Reason eviscerates a presumed pundit, but the key line for me was this from the pundit’s view of an advanced, progressive society —
A ban on carbon emissions.
Wouldn’t that require genocide? Or possibly even ecoside as all those animals cause carbon emissions.
I was out at the store the other day and bought some small cans of Perrier. I buy that because I think it tastes better than the alternatives, but at the time I still wondered how that could be. It’s just carbon dioxide infused in water, how could it really taste any different than any other brand? It’s possible that it’s the particular mineral load that does it. It might also simply be the affect of advertising or other imposed social expectation.
The question is, if it is the latter, if I only think Perrier tastes better because I have been conditioned in some way to think that, does it matter? Taste is perception and all perception is filtered so is a better taste due to expectation different from “really” tasting better? Is the value add of Perrier the ability to create this better experience through psychological means?
My resolution is that I don’t care, my perception is all that matters.
Apparently socialism in France is not producing the economic boost the collectivists claim. It’s almost as if it doesn’t work. But remember kids, it’s free markets that destroy economies.
Of course, the resurgent American version seems to be turning out lack luster results as well. Unexpectedly, I am sure.
I normally don’t think technical fixes to basic problems of governance work well, but Instapundit has a truly excellent suggestion — forbid Congressmen from having any outside help in filling out their tax forms.
Remember when the Hutaree were that vicious white militia that was ging to destroy America…yeah, except all charges have been dropped against all of them and their property returned.
Remember those law enforcement killings in Texas we were told were being ordered by Ayan Nation white Supremicists? Yeah, turned out it was actually fellow law enforcement personnel who are now being prosecuted for the killings.
Remember when they said it was right wingers who planned to bomb NYC due to Obamacare, oops and then it wasn’t.
Seems like the media ONLY wants to jump to conclusions when its right wing extremists.
I myseld think the Boston bombers are the usual left wing terrorist looking for tenure at a major left wing university or perhaps a chance to kick-off a future Presidents campaign in Chicago.
A leftist terrorist looks to get promoted to tenured proffessor or Obama fund raiser by the left but a self-proclaimed anti-government terrorist gets DEAD DEAD DEAD in less than 6 years like McVeigh.
You don’t hear the right defend McVeigh, the left constantly defends the left wing bombers.
Maybe the Boston bomber is just looking for a career path like Bill Ayers.
“I truly think ObamaCare is going to come back and be the No. 1 item in the next election”
Just like in 2012. This is one of the pernicious effects of the GOP leadership treating Old Media as not being the de facto propaganda organ for the MAL. These issues are winners with the actual voters but losers in Old Media so the GOP caves based on the latter instead of advocating for the former.
Why this unabashed love of lasers? The concept has inherent appeal: The ammunition never runs out and the need for costly resupply disappears.
The ammunition can run out, it’s just called “out of battery” or “out of fuel” instead. You still need resupply of power (via electrical transmission or fuel). Yes, on a nuclear powered ship it might well be years before this happens, but even those need resupply of their reactors. You still need more vespene gas at some point.
This post to me exemplifies the mind set of the regulators —
After Hurricane Sandy struck last fall, “Today” reporter Jeff Rossen did an exposé on how some contractors were “preying on” homeowners. How? By performing repair work without the proper licenses.
The key attitude here is that regulations, particularly licensing, are more important than relief after a disaster. It’s not hard to see that for such people, regulations are not about improving people’s lives, but about control.