Showing posts with label balko. Show all posts
Showing posts with label balko. Show all posts

Monday, May 10

Now we're stuck with Elena Kagan

And I'd thought Sonia Sotomayor was too prosecutor-friendly for her refusal to hear evidence.

Kagan's nomination and certain confirmation are a disaster for liberty, for reasons Daniel Larison and Radley Balko explain.

Obama's overall record on civil liberties has been surprisingly terrible for a constitutional law professor. I don't have time right now to elucidate on all his slights, but I'm done making excuses. I expected this to be one of his stronger areas, and instead he's turned out to be worse than I would have expected from, say, Hillary Clinton.

I believe this is the turning point.  As Radley put it in 2008:
Here’s why I preferred Obama to McCain: The GOP gave up all pretense of any limited government principles. They’re no longer trustworthy on the issues where they’re supposed to agree with me. Obama, on the other hand, made some promises about government transparency, hinted at a less bellicose foreign policy, and I like what he said about Guantanamo, torture, and executive power. In other words, he was better on the issues where Democrats are supposed to agree with me. It’s really that simple.
Yet we no longer agree where we were supposed to agree.

I'm throwing in my towel and will not support Obama in 2012.

(A Republican candidate will have an even steeper hill to climb to earn my support, but as of now: a plague o' both their houses.)

Monday, March 22

Some links via Radley

If you don't already read The Agitator, you're missing out...

Friday, December 11

Boobies!

Mmm...
My 7 year old son was on the computer last night, as I worked on dinner.  When he quit and went upstairs,  I jumped on to finish an article I had started earlier.  I clicked on my history and I see:

“Google search….Big Boobs”

He checked out a few pages. Then I see:

“Google search….Really Big Boobs”
Radley adds:
I was a seven-year-old boy once. That progression totally makes sense.

[..] The good news is, the kid’s probably headed for a long, healthy life.
 Where oh where was Google when I was seven?

Wednesday, November 4

Rand Paul takes polling lead

Radley at Reason:
Over at the blog In the Agora, Joshua Claybourn notes that libertarian (and Ron Paul offspring) Rand Paul has taken an early polling lead for the Republican nomination to replace retiring U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). Paul has already raised far more money than his opponent, Kentucky's GOP establishment-backed Secretary of State Trey Grayson. But Paul has also been able to convert dollars into poll points. He has jumped 14 points in the last three months.

Claybourn, an attorney and writer just across the Ohio River in Evansville, Indiana observes:
Rand Paul is a strong states’ rights advocate who wants the federal government out of people’s lives. He opposes federal drug laws and says the U.S. government should not outlaw gay marriage because only churches should be in the marriage business. He is skeptical of foreign interventionism and doggedly Constitutional about any engagement. But more than anything he likes talking about fiscal issues and the need to scale back government intrusion in economics and reform the nation’s fiscal policies...

Libertarian intrusions into Republican primaries are nothing new. But what separates Rand Paul from most other libertarian candidates (including his father) is that Rand is not a novelty act. He is a known commodity as a long-time practicing ophthalmologist in western Kentucky. Along with tremendous intellectual heft, Rand is a polished public speaker with a professional presence. In short, he is an ideal candidate for the libertarian cause.
All of which would explain why the national GOP is trying like hell to make sure he doesn't get the nomination.

Sunday, October 11

"Regretsy"

Hilarious site compiles the worst of Etsy.com (NSFW)

O.M.G.—can't stop laughing!

(ht Radley)

Sunday, September 6

Tuesday, September 1

Link blag

Sunday, August 30

Monday, August 24

Yeesh

OMAHA - A Nebraska man who stole a painting of the Virgin Mary to finance an abortion for a teen he was accused of raping has been convicted of first-degree sexual assault and felony theft.
Radley comments:
I’m agnostic. But wow, if there is a God? This guy's in big, big trouble.

Sunday, August 23

Photo of the week



Cement silo, Indiana. (Radley Balko/CC license)

Not phallic, so stop thinking that. There's just something melancholy about it. A simple structure, from a simpler time.

Saturday, August 15

Your papers, please

Radley at Reason:
Seems to me the media accounts of this story are missing the point. Yes, it’s amusing and a bit surreal to picture Bob Dylan wandering around a local neighborhood near where he’s giving a concert. But now everyone’s having a good laugh about how two local police officers had no idea who Dylan was when they stopped and detained him after some residents reported an elderly man acting “suspiciously.”

I don’t know.  I find it pretty depressing. There was a time when we condescendingly used the term “your papers, please” to distinguish ourselves from Eastern Block countries and other authoritarian states. Post-Hiibel, America has become a place where a harmless, 68-year-old man out on a stroll can be stopped, interrogated, detained, and forced to produce proof of identification to state authorities, despite having committed no crime.

I guess I just don’t see the punchline.

Thursday, July 30

Zero tolerance policy

Philadelphia residents were caught having fun, so the city banned it.

(ht Radley)

Friday, July 24

Above and beyond

I'm against parts of ObamaCare as much as anyone—specifically the public option, entitlement expansion, and continuation of distortionary tax exemptions for benefits—but here's Fox News with some way above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty fearmongering stupidity.

(ht Radley)

Wednesday, July 22

Challenge to the left: state your limits

I know I've got a couple lefties (dunno if they prefer "progressive" or "liberal") who are fairly regular readers (and more sporadic ones, of course)

Here's a challenge for you, which I'll reproduce in full:
Several years ago, Matt Welch put up a "pro-war libertarian quiz" in an effort to get pro-war bloggers to go on record stating their limits when it comes to what powers they'd give the government in fighting terrorism.
In that spirit, I'd like to pose a similar query to the lefty blogosphere/opinionsphere on the growth and size of government. Every initiative announced by the Obama administration pushes us further into uncharted territory on both fronts, so it would be interesting to see what if any actual limits lefty opinion makers would put on the size, cost, and influence of the federal government. At what point would you be willing to finally say, "Okay, we've gone far enough"?
Note that the intent here is to find your limits, not what you consider to be ideal.
Next week, I'll post links to any responses to the survey.
Progressive Taxation
Currently, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans make 19 percent of the country's income and pay 37 percent of the taxes. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent. The bottom 50 percent of earners pay 3 percent of taxes. (Note: These figures don't include payroll taxes.) Most on the left believe the current tax system isn't progressive enough, so they'd presumably favor shifting the tax burden up the income scale. But what is your limit? Should the top 1 percent pay 60 or more percent of the government's costs? More than 80? What's the maximum percentage of earners who should pay no income tax at all?
• Inflation
What's the maximum acceptable rate of inflation? How high would the inflation rate need to be for you to say, "This new government program is great, but we can't print anymore money to pay for it"?
• National Debt as a Percentage of GDP
Currently, the federal debt stands at about 80 percent of GDP. That's the highest percentage since the early 1950s. What is the maximum percentage of debt related to GDP that you'd be willing to accept?
• Federal Spending as a Percentage of GDP
For most of the last 50 years, annual federal spending has held at about 20 percent of GDP, the annual deficit at 2 percent. The CBO projects that by 2020, spending will soar to 26 percent of GDP, and the annual deficit to 7 percent. This is before factoring in the cost of Obama's health care plan. What percentage of spending with respect to GDP would you consider too high? The annual federal deficit?
• Unfunded Liability of Entitlement Programs
Right now, Social Security and Medicare face a $106.4 trillion future liability above and beyond what current payroll taxes would be able to fund. Before we start talking about new entitlements, where should we put the celing on unfunded future entitlement liability? That is, how much higher can that $106.4 trillion figure rise before you'd be willing to say, "Hold on, great as this new entitlement idea sounds, I'm not sure we can afford it"?
• Income Equality
As noted above, currently the richest 1 percent of Americans earn about 19 percent of the country's income. The bottom 50 percent of earners make 13 percent. Most on the left believe these figures are too lopsided. So where should they be? Presumably, the answer is somewhere between where they are now and the point at which every earner in the country makes the same amount of money. To phrase the question another way, at what point would you be willing to say the government has gone far enough when it comes to redistributing income? What is an acceptable level of income inequality?
• Individual Tax Rates
The top federal income tax bracket currently stands at 35 percent. What's the maximum top tax rate you'd be willing to endorse? Where should the cutoff be for the top bracket (it's currently $372,950)? Factoring in state and local taxes, the average tax burden on the wealthiest Americans in some states will approach 60 percent if the Democrats' health plan passes. What's an appropriate upper limit on that figure?
• Average Tax Rate
According to a new World Bank report, the average U.S. tax rate is 46.2 percent, putting us 102 out of 178 countries (meaning 101 countries have a lower total tax burden than the U.S.). Again, how high would you be willing to let that figure climb?
With the obvious exception of income equality (which I don't think we should be targetting directly) my own position is that all these figures are already too high and any policy that increases them should not be enacted.

Supporters of Obama's policies will disagree. So, what are your limits? How much is too much?

Tuesday, June 9

Paging Dr. Gore

From a monthly report of global temperature:
(ht Reason)

Thursday, April 30

Link blag

Jim Manzi makes the most compelling argument against torture.

1-800-[GET OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY]... Cato's David Boaz bemoans.

Speaking of tax-and-spend, the Leftopia of Washington, D.C. is now charging residents for parking in their own driveway.

Mexican Senate passes bill decriminalizing drug possession for personal use.

Megan examines why general practitioners are underpaid.

Giving up on politics, a libertarian brainstorms new frontiers of freedom.

Hathos alert: Sarah Palin is a twitter.

An environmentally-friendly pizza box.

Masturbation has fatal consequences (Le livre sans titre, 1844)