Links for January 17, 2011: “An American Conversation” on Tucson, Drug Prohibition, etc.

January 16, 2011
  • Reason.tv once again lives up to its name.

  • On January 5, 2011, a gang of gun-wielding thugs rampaged into a private residence and killed a grandfather of 12. My question is: Were the killers inspired by violent “drug war” rhetoric, or were they simply crazy? It is time for an American Conversation on the tragedy in Framingham. Raids like this are conducted over 100 times each day across America. Yes, people die.

  • Vodpod videos no longer available.

    ANN COULTER: I have one statement for you: the welfare state. No, people can not do whatever they want to do and live however they want to live, as long as Ann has to pay for it, when they can’t hold a job and raise their own kids and buy their own food and pay for their own rent. You get rid of the welfare state and we’ll talk about people sitting home and shooting heroin all day, but right now, oh, and now I have to pay for their health care!

    JOHN STOSSEL: So because we have a social welfare system, we have to give up these other freedoms?

    ANN: Yeah, as long as Ann is paying for it.

    Ann Coulter is a little more forthright than the average prohibitionist. Her argument is that since the government is forcing her to pay for something, then it might as well be what she wants most of all, which is to bastille her fellow citizens when she disapproves of their private, personal conduct. If she weren’t forced to pay for something, she might then be open to not paying out of her own pocket to imprison people who have committed no crimes against her or others.

    If Ann doesn’t want government health care money and living expenses to go to drug addicts, then her solution is counter-productive. Even prior to ObamaCare, the only people in the United States of America who have been constitutionally entitled to state-funded health care have been prisoners. Her argument, essentially, is: “I don’t want to pay for drug addicts’ health care food, room, and board, but I love throwing them all in jail, where I’m guaranteed to pay for all of their health care, food, room, and board. It is more important to Ann that we throw drug users in jail than it is that we save Ann’s tax money.”

    That is the logic of prohibition. For more hemming, hawing, evading, and stammering, see part 2:

    Vodpod videos no longer available.

    You can decide for yourselves whether the logic of prohibition wins the day. Read the rest of this entry »


  • Links for December 20, 2010: What Makes a Slant a Slant?

    December 19, 2010
  • Vodpod videos no longer available.

    At the height of the health care reform debate last fall, Bill Sammon, Fox News’ controversial Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network’s journalists not to use the phrase “public option.”

    Instead, Sammon wrote, Fox’s reporters should use “government option” and similar phrases — wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended in order to turn public opinion against the Democrats’ reform efforts.

    “Caught slanting”, eh? Why is Media Matters so uncomfortable with the word “government”? It seems to describe the policy accurately. Then again, if you want to be consistent, you’ll have to use the phrase elsewhere, as in “government library” and “government swimming pool”, which is still accurate, really.

  • We’ve had a few cases rule in favor. This will be an interesting legal battle.

  • Stopping bailouts was not a poll option. The free market was not a poll option.

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


    Links for 2010-02-18: Frontline Episode on Digital Distractions, Sponsors Pull Ads from Glenn Beck’s Show, others….

    February 19, 2010
    1. PBS | FRONTLINE: Digital Nation

      Why I rarely brought my laptop to class. The irony is that this documentary is now the main thing distracting me from my bar study. Inspired by the story of the Lower Merion student who sued the school district for spying on him at home via webcam.

    2. Examiner.com | Glenn Beck's show now running without commercials in United Kingdom due to boycott

      Would I advertise on this show? I don't know. I'd have to be a businessman. I remember hearing him cream himself on the radio after the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue in Iraq. I thought he was fairly nutty then. As with many conservative commentators, he is fairly astute on many economic issues, which is ostensibly why Goldline remains a sponsor. I'm not sure about the history of the "Obama is a racist" comment. If he had a good-faith reason for believing that, and showed us his evidence on the show, then it would not be a deal-breaker for me. A fact is a fact. But if he simply went around calling people racists because he didn't like them, then yes, I probably would pull my ads.

    3. Business and Media Institute | 'Glenn Beck' Sponsors Attacked by Left, Pull Ads from Fox News Show

      Rather than describing the method of attack, the article spends much time identifying The Obama Administration's Van Jones as a founder of the group alleged to be doing the attacking. Pure ad hominem. Read the rest of this entry »