couldn't defend his policies at the debate podium. The American people do not trust Obama either at the debate podium or in the Oval Office.

Why Obama's Promotion of Oral Contraceptives Guarantees the Spread of Lethal STDs

PJ Media

by Ed Driscoll

March 5, 2012

What a wretched way to try to win an election.

Dear Troubled, No, it isn't right that you - or any American - should underwrite oral contraception - the world's single most dangerous form of birth control - for anyone else. Just because contraception is legal doesn't mean that by paying for private health insurance we should subsidize it in any form, not to mention in its most hazardous form.

Why Police Lie Under Oath

nytimes.com

by Michelle Alexander

February 3, 2013

THOUSANDS of people plead guilty to crimes every year in the United States because they know that the odds of a jury's believing their word over a police officer's are slim to none.

As a juror, whom are you likely to believe: the alleged criminal in an orange jumpsuit or two well-groomed police officers in uniforms who just swore to God they're telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but? As one of my colleagues recently put it, "Everyone knows you have to be crazy to accuse the police of lying." But are police officers necessarily more trustworthy than alleged criminals? I think not. Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie. In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn’t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so.

Why President Obama Is Wrong on Inequality

reason.com

by Ronald Bailey

January 10, 2014

It is not the "defining challenge of our time."

Are the rich getting richer? Yes. Are the poor getting poorer? No. In fact, over the past 35 years most Americans got richer. Has income inequality increased in the United States? Yes. Does it matter? Well, President Barack Obama thinks so. In a December speech at the Center for American Progress, the president declared that "a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility" is "the defining challenge of our time." Is that so? No.

Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'

chronicle.com

by Daniel J. Solove

May 15, 2011

When the government gathers or analyzes personal information, many people say they're not worried. "I've got nothing to hide," they declare. "Only if you're doing something wrong should you worry, and then you don't deserve to keep it private."

The nothing-to-hide argument pervades discussions about privacy. The data-security expert Bruce Schneier calls it the "most common retort against privacy advocates." The legal scholar Geoffrey Stone refers to it as an "all-too-common refrain." In its most compelling form, it is an argument that the privacy interest is generally minimal, thus making the contest with security concerns a foreordained victory for security. The nothing-to-hide argument is everywhere. In Britain, for example, the government has installed millions of public-surveillance cameras in cities and towns, which are watched by officials via closed-circuit television. In a campaign slogan for the program, the government declares: "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." Variations of nothing-to-hide arguments frequently appear in blogs, letters to the editor, television news interviews, and other forums. One blogger in the United States, in reference to profiling people for national-security purposes, declares: "I don't mind people wanting to find out things about me, I've got nothing to hide! Which is why I support [the government's] efforts to find terrorists by monitoring our phone calls!" The argument is not of recent vintage...

[First]  [Previous] |    784     785     786     787     788     789     790     791     792     793    | [Next]  [Last] of 807 page(s)