TheAgitator.com
37 Responses to “Morning Links”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- RSS Feed
- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
Re: Chuck, if you or I called a flight attendant a bitch, we’d be arrested on terrorism charges. If Chuck does it, he’s just being Chuck.
As for FTC curbing marketing food to children, why don’t they stop marketing drugs to adults, while they’re at it? I mean, we wouldn’t want someone out there ODing on Plavix, would we?
Thanks for that item about inflation. It will be a handy comparison to point out how harmless our own inflation is. You know, sort of like using Nazi Germany to show how how free and peace loving our own country is.
Hopefully I did this right. For my Xmas shopping, I clicked on “Recommendations” on your sidebar, then clicked the Amazon.com link from your astore page and shopped for non-recommended stuff. You still get some sort of kickback, right?
Celebrity Dr. Michael Roizen, founder of RealAge.com, frequent Oprah guest and chair of Cleveland Clinic’s Wellness Institute, claims 4-8 years of additional life can be garnered if we have 350-700 orgasms per year.
It’s good to know I’m almost within that range now. I only need to cut back by about 10%.
re:foodgasms
C.S. Lewis had a bit in one of his books about how dysfunctional the western view of sex is. He imagined a scene in which a beautiful meal is slowly unveiled and paraded before an audience which lusts after it. The reader is supposed to think that watching food would be absurd and thus agree that the culture’s approach to sex is also absurd.
Poor Clive Staples. The Food Network would have made his head explode.
From the FTC food marketing article:
It’s easy to pick on advertising as the cause of all of society’s ills, but there’s no hard evidence that food advertising is to blame for childhood obesity
It strikes me that it doesn’t matter if there’s any evidence or not, and we’re actually conceding far too much by even deigning to debate the issue on these terms.
Even if food marketing contributed to obesity, there would be no grounds for restricting it unless it was false. And the only reason food marketing could possibly contribute to obesity is if it’s true.
If I say, “Buy this food! It tastes really good! You will really like eating it!” and you buy my food, find it to taste good, and really like eating it, you may get fat as a result. But I will have done nothing but tell the truth and you have absolutely no legitimate grounds on which to restrict my speech. Period.
“The senator made an off-the-cuff comment under his breath that he shouldn’t have made, and he regrets it,” Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon told Shenanigans.
He apparently thinks the rules are only for the little people. Maybe he even has delusions of being a cop.
Well said. It forever pisses me off that the first argument that people (libertarians included) use to fight new laws is whether the laws will actually be effective to reduce the targeted behavior or the effects of that behavior.
The problem with that approach is that it essentially sanctions the position that any law that actually does those things is justified.
Giada (bottom pic) can come cook for me anytime. I always stop on her show while I’m channel surfing just to see what low-cut blouse she’s wearing. She could be cooking SPAM and I’d still watch.
Giada’s pregnancy boobs episodes are the stuff of legend. You see, she speaks with her hands which make her whole body jiggle…
The nanny state is the same thing as a religious theocratic state and a police state. It always revolves around someone pushing their morals and values onto others against their will because of some manufactured impending doom. I sometimes wonder if all these people realize they are the same thing or not. I don’t know if that would be a moment of clarity for most or just inspire them to join forces more so than they already have.
I also wonder if the government does manage to curb advertising to children, how are the corporations going to lobby to spin thi in their favor? I imagine that Nabisco and Kellog are going to get the FDA to label their sugary stuff as health consious so they will be the only ones allowed to advertise to kids. Seems the standard M.O.
For the FTC story, I would have just linked to a copy of the constitution to point out why it’s a bad idea.
Here’s the thing I love. Big corporations spend billions of dollars on advertising in an attempt to change people’s behavior by getting them to buy their products.
Yet somehow, when they get called on the carpet for the possible negative effects of that advertising, they claim that it doesn’t actually have any measurable effect on behavior.
It’s like they’re spending those billions of dollars just for giggles.
Thugs like Arpaio succeed locally on the immigration issue precisely because our federal government’s immigration policy is dysfunctional.
And by that I’m not endorsing one side or the other on whether there should be open immigration – I’m simply saying that current U.S. federal immigration policy is dysfunctional. On the one hand illegal immigration is just that – illegal. On the other hand, we have a federal government that (a) enforces the laws making it illegal very selectively and for political reasons, and (b) incentives the violation of those laws through social service subsidies. The result is a dysfunctional mess where the immigrant himself is caught in perpetual limbo between several not-so-clear lines on what is legal, what is illegal but easy to get away with, and what is illegal and likely to get you caught and deported. Furthermore, as recent political history going back to at least the 80′s has demonstrated, every attempt to address federal immigration policy be it in one direction or the other ends in failure.
So along comes a thug like Sheriff Joe, and all he has to do is promise on the local level to enforce a clear immigration policy that the federal government will not/cannot pursue. And he gets elected and reelected for it, even though he’s a horrible human being who does a lot of other things that most voters would gasp at if they knew and cared.
“You know, sort of like using Nazi Germany to show how how free and peace loving our own country is.”
That’s kinda like saying DC is a safe and crime-free city because it isn’t Detroit.
Or that Detroit is a beacon of prosperity because it isn’t Mogadishu.
I am struck by the equivalence between the supporters of Sherriff Joe, who ignore the threat to human rights and (once the lawsuits are settled) their pocketbooks in the name of “law and order” and the left-liberal advocates of the public option who ignore the perils to their freedom to choose and their pocketbooks in the name of the “right to health care.”
Other than the trimmings, there is not much difference between Ralph Nader and Sherriff Joe.
Another story from the “zero tolerance” school policy insanity. A kid from a rural high school was expelled because he left his hunting shotgun in his truck. They expelled him even though his truck was parked OFF CAMPUS. The campus cops also took their sniffing dogs to the off campus lot where they found the shotgun.
http://www.khsltv.com/content/localnews/story/Mother-Appeals-Sons-Explusion-Over-Shotguns/HZLau0kfw0uBLg-8zFT_Rw.cspx
Good point, Aresen. Because it’s obvious that wholesale trampling of civil right, including the unlawful imprisonment, abuse and murder of our fellow human beings is very much like the government giving you the option to buy health insurance from them if you so choose. Almost exactly the same principle is in play.
#20
Well, as a general rule, libertarians believe that property rights are in fact human rights, and that if a person is deprived of the product of their labor, they are having something valuable stolen from them. I happen to think this view is entirely correct, and coercing some people to pay for the health insurance of some other people is in fact a significant injustice. At the same time, I feel no need to pretend that the forced confiscation of 30% of my income is a greater injustice than the government harassment, abuse and imprisonment of those that dare to step across the government’s imaginary lines in the desert. The restriction of the free movement of people’s inconsistent with basic private property rights (essentially all modern border restrictions), is an egregious violation of human rights.
Because it’s obvious that wholesale trampling of civil right, including the unlawful imprisonment, abuse and murder of our fellow human beings is very much like the government giving you the option to buy health insurance from them if you so choose.
It’s sure as hell the same principle if the individual mandate passes, and you don’t want health insurance. Or you want a variety of health insurance not approved by our wise leaders in Washington. Try not paying the fine out of principle, and see what happens next.
Chuchundra
If you truly believe that the “public option” will remain an “option”, I have a bridge to sell you.
While there are many cases of people being denied coverage for procedures by insurance companies, at least they have the ability to choose another carrier, or, if they have the means, pay for it themselves.
Once the only option is the public option, then there will be no choice. And one of the first things that government programs refuse to fund is “experimental procedures” – as defined by the government. Then, the quality of service goes down, both as a result of cost cutting and the normal degradation of service that proceeds from a monopoly.
So, yes, people will suffer and die because of the public option. The equivalence with Joe Arpaio is exact. It just won’t be as visible.
Just for the record –
as a 53 year resident (life-time) of Maricopa County I oppose (and have opposed) Arapio for his entire time in office.
thats not because I support illegal immigration or oppose his efforts (whatever those are in reality) to combat it in the county.
I’ve opposed him because of his barbaric law enforcement attitudes and obvious general buffoonery.
That said, I also oppose Obama because of his general incompetence and desire to do this country harm.
Of the 2 of them I’d rather put up with Arapio here than Obama in the Whitehouse if I had the choice.
I think that most on the left are definitely not in favor of mandates. Of course, the Democratic Party certainly is, as it has been captured by the insurance industry.
Aaron, are you sure the Dems are in the pocket of the insurance industry? Aresen seems to think that having a small publicly-run health insurance plan as an option will inevitably lead to the US Government wiping out the private health insurance companies completely.
I’m an Arizonan, and I can’t stand Joe Arpaio.
Someone still watches commercials?
I will not argue the incompetent point because it is not specific. I’m sure there are things he’s good at, tho.
On the other hand, to think that *any* politician is intent on harming his country is asinine. I truly believe that they all have their best interest at heart when they propose/vote/pass legislation or make policy. That sometimes the intended and unintended consequenses may adversely affect some issue that *you* consider to be of vital importance to this country doesn’t mean that they intentionally set out to harm the country.
For instance, I don’t agree with Bush having sent troops to Iraq and removed Saddam from power. I think it was hastilly planned, poorly executed, and not thoroughly thought out. However, regardless of some people’s assertions, I don’t believe he did it to *intentionally* harm this country. If the unintended consequenses of his actions inspire terrorists and attacks, therefore making us less safe, it is not because that was the original intent or design.
The same can be said of Obama’s plans (including the pubic option).
Chuchundra: notice that we’re not getting a publicly run insurance plan.
I’ll just leave this here.
http://i.imgur.com/VzxVF.png
My cable box has a setting for mainaining constant volume levels. This is probably for not only ad volume but differences in volume between different channels. Some TVs also have this feature. Again, it looks like the market is already responding to this problem.
1) It won’t be “small”, even to begin with, unless you deem $100 billion/year “small”.
2) The “public option” is a wedge. By forcing those with private insurance to subsidize those on the “public option”, the private insurers will gradually become an option only for the wealthy. Then, the socialists will shut down the private insurers on the grounds that it is unfair for “the rich” to have better health care. This process will happen within 50 years at the absolute outside – the lifetime of many readers of this blog. Barring the singularity, I will probably be safely dead before that happens. I do not wish that hell even on your grandchildren.
Lots of Arizonans despise Arpaio. Napolitano went easy on him because he appeared in a campaign commercial for him. That was the last straw for many Republican activists. Arpaio is very popular with the Sun City oldsters and independents who just want to get rid of illegals. Of course it serves the interests of the left and Dems to push the myth that all Reps like the bum.
//On the other hand, to think that *any* politician is intent on harming his country is asinine.//
Are you saying you believe that there does not exist anyone who would want to harm the country that would, despite such belief, be able to get elected? If not, what is your reason for believing the government to be devoid of such persons? If so, does not mean that you believe nobody exists who would want to harm the country, or that voters everywhere would have the discernment to keep such a person out of office? What is your basis for such a belief?
The way the present system is supposed to work (and would, but for government meddling), new medical innovations are largely reserved for awhile for the wealthy who can afford to pay for their development. After a couple decades or so, patents expire and they become available to everyone–even those who did not pay for their development.
The net effect is that while those who can’t afford to pay for new innovations won’t get them right away, even poor people 50 years from now would stand to benefit from the research which is being done to benefit “the rich” of today.
Try to equalize the medical care of the rich and the poor, and the rich will no longer have any reason to subsidize the research that would eventually benefit everyone. The poor might benefit in the very short term, but pretty soon everyone–including the poor–will suffer.
Chuck Schumer’s pose in that picture is vaguely disturbing. I mean, he’s just about on the cusp of needing a bra for those man boobs.