en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/774945 Comments by Walter Scott Hudson http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/05/09/the-audacity-of-wealth-how-leftist-thugs-claim-your-money/#IDComment151301573 I'm not terribly interested in collecting more. I'm interested in a system which is as sensitive as possible to the people's intent. Everybody feels a consumption tax. And they have some control over how much they pay. Combine that with a balanced budget amendment and we only spend what people are willing to fund. That's how it ought to be. Done properly, that too would shrink the tax code industry. Thu, 12 May 2011 11:52:13 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/05/09/the-audacity-of-wealth-how-leftist-thugs-claim-your-money/#IDComment151301573 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/30/the-final-frontier-10-political-messages-beamed-through-star-trek-1-2/#IDComment148072567 I'm still missing the point, at least whatever one you're attempting to articulate. Star Trek does not anticipate or portray the singularity you reference. And the whole point of the singularity is that we can't conceive of its implications. This is an analysis of art, a modern human expression informed by modern human ideas. What's absurd is asserting that political philosophy is not among those influences. Equally absurd is imposing a recent technological concept upon stories written between 1966 and 2005. Mon, 2 May 2011 08:38:19 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/30/the-final-frontier-10-political-messages-beamed-through-star-trek-1-2/#IDComment148072567 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/27/who-parents-the-parents-san-fransisco-set-to-ban-infant-circumcision/#IDComment146730695 Interesting point. I didn't know Muslims did that. It would be fun to watch Schofield's facial muscles twitch as he tried to reconcile his nanny statist impulse with his "sensitivity" to multiculturalism. Thu, 28 Apr 2011 05:16:18 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/27/who-parents-the-parents-san-fransisco-set-to-ban-infant-circumcision/#IDComment146730695 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/27/who-parents-the-parents-san-fransisco-set-to-ban-infant-circumcision/#IDComment146730214 Shouldn't these anti-circumcision proponents be obligated to produce a preponderance of evidence that circumcised males have been harmed? And shouldn't at least SOME of that evidence come in the form of circumcised males who object to the fact they were circumcised? Is there such a person? I have never heard anyone complain about having been circumcised as an infant. How then can we point to any victims? I mean, when someone is abused as a child, they know it. They grow up aware of the fact it was abuse. They go into therapy if they have the means. Is anyone losing sleep over their infant circumcision? Is anyone not able to get a job or otherwise function in society? What is the problem this restriction would solve? The ambiguity of all those questions tells me this is an issue best left to the individual, i.e. the parents. It's nobody else's business. Thu, 28 Apr 2011 05:13:33 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/27/who-parents-the-parents-san-fransisco-set-to-ban-infant-circumcision/#IDComment146730214 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/20/the-new-abolitionist-dragging-the-left-to-a-moral-argument/#IDComment144735779 They may not care about the morality. But they don't care about competency either. The only thing they care about is fulfilling their sense of purpose, namely forcing others into a Utopian mold. The purpose of dragging the Left to the moral argument is not to convince them, but to wake up the "independents" to the real stakes. Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:25:20 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/20/the-new-abolitionist-dragging-the-left-to-a-moral-argument/#IDComment144735779 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/18/what-donald-trumps-popularity-means-for-the-rest-of-the-2012-field/#IDComment144157260 God help us. Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:56:10 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/18/what-donald-trumps-popularity-means-for-the-rest-of-the-2012-field/#IDComment144157260 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/12/has-the-ayn-rand-cult-brainwashed-the-tea-party/#IDComment142435503 Indeed. We must always judge an idea separate from its messenger. Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:03:04 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/12/has-the-ayn-rand-cult-brainwashed-the-tea-party/#IDComment142435503 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/12/has-the-ayn-rand-cult-brainwashed-the-tea-party/#IDComment142434772 I've just scratched the surface of Rand's work. I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now. I recently read Anthem. I've heard of couple of lectures on Objectivism, the most recent by Ayn Rand Institute president Yaron Brook who I met at the Tea Party Patriots American Policy Summit in Phoenix. I can tell you this much. I am not now, nor will I ever be, an Objectivist. However, many of Rand's observations are right on the money. I welcome advocates of her philosophy to the Tea Party and believe it will only enrich the movement. My problems with Objectivism are metaphysical and involve the personal matter of religion. What Rand has to say about government, what she has to say about the public sphere and our relationships as neighbors, is right on. Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:58:37 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/12/has-the-ayn-rand-cult-brainwashed-the-tea-party/#IDComment142434772 http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp110411the_winners_and_lose#IDComment142405116 No, it does not depend upon our feelings. A public good benefits us all equally. I am as vested in the continued existence of our nation as you are. That defense could not occur aside from the mechanism of government. If there was no state, there would be no national defense. National defense is therefore a public good. Health care services do not benefit us all equally. If you are sick, you need care. That care can be provided by you and other voluntary contributors. If there was no state, you could still receive care. It is therefore not a public good. We can debate the extent of the military budget. The fact remains it is proper to have one. My point is that is not proper to publicly finance individual consumption. Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:44:15 +0000 http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp110411the_winners_and_lose#IDComment142405116 http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp110411the_winners_and_lose#IDComment142402011 There is no such thing as "public health." Individuals get sick and injured, requiring individual care. Like any product or service, that care has value and must be provided by someone. There are three ways this can occur. You can subsist on your own means and ability. You can trade something of value for the care you need. Or you can force someone to provide what you require. Government-enforced entitlement programs, by their very nature, are the third option. That is why I indeed advocate a phase out of Medicare and all other forms of coercive wealth redistribution. Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:23:05 +0000 http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp110411the_winners_and_lose#IDComment142402011 http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp110411the_winners_and_lose#IDComment142145686 You're missing the fundamental point. The distinction is not one of personal preference, but of objective purpose. National defense is a public good, which is to say it benefits all taxpayers equally and would not occur outside the scope of government. Health care, including family planning and abortion services, is not a public good. There is no reason taxpayers should be funding it. Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:01:02 +0000 http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp110411the_winners_and_lose#IDComment142145686 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/04/why-you-better-pray-that-god-is-not-dead-dennis-prager-diagnoses-americas-disease/#IDComment140078363 "That why he flooded the world and killed almost everything that walked the earth..." He could have rightly killed all. So, yes, God loves his creation. Tue, 5 Apr 2011 05:20:22 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/04/why-you-better-pray-that-god-is-not-dead-dennis-prager-diagnoses-americas-disease/#IDComment140078363 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/04/why-you-better-pray-that-god-is-not-dead-dennis-prager-diagnoses-americas-disease/#IDComment140077650 Not all faiths are created equal, which was part of Prager's point. Surely, a faith-based morality which does not demand the slitting of throats and setting of bombs has a greater claim to rationality than one which does not. The religious do not dispute that morality must be governed and grounded in reality. They dispute that reality is limited to the objective. While faith is inherently subjective, it is not inherently irrational. Tue, 5 Apr 2011 05:16:51 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/04/why-you-better-pray-that-god-is-not-dead-dennis-prager-diagnoses-americas-disease/#IDComment140077650 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/04/david-horowitz-vs-john-none-shall-pass-gwardino/#IDComment139952207 If you want to know more, the links are right there. Guardiano was not banned. He's no longer a contributor. There's a difference. The issue was not his disagreement. Many of us have taken contrarian positions here at NRB. The issue was his perpetual refusal to evidence his claims. I'm not for demonizing Islam either. However, stating what Islam plainly is does not qualify as demonization. Mon, 4 Apr 2011 19:15:22 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/04/david-horowitz-vs-john-none-shall-pass-gwardino/#IDComment139952207 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/29/the-reign-of-group-think-be-nice-and-compromise/#IDComment138828523 An essential point. Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:52:00 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/29/the-reign-of-group-think-be-nice-and-compromise/#IDComment138828523 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/29/the-reign-of-group-think-be-nice-and-compromise/#IDComment138828253 Indeed, I'm not sure what purpose being nice serves unto itself. Yet that seems to be the primarily goal of public education. Whenever you bring up home school in polite company, the first thing people scoff at is the notion of children not being around other children and not being "socialized." I don't wholly reject the value of children having contact with other children. But where did we get this notion that, in order to develop properly, they must spend most of their day most of the week in herds of kids their own age? I don't dispute they're thus socialized. I simply ask to what end. It used to be that children were socialized within their families, communities, and churches - you know, the real world. Isn't that more likely to prepare them for life? Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:50:06 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/29/the-reign-of-group-think-be-nice-and-compromise/#IDComment138828253 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/29/the-reign-of-group-think-be-nice-and-compromise/#IDComment138514085 Read that interview with Curtis Bowers. He gets into that and how our whole modern conception of education is meant to undermine individualism. We take it for granted now, but the whole concept of grades and having kids herded together in peer groups is a relatively recent development. Exactly what real life situation does tossing a five-year-old in a room full of other five-year-olds prepare them for? The end result is high school graduates who have no idea how to confidently interact with older adults in the real world. Wed, 30 Mar 2011 02:41:48 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/29/the-reign-of-group-think-be-nice-and-compromise/#IDComment138514085 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/23/constitutional-fail-5-ways-the-left-abuses-the-first-amendment-1/#IDComment137995486 If you affirm that a murderer ought to be accountable to the law, I have less cause to suspect you may murder than if you take the attitude that you are not accountable to the law. That's what I'm looking for here. I want a federal government which acknowledges its limits through recognition of secession as the final check against abuses and usurpations. I surely concede there is no such acknowledgment currently. I support Jason Lewis's proposed 28th Amendment in the final chapter of his book "Power Divided Is Power Checked," which would not only affirm the right to secession but reinvigorate enumerated powers doctrine by specifying the meaning of commonly abused clauses. Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:39:41 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/23/constitutional-fail-5-ways-the-left-abuses-the-first-amendment-1/#IDComment137995486 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/24/robin-hood-was-a-tea-partier/#IDComment137866883 The point is that there is no historical claim in this post. I specifically reference folklore, and contemporary iterations of that folklore to boot. I "retell" nothing. Demonstrate how I, and not the creative forces beyond every iteration of Hood in the past two centuries, have "retold" or misrepresented the folklore. Sun, 27 Mar 2011 09:46:12 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/24/robin-hood-was-a-tea-partier/#IDComment137866883 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/23/constitutional-fail-5-ways-the-left-abuses-the-first-amendment-1/#IDComment137864907 Let's accept your take on either scenario for the sake of argument. Doesn't that demonstrate why we ought to affirm secession as a right? Aren't you effectively saying a properly limited federal government would not prevent secession? Sun, 27 Mar 2011 09:25:39 +0000 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/23/constitutional-fail-5-ways-the-left-abuses-the-first-amendment-1/#IDComment137864907