Banner ad

Monday, December 17, 2012

Cruising the Web

My heart goes out to the families of Newtown, Connecticut. I just can't imagine the horror of sending your child to school and then hearing this news. I can't add anything but my sympathy for those who are suffering.

Affirmative Action rules in medical school.

This is the state of anti-Semitism in Denmark: Jews are being advised not to wear any outside symbols in public.

George Will points to essential irony of liberals opposing right-to-work laws.
Many liberals who, with solemn self-congratulation, call themselves “pro-choice” become testy when the right to choose is not confined to choosing to kill unborn babies. They say the right to choose is not progressive when it enables parents to choose their children’s schools or permits workers to choose not to fund unions’ political advocacy.

Democrats who soon will celebrate two of their party’s saints at Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners should jettison either their opposition to right-to-work laws or their reverence for Jefferson, who said: “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Don't expect any other states to be passing right-to-work laws any time soon. We'll have time to sit back and study the effects of the new law in Michigan.

Jonah Goldberg thinks conservatives should do more to look to federalism.

The real reason why Democrats are opposing Boehner's proposal to raise revenue by limiting the deductions an individual could take is because it would disproportionately affect residents of blue states that have higher state taxes that Democrats want to allow their residents to take the deduction for their state income taxes. So the federal tax payer is subsidizing those blue state policies of higher state taxes.

Why should one of Bashar Assad's most high-profile apologists become the Secretary of State?

GĂ©rard Depardieu speaks his mind on France's policies that punish "success, creation, talent."

13 comments:

mark said...

If only there were something we could do to prevent more children from being slaughtered in our schools. Obviously, we can't re-institute an assault-weapons ban or close gun-show loopholes. Do that and we may as well burn the Constitution. We can't shame the entertainment industry into toning down the violence, or impose restrictions. That might cut into their profits, and that's an affront to captilalism.
If it's a choice between protecting children from being massacred or infringing on the right of an individual fire six bullets per second, the answer is obvious.

Gahrie said...

So Mark, obviously the first and Second Amendments mean little to you...any other rights you'd care to casually dismiss?

mark said...

Gahrie,
You've really proven yourself to be quite the idiot over the last few days.
It's about common-sense and decency. Apparently, you have neither.

Gahrie said...

What is commonsense or decent about exploiting tragedy to score political points?

equitus said...

Gahrie. It's sensible and decent for mark because he's on the correct side of the issue. You and I are just crass idiots because we disagree with him. (It's good for mark's self-esteem to believe such. Let him have his delusions.)

mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mark said...

In this case, you are coming across as crass idiots (and that's being generous). While I've always been for reasonable restrictions while maintaining a right for people to have guns, many people (including many members of the NRA) are realizing that 10-12 bullets ripping through the body of a 6-yr-old in a few seconds is "enough". Good for you guys for holding to your convictions. Maybe there's a Bushmaster "Man-card" in it for you.

Gahrie said...

many people (including many members of the NRA) are realizing that 10-12 bullets ripping through the body of a 6-yr-old in a few seconds is "enough".

Would you feel better if the murderer had used a knife? Or a car? Or his bare hands?

The problem isn't the tool the murderer chose to use, it is the murderer himself.

mark said...

Gahrie,
Not sure if you're trying to be contrarian, or if you are just a truly stupid person.
Strap on your thinking cap:
Do you think Lanza would have killed 26 women and children in 10 minutes with a knife or just his hands?
Without a Bushmaster or something similar, there would have been less death.
We'll never know, but it's logical to presume that he may not have attacked without such a devastating weapon. Perhaps he would have been satisfied to take his mother's handgun, kill her and then himself. Sad? Yes. But a helluva lot better than what happened.
Perhaps you're one of those who need hold a high-powered weapon to feel like a man. Worried about your Man-card expiring?

equitus said...

For the briefest moments, mark can sometimes sound reasonable. But then he goes and lets his inner 12 year old out with the ad hominem, insults, petty partisanship, and total lack of self-awareness or sense of irony.

mark, are you aware the greatest mass killing at a school in US history occurred in 1927 and the killer didn't use a gun? Where there is a will, there is a way - in spite of your delusions.

mark said...

equitus,
Just more evidence that your living in the past.