March 12, 2012

It was only a matter of time, really

Once you let the left control the language, they will turn it into a tool of tyranny, because — as I’ve show repeatedly over the years — the very foundations of their ideology inevitably and inexorably move that way, and identity politics is one of the driving forces of just such a move, subsuming the individual into a politicized collective that they either must join, or else risk losing any political power.

Which is why you now have people like Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem of the Woman’s Media Center ostensibly crying out for a First Amendment protections not to have to hear certain kinds of speech on the public airwaves. That is, a call for silencing controversial or unpopular speech — precisely what the First Amendment was intended to protect — under the auspices of enforcing “tolerance” and beating back “dehumanizing speech” by a group ostensibly acting as media defenders:

That makes this a fitting time to inquire of his syndicator, Clear Channel Communications, whether it intends to continue supporting someone who addicts his audience to regular doses of hate speech. Clear Channel’s Premiere Radio Networks Inc., which hosts Limbaugh’s program, has defended his recent comments.

If Clear Channel won’t clean up its airways, then surely it’s time for the public to ask the FCC a basic question: Are the stations carrying Limbaugh’s show in fact using their licenses “in the public interest?”

Spectrum is a scarce government resource. Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.

The FCC takes such complaints into consideration when stations file for license renewal. For local listeners near a station that carries Limbaugh’s show, there is plenty of evidence to bring to the FCC that their station isn’t carrying out its public interest obligation. Complaints can be registered under the broadcast category of the FCC website: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints

This isn’t political. While we disagree with Limbaugh’s politics, what’s at stake is the fallout of a society tolerating toxic, hate-inciting speech. For 20 years, Limbaugh has hidden behind the First Amendment, or else claimed he’s really “doing humor” or “entertainment.” He is indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions, but he is not constitutionally entitled to the people’s airways.

It’s time for the public to take back our broadcast resources. Limbaugh has had decades to fix his show. Now it’s up to us.

Yes, it is.

If we work to vote ourselves the recall of our own fundamental rights, we’ll have gotten precisely what we deserve.

The leftists are all in: they’ve decided to use this “woman’s issue” to elevate the chilling of speech into a litmus test on whether or not one wishes to “dehumanize women.” This, coming from a Party that embraced the vile and vicious takedown of Sarah Palin, and defended until the end the behavior of Bill Clinton and the Kennedy clan. Not only is this political — but everything the left does is political. That’s the natural offshoot of embracing an ideology in which “the personal is the political”: you don’t get to then pretend that an identity politics campaign ostensibly on behalf of women (but never on behalf of those women who would disagree entirely with your attempts to speak for them) isn’t political.

This is no more than a re-igniting of the PC wars that brought these women power in the first place. A cold war that we’ve kept alive solely for our cowardice in fighting it.

Of course, should I point out that this kind of attack on speech is a natural escalation, on the part of the political left, for their having been allowed to set the parameters for what comes to count as acceptable speech in the first place — and again, our own self-righteous “pragmatic” right has routinely enabled progressives with its willingness to accept the left’s premises and call for conservatives to work within the narrow confines we’re granted (lest we say something provocative and scare off the “moderates” and “independents”) by the left itself — I’ll be called “fundamentally unserious.” And I certainly don’t want that to happen again.

Because really, freedom and liberty is protected not by the kernel assumptions of the ideology we permit to permeate our institutions and thereby rule us, but rather by having the most number or Rs elected at any given time.

I know this, because I read blogs.

(h/t Mike at Cold Fury)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 12:17pm
125 comments | Trackback

Comments (125)

  1. “Spectrum is a scarce government resource. ”

    Ah. What wouldn‘t be a government resource, whether scarce or plentiful, when we hand over the determination to broads such as these?

  2. “We will deprive fifty million of a voice, because 50 pretend to be offended…”

    Fortunately, it seems that Rush has switched gears, and has properly positioned himself in “bring it on” mode.

  3. I’m sorry – am I absolutely required to care what stinky crap dribbles out of Bill Maher’s face?

    Because, y’know, I generally don’t.

  4. For 20 years, Limbaugh has hidden behind the First Amendment, or else claimed he’s really “doing humor” or “entertainment.”

    I’m drowning in the tears of Larry Flynt.

  5. I’m pretty happy with the spanking Rush is receiving, myself being mostly a liberal and all, but advocating that the government take him off the air is shockingly inane.

  6. Johntaylor referring to something as shockingly inane without his pointy little head assploding is a miracle.

  7. In the words of another famous John: Laugh while you can, monkeyboy! Once Limbaugh gets his feet planted again and goes back on offense, I think he’s going to give a lot worse than he’s gotten.

  8. I’m drowning in the tears of Larry Flynt.

    And Lenny Bruce.

  9. the spanking Rush is receiving

    You write that snappy canned email script for NARAL, dontcha?

  10. Rush’ll be fine. No one with 20 million listeners really has much to worry about.

    I’m actually kinda bothered that my lib friends, having extracted their pound of flesh, keep devoting resources to this even though nothing further’s going to be gained.

  11. Advocating for the government to be able to force the Church to violate its doctrine is way more than inane, “johntaylor”, Douchenozzle Extraordinaire.

  12. Listeners are “addicted” to regular doses of hate speech?

    Yea, whatever dudes.

  13. Johntaylor, you should be concerned that your lib friends are fascists.

  14. Well, johntaylor, once you’ve shorn the First Amendment of it’s protections of religion, all you’ve got left to remove are the pesky little ones regarding free speech. Et voilà! Liberal heaven!

  15. Everyone can practice their religion. We can go over it again if you really want to though.

  16. Do you really want to go there again, johntaylor? Considering the spanking you got and all?

  17. Everyone can practice their religion.

    Not with your view of the First Amendment, but thanks for playing!

  18. Everyone can practice their religion. We can go over it again if you really want to though.

    You should do that, since it looks like you need the remedial education, taylor, insofar as you still haven’t locked onto the critical question.

    But the answer to the separate question whether you choose not to seek the critical question or whether you haven’t the capacity to seek the critical question becomes more certain with your every rehearsal of this intentional obfuscation.

  19. Car in – johntaylor is not concerned about that, because he is a fascist too.

  20. Everyone can practice their religion.

    Provided they do it inside a Church where it belongs, and not out in public where it gets all over other people’s shit.

    And by “gets all over” I of course mean “doesn’t, at all,” thanks to all the competition we (used to) allow in this country.

  21. I can’t think of a single thing that my Catholic friends are prohibited from doing today (or in the near future), that they could do five or ten years ago.

  22. I can’t think[..]

    You should have quit while ahead.

  23. I can’t think of a single thing that my Catholic friends are prohibited from doing today (or in the near future), that they could do five or ten years ago.

    Like go to a Catholic adoption service in Massachussetts?

  24. I can’t think . . .

    So taylor, do you prefer to be understood as a moron? Or as a propagandist?

    Don’t tell me, let me guess: you’ll actually claim you’re neither, but just a little too lazy, or too pressed in your valuable time to think it through to understanding what those silly Bishops (Hey! Notice! They’re Catholics too!) are on about?

  25. Catholic Church is free to practice Catholicism in a manner that is both A) government approved and mandated, and B) contrary to their own doctrine. And johntaylor thinks this is consistent with the 1st Anendment. Which proves he is a mendoucheous twatwaffle.

  26. He is indeed constitutionally entitled to his opinions, but he is not constitutionally entitled to the people’s airways.
    It’s time for the public to take back our broadcast resources. Limbaugh has had decades to fix his show. Now it’s up to us.

    This is what they say about the most popular show in the history of radio.

    And they expect to be taken seriously.

  27. Catholic Church is free to practice Catholicism in a manner that is both A) government approved and mandated, and B) contrary to their own doctrine. And johntaylor thinks this is consistent with the 1st Anendment. Which proves he is a mendoucheous twatwaffle.

    Hey, that’s how they do it in China, dude, so like, what’s the big deal anyways?

  28. As someone mentioned, the Left is all in for this election. Their bench may be a little thin, though, to be dragging Hanoi Jane out of retirement this early.

  29. Forgot to mention this: “Spectrum is a scarce government resource.” Gee, I thought it was a public resource. There is a difference, Jane. But we see your true self in the simplest of phrases.

  30. “I can’t think of a single thing that my Catholic friends are prohibited from doing today (or in the near future), that they could do five or ten years ago.”

    Having a clear conscience? I guess all the Catholic people could withdraw from the employer provided insurance so as not to participate in something that bothers their conscience, but that doesn’t sound right at a Catholic non-profit somehow…

  31. I suspect johntaylor is easily amazed. Bubbles. Bunnies.

  32. Sorry that you don’t get to be an autonomous nation just because you open a church. If you run a soup kitchen you have to comply with all the regulations that cover commercial kitchens. If you buy a bus, the bus and the driver need the proper licensing. If you hire people you have to do withholding, adhere to minimum wage, etc. And if you offer insurance, it has to comply with state insurance laws.

    The state isn’t regulating baptisms, sermons, funerals, weddings, communion, hymns, piano tuning, organ loudness, prayer, or any of the things that make a religion – you know – actually a religion.

    If a religion is simply not subject to any state or federal laws that they themselves deem in conflict with their theology, then I need to set me up a religion.

  33. Obtuse, as well as mendacious twatwaffle. ooh, I love that word. Because I are a msogy, mysogi, whatever, wymen hater.

  34. The Catholic Church existed thousands of years before that pesky little 1st Amendment that slimy sophist johntaylor came into being. Johntaylor hates the 1st Amendment.

  35. The state isn’t regulating baptisms, sermons, funerals, weddings, communion, hymns, piano tuning, organ loudness, prayer, or any of the things that make a religion – you know – actually a religion.

    “Sisters of Mercy are an international community of Roman Catholic women religious vowed to serve people who suffer from poverty, sickness and lack of education with a special concern for women and children. Members take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, the evangelical counsels commonly vowed in religious life, and, in addition, vows of service. They continue to participate in the life of the surrounding community. In keeping with their mission of serving the poor and needy, many sisters engage in teaching, medical care, and community programs. ”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisters_of_Mercy

  36. Sdferr – it pretty much answered your question with that last comment, no?

  37. Again, church ministries follow church teachings. You aren’t forced to use their services, nor are you forced to take jobs with them. The only “forcing” being done is when people like you think that the government has the right to force a ministry acting out of charity to surrender its convictions in order to be able to continue its charitable mission.

    This is what takers do. They get angry at the people giving to them. And resentful. And vindictive.

    And the government is happy to comply, because once they are the sole “charity,” they’ve shored up their permanent dependency voting block, mixing “charity” (paid for with the money of others taken by force, not given voluntarily) with politics such that you’d best know where your bread is buttered come voting time!

    That’s the objective. We haven’t taken our eyes off the ball. You’re sophistry doesn’t have that kind of effect on us here.

  38. “Sisters of Mercy are an international community of Roman Catholic women religious vowed to serve people who suffer from poverty, sickness and lack of education with a special concern for women and children. Members take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, the evangelical counsels commonly vowed in religious life, and, in addition, vows of service. They continue to participate in the life of the surrounding community. In keeping with their mission of serving the poor and needy, many sisters engage in teaching, medical care, and community programs. ”

    And no one’s stopping them from doing every single bit of that.

  39. johntaylor, this may blow your mind, but there was a time when “soup kitchens” weren’t considered commercial enterprises. Even more shocking — there was a time (I swear!) where even commercial kitchens weren’t regulated.

    And, funny enough, you just named something that Catholics (or even Protestants like me) could do 5 or 10 years ago that we can’t now: give food to the poor without the Dept. of Agriculture inspecting the food.

  40. And no one’s stopping them from doing every single bit of that.

    Provided they carry out their mission while simultaneously engaging in actions their Church tells them is a venal sin.

    Or to put it another way: you can provide us with charity, but not if you’re going to do it out of some stupid oppressive belief. We deserve your shit, and we deserve to say how we get it!

  41. Nah, I’m not gonna feed the troll. His mind, such as it is, cannot be changed.

  42. johntaylor: they can’t run adoption services or hospitals anymore.

    Okay, let me walk you through this. Let’s make this a non-relgious issue, but still an issue of conscience. Let’s say I oppose killing black people simply for being black. Got? I oppose this. I think this is a moral wrong and it is imperative not only that I do not kill black people myself, but that I do not in any way aid people who do.

    Now, let’s say my governor is David Duke and he says that every single business owner must pay a 5% tax on profits to fund a black-killing police force.

    Does that fact that I am not myself being asked to kill black people in any way salve my conscience? Do I feel better because it’s only money and that racists death squad is going to be running amok anyway?

  43. johntaylor hate liberty.

  44. Do you think it is appropriate, or consistent with the 1st Amendnent, for the government to force a religion to violate its own doctrine? Yes, or no?

  45. Substitute “babies” for “black people” in my little story, and that’s how Catholics feel. And people, like me, who are pro-life. This isn’t some corner issue that doesn’t matter; it is a serious matter of conscience.

    And that should be obvious *even without* a guarantee of religious freedom.

  46. Look, I get it. You guys don’t want the state to regulate anything – ever.

    Work place safety laws? You don’t have to work here if you don’t think it’s safe.

    Minimum wage laws? You don’t have to work here if you don’t think it’s enough.

    Salary vs hourly vs. contractor? You don’t have to work here if you don’t like how this position is classified.

    Child labor? You don’t have to work here unless your parents make you.

    Got kids? Thinking about having kids? What religion are you? You don’t have to work here if you don’t like these kinds of interview questions.

    I get that you don’t want any regulations. I just disagree.

  47. Nah, I’m not gonna feed the troll. His mind, such as it is, cannot be changed.

    Luckily for the rest of us, there is the law, which does not rely on johntaylor’s imagination.

  48. Look, I get it. You guys don’t want the state to regulate anything – ever.

    Liar. Moron.

  49. “Sorry that you don’t get to be an autonomous nation just because you open a church. ”

    Sorry that you don’t get to make law abridging the free exercise of religion just because you think you have a superior political teaching.

  50. johntaylor: they can’t run adoption services or hospitals anymore.

    Okay, let me walk you through this. Let’s make this a non-relgious issue, but still an issue of conscience. Let’s say I oppose killing black people simply for being black. Got? I oppose this. I think this is a moral wrong and it is imperative not only that I do not kill black people myself, but that I do not in any way aid people who do.

    Now, let’s say my governor is David Duke and he says that every single business owner must pay a 5% tax on profits to fund a black-killing police force.

    Does that fact that I am not myself being asked to kill black people in any way salve my conscience? Do I feel better because it’s only money and that racists death squad is going to be running amok anyway?

    Substitute “babies” for “black people” in my little story, and that’s how Catholics feel. And people, like me, who are pro-life. This isn’t some corner issue that doesn’t matter; it is a serious matter of conscience.

    And substitute Iraqi’s for black people and that’s me and Iraq War II, and I was every bit as appalled that my tax dollars were going for that murder. So you know what I did? I gave unto Cesar, and I voted for a different Cesar.

    Because that’s how it works.

  51. Cesar? That wouldn’t be Sid Caesar, would it?

    Moron it is then.

  52. Johntaylor, Flaming Nozzle of Douche, just erected an army of straw people, and then tortured and savagely burnt them to the ground. All based on some comical caricature of people who believe in liberty that it has in its pointy head.

  53. Is it Catholic doctrine to oppose minimum wage laws? Kitchen regulations?

  54. Render a little Cesar.

  55. cesar salad

  56. Look, I get it. You guys don’t want the state to regulate anything – ever.

    No. I just want it to follow its own Constitution. Which incidentally was written to constrain government.

    Now, let’s turn this around on you: Are there any workplace safety laws you think the government employs that are overreaching and onerous?

    Do you think minimum wage laws increase or decrease the chances of getting entry level jobs?

    Do you think child labor laws should apply to things like, say, lemonade stands?

    Do you think it okay that the State asks you your race, sex, etc., on the Census or when it determines who gets government contracts?

    Or is it right and just and necessary because it’s done by the government?

    Look, we get that you see the State as a kind of secular godhead. We just disagree.

  57. Cardinal Tit.

  58. Remind me, do we have conscientious objector status? Didn’t Mohammed Ali win a SCOTUS case? Wasn’t that celebrated by the people who are now demanding the Catholic Church do as they say and pay for what they want?

  59. Maybe johntaylor can remind us if this is still on the books.

  60. No. I just want it to follow its own Constitution. Which incidentally was written to constrain government.

    You and I agree that the federal government should be legislating here. I’m not arguing that because, again, I agree.

    However, states can regulate these things. I like states being able to regulate these things.

    Now, let’s turn this around on you: Are there any workplace safety laws you think the government employs that are overreaching and onerous?

    Yes

    Do you think minimum wage laws increase or decrease the chances of getting entry level jobs?

    I’m in favor of minimum wage laws. I think they should be significantly higher.

    Do you think child labor laws should apply to things like, say, lemonade stands?

    I see lots of lemonade stands in my neighborhood in the summer, so (a) it’s legal, of (b) no one give a shit enough about a lemonade stand to decide this is where they’re going to make their enforcement stand.

    Do you think it okay that the State asks you your race, sex, etc., on the Census

    Yes. Absolutely.

    or when it determines who gets government contracts?

    My clients tend to be Fortune 500′s, and they all ask, as part of their vendor intake, if you’re minority owned, woman owned, etc. We’re a partnership of white guys, and we stay busy. Not sure how easy or hard it is for a white-guy owned company to get business from the state.

    Look, we get that you see the State as a kind of secular godhead. We just disagree.

    I think reasonable people can disagree about how much regulation is the right amount. It has to be somewhere between all and nothing.

  61. It is a compelling government interest to win votes by promising free shit, SW. Duh.

  62. I think reasonable people can disagree about how much regulation is the right amount. It has to be somewhere between all and nothing.

    So was your earlier suggestion that we are anti-regulation a suggestion that we’re, by your own lights, unreasonable people?

    Or do you now wish to walk back that characterization?

  63. Higher minimum wage, like $56.75 per hour! Or better yet, $75.36!

  64. By the way, no, states can’t take away your First Amendment rights, either.

  65. Milton Friedman on minimum wage (this is a repeat posting, as we continue to draw new interlocutors).

  66. Why are you a fascist, johntaylor? Why do you hate the 1st Amendment?

  67. Won’t you think of the children, sdferr? $100!

  68. I am surprised that johntaylor is alive at all under the rules he is insisting on, unless he simply owes his soul to the company store, since it is his contention that unless his employer supplies him with something “free”, which is to say in lieu of pay, he can’t ever get that thing ever. He has nothing and can’t ever acquire anything unless and until it is supplied, for free, by his employer.

  69. If we don’t mandate that the Catholic Church be forced to act contrary to their doctrine, women across the land will be denied contraceptives.

  70. That pizza will cost you $100. $150 if you want it delivered.

    Oh quit kicking, you’re making at least $75/hr!

  71. “no one give a shit enough about a lemonade stand to decide this is where they’re going to make their enforcement ”

    The Inexplicable War on Lemonade Stands

    lemonade stand I’m beginning to think that there’s a nation-wide government conspiracy against either lemonade or children, because these lemonade stand shutdowns seem to be getting more and more common. If you set up a stand for your kids, just be prepared for a visit from the cops.

    In Coralville, Iowa police shut down 4-year-old Abigail Krstinger’s lemonade stand after it had been up for half an hour. Dustin Krustinger told reporters that his daughter was selling lemonade at 25 cents a cup during the Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Race Across Iowa (or RAGBRAI), and couldn’t have made more than five dollars, adding “If the line is drawn to the point where a four-year-old eight blocks away can’t sell a couple glasses of lemonade for 25 cents, than I think the line has been drawn at the wrong spot.”

    Nearby, mother Bobbie Nelson had her kids’ lemonade stand shutdown as well. Police informed her that a permit would cost $400.

    Meanwhile, in Georgia, police shutdown a lemonade stand run by three girls who were saving money to go to a water park. Police said the girls needed a business license, a peddler’s permit, and a food permit to operate the stand, which cost $50 per day or $180 per year each, sums that would quickly cut into any possible profit-margin.

    In Appleton, Wisconsin the city council recently passed an ordinance preventing vendors from selling products within two blocks of local events – including kids who want to sell lemonade or cookies……

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/

  72. Let’s lift the minimum wage to a cool $1 million per annum, and we’ll all be millionaires!

  73. Something not being enforced does not make it legal, Massengill.

  74. no one give a shit enough about a lemonade stand to decide this is where they’re going to make their enforcement stand.

    Ah. So we shouldn’t worry, because though they may claim the power, they’d never use it. Because government is good and moral and kind. Plus, see newrouter, below. Or hell, just read Reason magazines brickbats on a daily basis. I don’t think you have the first idea what the government of which you so vehemently support the expansion has been up to, Mr Taylor.

  75. I wonder how much a skilled structural engineer with 20 years of experience would make, if his HS kid made $75/hr pouring sodas at the matinee?

    Matt Damon probably wouldn’t show up for less than a $hundred million or so.

  76. We shouldn’t believe such matters are interrelated though should we LBascom? After all, our aim is only to improve the state of the living wage!

  77. No, no, of course not. It was only idle curiosity, probably should have said as much.

    But please, will you stop asking probing questions, I feel raped!

  78. I am surprised that johntaylor is alive at all under the rules he is insisting on, unless he simply owes his soul to the company store, since it is his contention that unless his employer supplies him with something “free”, which is to say in lieu of pay, he can’t ever get that thing ever. He has nothing and can’t ever acquire anything unless and until it is supplied, for free, by his employer.

    I said this? That doesn’t sound like something I’d say. I think I said that religions operate within all kinds of state laws – like zoning laws, employment laws, etc. They don’t generally get to claim an exception.

    I don’t recall ever asking for anything for free.

    By the way, no, states can’t take away your First Amendment rights, either.

    Rights aren’t absolute. You can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. The government can regulate obscenity. The government can pass noise ordinances that limit the volume of things like rock concerts. The government can make you, for example, obtain a permit to hold a concert (or a zombie walk). While the founders envisioned a citizenry that could possess any arms available to the military, the 2nd amendment doesn’t let you buy a nuke from N. Korea.

    And states can regulate the insurance industry. And ever devout Catholic in that state can go without birth control and freely practice their religion.

  79. You can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater.

    you can’t falsely yell “fire” dude.

  80. You can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater.

    The reason is the danger that can result from panic. What is the danger that justifies forcing a church-run institution to provide coverage for something that the church teaches against?

  81. Rights aren’t absolute.

    and gov’t will tell us what our rights are?

  82. Sounds familiar.

    They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.

    Chief Judge Roger B. Taney

  83. Johntaylor, all those things you mentioned did not run against religious beliefs. Before you make another round chasing your tail, answer Jeff’s question above:

    do we have conscientious objector status? Didn’t Mohammed Ali win a SCOTUS case?

    Without addressing this, you aren’t talking about what we are talking about. You’re talking about equality before the law, we are talking about prohibiting the free, I said free, free exercise of religion, ie the church must fund, for the first time(the church isn’t asking for anything new, the stste is trying to change what always was) something they teach against.

    By the way, you got a permit for all those strawmen?

  84. And ever devout Catholic in that state can go without birth control and freely practice their religion.

    Yet you would require the Church to provide this coverage, for free. Because you are a fascist.

    Does the Church have doctrine that opposes minimum wage? Kitchen regulations? Zoning ordinances? That is a fatuous sophist position you are advancing, replete with assraped strawpeople.

  85. What about the cost benefit clause that the 1st Amendnent is subject to?!

  86. we need regulations on the use of strawmen and wymens

  87. Rights aren’t absolute. You can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater.

    You can if there’s a fire.

  88. Somewhere above you speak of yourself as something as a liberal, johntaylor.

    I wonder how you’d describe liberalism as to its animating characteristics and its most basic qualities.

  89. Nope, still not gonna feed the troll. Though it begs for a meal, no, a feast of learning.

  90. Bh – telling others what they must do, and overt jealousy directed at “the rich”

  91. Oh yeah, tolerance too. And intolerant of intolerance. And in favor of diversity, just not of diversity of opinion.

  92. Yeah, his comfort with some straight-up illiberal arguments makes me wonder, JD.

    Why the urge to claim a better intellectual heritage than is warranted? Just a habit? An attempt to camouflage his base instincts? What? Why?

  93. bh – I would also note that a core characteristic is power over others. And I would note that this one studiously avoids discussing the core values, underlying authority, etc. as it likely highlights it’s lack of foundation.

  94. Love to compare CVs with it. Though that would be piling on.

  95. I scrolled up a bit in the thread and there’s another example. How does a self-described liberal support a minimum wage law?

    Two people want to enter into a contract for labor and compensation. There are no externalities to consider. The state, a third party, says no.

    This is a liberal saying this? How?

  96. Lee –

    Got your note via USPS today. Thanks, brother.

  97. Because he is not liberal, in any true sense of the word. Leftist, yes. Collectivist, of course. Liberal, not so much.

  98. Happy to help keep the outlaw spirit alive Jeff, thanks again.

  99. Thomas Sowell sees minimum wage laws as a direct attack on the black community.

    Johntaylor, why do you hate black people? Why do you want to keep the black man down? I hesitate to call you a racist, but why do you support policies that hurt the most downtrodden in our society, the 16% black unemployment rate?

    Have you no decency…have you no soul? For the love of God, man. why would you want to make employment impossible for victims of circumstance? Are you that callous? That heartless? That…inhuman…?

  100. Huh, these people sure don’t understand what’s done for their own good, do they?

  101. No [said Costello]. I just want it to follow its own Constitution. Which incidentally was written to constrain government.

    You and I agree that the federal government should be legislating here [said Abbott]. I’m not arguing that because, again, I agree.

    I love this routine.

    THIRD BASE!

    cracks me up every time.

  102. There is an article in today’s WSJ about minimum wage laws and their crushing effect on hiring. It is behind their dratted paywall or I’d link it.

    I’ll wait here for johntaylor to tell me how the WSJ is wrong, wrong, wrong on that.

  103. Just for you, leigh, here.

    (Hit the top link.)

  104. Journal articles aren’t paywalled if you come by them via Google, Leigh. Just post the headline here.

  105. “How to Keep More Kids on the Streets”, Abe.

  106. Thanks, bh!

  107. Thanks. How maddening it must be for professionals like Boudreaux and Williams to have to commit what is basically a kindergarten economics lesson to print like that.

  108. I think that sort of thing all the time, Abe.

    Like, daily.

  109. Your thought, that is, how maddening it is to repeat such basic things. Yet, they keep on keeping on.

    Boudreaux pretty much posts a letter to the editor a day over at Cafe Hayek. It would madden me aplenty.

  110. Imagine how Thomas Sowell feels. He’s been rewriting the same book for thirty-odd years.

  111. But then again, he does get paid for it.

  112. “But then again, he does get paid for it.”

    Yeah, but still… It’s gotta be soul numbing. How long do you have to tell people not to piss on your shoes and tell you it’s raining?

  113. I think of it more as reminding folks not to shit where they eat.

  114. “johntaylor” again slinks away when called out on its nonsense. SHOCKA

  115. Proponents of raising the minimum wage assert in effect that the laws of economics don’t apply to human labor.

    Not just “in effect”, I have had many, many lefties argue with me that labor isn’t a commodity.

  116. Lee, I don’t know about soul numbing, but it’s pretty much convinced me that shooting Leftists is not only enjoyable, but necessary, and possibly an act of grace…

    At what point do you realize that nothing else will stop your enslavement, because words aren’t working and never will?

  117. I’m in favor of minimum wage laws. I think they should be significantly higher.

    If you make them high enough, pretty soon everyone will be above median wage.

  118. Johntaylor, you should be concerned that your lib friends are fascists.

    You think he isn’t aware of that? And OK with it?

  119. The state isn’t regulating baptisms, sermons, funerals, weddings, communion, hymns, piano tuning, organ loudness, prayer, or any of the things that make a religion – you know – actually a religion.

    They’re just requiring that you pay for an act your faith considers murder.

    (And, actually, they *ARE* regulating weddings. Illinois passed an Orwellian titled “Civil Unions and Religious Liberty Act” and it’s now being used to go after Catholic charities who won’t give benefits to same-sex partners or who won’t, say, provide adoptions for same-sex partners. So, again, you’re full of shit.)

  120. You think he isn’t aware of that? And OK with it?

    When was the last time you met a self-aware liberal?

  121. Look, I get it. You guys don’t want the state to regulate anything – ever.

    When you were a kid, your mom left you under the bath water too long, didn’t she?

  122. The self-aware ones all call themselves communists in my experience.

  123. And substitute Iraqi’s for black people and that’s me and Iraq War II, and I was every bit as appalled that my tax dollars were going for that murder

    Utter bullshit.

    You actually think forcing people to pay for murder is the same as having to pay taxes to support the removal of a tyrant?

    You *ARE* a fascist. You loved Saddam Hussein and all his works. I bet you dream every night of being allowed to run Obama’s version of the industrial shredder.

Leave a Reply