Karen DeCoster makes the case that it may be irresponsible to pay your mortgage. The line we are sold is that it would be irresponsible and morally reprehensible to renege on our financial commitments, yet those holding our commitments were not nearly so upstanding. Rather than manfully resign in disgrace, confess to their crimes, and go to jail where we, the taxpayer, could take care of them for the low cost of ~70k/year, they had their former CEO (and/or golfing buddy) Henry Paulson to loan themselves billions of my dollars. Meanwhile, using my borrowed money, Bank of America bought my mortgage from Countrywide at 30 cents on the dollar. I wasn't offered this opportunity—only the opportunity to keep paying the full price on my mortgage and possibly face 25 years of rate hikes starting next year.
Yes, reneging on my mortgage hardly seems as nefarious in that context. Anyway, read the article.
Synopsis: Judge Napolitano (Andrew, not Janet) makes the case that not only can the government not protect us, the more it acts, the more less security we will have.
What else needs to be said?
At least not in the humanities. The author makes the case that PhDs in the humanities are being overproduced while the number of full time positions is shrinking. Moreover, if you fail to make tenure, you find yourself suddenly almost unemployable. Think carefully.
Synopsis: The reactionary title is the author's conclusion to the news that many schools have stopped teaching spelling. She maintains that the written language is a code and that spelling is the key to encoding and decoding. Without spelling, there is no sense in reading. She recommends a strong dose of phonics and spelling as the antidote to the moribund effort we call modern education.
A few days ago, I posted a story about a shotgun that seemed to be unloaded when it actually was loaded. Today, I'd like to talk about a different kind of safety violation—the one ultimately responsible for probably the majority of all gun accidents: putting your finger on the trigger. But a movie is worth 10,000 words, so watch the videos, and then we'll talk.
Michael Pollan does a fabulous job describing how U.S. government agricultural policy not only influences what is grown in the United States, but U.S. obesity rates and world hunger. So next time you complain about being overweight, you can blame the government. It sounds silly, but that conclusion is not too far fetched. (I do disagree with his conclusion that additional policy is needed to fix things. Just get rid of ALL U.S. government intervention in our culinary lives.
This is a preview of Food, Inc., a movie documenting Big Agriculture. For those of you who know me, you might be wondering why I would be posting, such an "anti-capitalist" flick. The answer is the at Big Agriculture is a creation of fascist and socialist government policies dating from (if not before) the New Deal.
Big Agriculture and its government patrons are extremely anticompetitive (anti-capitalist). This year, the Congress is working on new legislation that could potentially destroy farmer's markets. Of course liberal websites like this one downplay the danger, because although the fine could apply to small farmers and farmer's markets, they don't think the fines will be applied against the little guy. It's funny, because that same logic was used when Congress implemented the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) targeted at a mere 155 of the "uber-rich" and the same logic was used in laws prohibiting concealed carry (they'll only be enforced against blacks).
But WAIT!!! There's more! Barack Hussein Obama appointed a former Monsanto (one of the largest agricultural companies in the world) executive as his "food czar"—yet more proof that the more things change, the more they stay the same. So yes, there are some kooky, silly, wacko-leftist sentiments among those who support the movie, but overall, I think we need to hear the message, especially the part where we have power to change, after all, "You are what you eat."
Like many things the media tells us, the case for petroleum is murky. Like Chicken Little, they tell us the world is ending, and one of the means of its destruction is that we will run out of oil. The author makes the case, the while yes, eventually we will run out of oil (just like eventually the sun will run out of hydrogen and burn out) we will not do so in the foreseeable future and compiles a large amount of evidence to support his case.
The mainstream media likes for us to think of them as watchdogs protecting us from the abuses of power. In reality, they are proponents and cheerleaders of government abuse as long as the story fits their anti-capitalist template. This article summarizes and illustrates some of the abuses.