The Last Ephor

There's been some talk about gun rights and restrictions on DL. Mike W. and another Dana arguing pro and JadeGold against. Gun control advocates usually say they simply favor "reasonable" restrictions. They want to keep the guns from people who are either incapable of handling them properly (children, mentally ill) or criminals. Frankly, I don't know of anyone who opposes such restrictions. The problem is that JadeGold believes DC's restrictions fall into the zone of "reasonable". They are tantamount to a total ban. No handguns permits have been issued in 30 years. Long guns may be kept in the home provided they are locked and unloaded. They may not be carried in public either. There are no gun stores in DC and zoning laws prohibit them from even existing. This is a de facto if not de jure ban. I made the argument that putting those same restrictions on blogging would be considered a ban on free speech and not "reasonable" restricti...

In my last post I was lamenting the fact that I cannot get into anything approximating a substantive discussion with people who do not share the same opinions and views that I do. Over at DelawareLiberal, I waded into the fray about corporations and profits with a question: "Please explain how you will tax corporations and not have them pass that cost on to consumers." Makes sense, no? My point is that any tax on corporations turns them into tax collecting agents not taxpayers. To a business, taxes are simply overhead like the cost of raw materials that have to be recouped from customers. Given that the DL crowd has a visceral hatred for corporations (despite the fact that they all seem to work for them) I should have known that there would be no explanations forthcoming. Jason responded with: Duffy asks… Please explain how you will tax corporations and not have them pass that cost on to consumers. Easy. They might not make $11 billion dollars in profit one quarter. ...

My libertarian instincts sometimes fail me. Here's a prime example; Man Ticketed For Wearing Speedo On Beach

THIEVES MARKET The east end of United Nations Plaza is a black market to buy something smash-and-grabbed through a car window or shoplifted from a local store.

We all remember Hillary Clinton's miraculous skill at trading cattle futures. At the time her critics wryly noted that she should be giving investment advice rather than being First Lady. I believe it was a means of giving $99,000 to her and Bill without disclosing the source and circumventing any pesky laws about who can give what to elected officials. Now, Bill Clinton has made a fortune by selling worthless stock to someone who wanted them so badly that they'd willingly pay $700,000 for them . These same shares that Gary Kasparov couldn't unload for a dollar a share at the same time. History, it seems, does repeat itself however it seems that cycle is shortening. The Clinton's have always sent the message that they are our betters. They are not bound by laws because they are of a higher order of being and the righteousness of their cause demands that they sometimes skirt the rules. After all, this is For The Children(TM). Lying under oath doesn't matter ...

Lawmaker's Intervention in Law Enforcement Crosses Line He's dead right. This one ought to be front page, above the fold lead story. I have no patience for political abuse via courts. I hated the Independent Counsel statute when they used it as a club against Republicans and it made me queasy when they did it under Clinton. In every case it started as one thing and went on and on and mutated into a beast that was determined to find something . This is a bit different but in the same vein. They're sacking US Attourneys for not filing charges against Democrats before the election. That is thuggery. Let the heads roll.

Not All Sources Are Equal The Press wants it both ways. They want to be able to shield their sources and be immune from defamation suits. Combine those and you'll get exactly what the author states; imagined sources that can be protected forever so there is no accountability. I could create a source I have called "Senior Administration Official" and have him/her tell me that Hillary Clinton is a Satan worshipping child murderer. I could then say I will not reveal my source and you can't prosecute me. News would never be reliable and defamation suits would go exactly nowhere. The more optimistic of you would note that the end result of such an environment might actually be better because any story without named sources would be discounted by large segments of the population. A view I don't share.