Links for June 21, 2010: Police Shoot Expenctant Father Dead Over Marijuana, The Economics of the Minimum Wage, others….

  1. The victims.

    “One of the problems that the marijuana reform movement consistently faces is that everyone wants to talk about what marijuana does, but no one ever wants to look at what marijuana prohibition does. Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night. Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people. Marijuana does not suppress medical research. Marijuana does not peek in bedroom windows. Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.” ~ Richard Cowan

    … and Marijuana never shoots expectant fathers in the face for making “furtive movements”. If you are not speaking out against these tragedies, then you are telling our lawmakers that you tacitly approve of them. Spread the word, to your legislators and across your social networks, that you do not approve.

  2. It lays out the basic argument. Progressives might revile at the suggestion that the minimum wage is more that a worker “is worth”, but I think this ignores economic reality. 

  3. It is not the Federal Reserve but supply and demand that ultimately determines interest rates. Although central banks can push rates up or down to some degree, the globally integrated financial system reduces the Fed’s ability to significantly influence rates.

    In defense of Alan Greenspan. I always thought the fed simply set interest rates by decree. Have I missed something? Note, of course, the the ultimate preference of the paper’s authors would be “to abolish the Fed and deregulate the banking industry.”

  4. Rawr!! The Fedrul Guvmint is comin' to gitcha!!!

    Roads. It always comes around to roads. Maybe if I wrote a piece of my own explaining why this is no silver bullet argument in support of the glorious state, people would stop bringing it up as if it were.

  5. So then: why have tea partiers gone off the rails about the federal deficit? It’s not because of something unique in their psyches. And it’s not because they’re suddenly worried that America is going to go the way of Greece. (The polls I linked to above show that tea partiers care more about cutting taxes than reducing the size of government.) It’s because they’re the usual reactionary crowd that goes nuts whenever there’s a Democrat in the White House and they’re looking for something to be outraged about.”

    First of all, that tea-partiers allegedly care more about cutting taxes than reducing the size of government, even if true, does not imply that they are not also worried that America will go the way of Greece. Secondly, what about the author, Kevin Drum? Is he worried that America will go the way of Greece? Don’t belabor the point, Mr. Drum, lest you begin to sound like a tea-partier, yourself. That might undermine the effectiveness of your screed.

  6. The U.S. Constitution: It may not say what you think it says.

    In a recent Under God blog, “Nikki Haley’s confession of faith,” On Faith editor David Waters wrote about the evolution of the South Carolina Constitution. The 1778 version stated, “That the Christian religion is the true religion” and “The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State.” That was updated in 1868 to its present form, “No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being.” Of course, this more “tolerant” version is still unconstitutional, since Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office.

    The original version was always constitutional. Only in 1947 was the First Amendment interpreted to apply to state actions.  It is unconstitutional now, but not because of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which applies to the Federal government only.  Rather, it is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court has interpreted Due Process clause the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the First Amendment’s establishment clause to the states.  Herb Silverman may have won a “unanimous South Carolina Supreme Court decision”, but I imagine he did not prepare the argument…

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: