For me, this is way better than the Ansari X Prize: Why visit space when you can just as easily take a trip to heaven with some cantaloupe wrapped in high-tech prosciutto? As a vegetarian and a biological scientist, I'm thrilled by yesterday's announcement and eager to start loading my plate with tissue-engineered bacon.
And, just for the record, I think PETA sucks. They use brute force and bullying to get their point across instead of using logic and persuasion to foster real debate.
Is it really all that bad to allow the free market to work it's "magic" when it comes to organ donation?
I guess to most people it is, but, I'm not the only person who thinks it could be a good idea. Stephen J. Dubner thinks it may be a good idea, too.
From the Freakonomics blog @ NYTimes.com:
Here is an oversimplification of a complex problem:
1. Thanks to the miracles of modern medicine, a sick or dying human being can receive a transplanted organ from another human being.
2. Some of those organs must inevitably come from cadavers: i.e., you can’t give your heart to someone else and still live. But some transplanted organs can come from living people. Chief among them is the kidney: we are born with two but can live with one.
3. As the science has improved, there has been a huge increase in demand for transplantable organs. But the supply has not kept up with demand. The kidney waiting list gets longer every year, and every year more people die while still on the waiting list. The supply of kidneys from both cadavers and living donors is insufficient.
Like hundreds of young men joining the Army in recent years, Jeremy Hall professes a desire to serve his country while it fights terrorism.
But the short and soft-spoken specialist is at the center of a legal controversy. He has filed a lawsuit alleging he's been harassed and his constitutional rights have been violated because he doesn't believe in God. The suit names Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Known as "the atheist guy," Hall has been called immoral, a devil worshipper and — just as severe to some soldiers — gay, none of which, he says, is true. Hall even drove fellow soldiers to church in Iraq and paused while they prayed before meals.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Now there's been quite a bit of debate as to whether or not the second amendment protects the individual right of self-defense or the collective right of the state to arm militias.
Look at it this way; Every other right protected by the bill of rights protects individual liberty, so why would it be different for the second amendment?
Rights are individual by nature. We as individuals have an inherent right to defend our home, our loved ones and ourselves. Just because a group of individuals decides to voluntarily associate does not mean that that association has more rights than its individual members.
Any time someone prattles on about the rights of society, all they're really talking about is the strength and power of the majority. Their reasoning is that because the majority thinks that something is bad, then, well, tough shit for the rest of you you have to do what we say. And if you don't we'll use force to make you do it. This is exactly the reason the framers of the Constitution thought it necessary to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms. Otherwise, we might as well live in Communist China or Soviet Russia.
You know something, I probably should've done this post on Socialism vs Liberty. Maybe I'll save that for another day.
I know the "TSA / Long lines at the airport" story is old hat, but, I saw the above video today and just had to throw my two cents in.
First; Is it really the government's job to provide security for private companies? Most of the companies I patronize provide their own security, whether it was the bouncer at my local watering hole, the security guard at the mall, or the surveillance cameras at the local convenience store. Why shouldn't airports and airlines do the same?
Second; What ever happened to the notion that we have a right to defend ourselves? It is against the law, in this country and many others, to carry a loaded weapon aboard an airplane. But, I can almost guarantee with 99.999% certainty that, if there was at least one armed citizen aboard any one of the four aircraft hijacked on September 11, 2001, the terrorists on board that particular aircraft would've, at the very least, thought twice before taking action.
Just imagine what would happen to any would be hijacker or terrorist if just 20% of the people aboard an aircraft were allowed to carry their firearms on board. They'd probably shit their pants.
Also, has anyone ever noticed that states and localities that have the least stringent gun control laws also have the lowest incidences of violent crime ( that includes rape, armed robbery, and murder)? What moron would try to commit a violent crime when there's a 50% chance of coming up against someone who is armed?
But, I digress. This is about the TSA, not gun control. I just so happen to think that the more the government interferes with private citizens and private companies the less secure we are and the more we have to worry about. Leave central planning schemes to the communists. I mean, I always thought this was the USA, not the USSR.
Admit it. Sometimes you wonder how many "disposable" objects -let's say, coffee cups as an example- you've used in your lifetime. Then you think about the paper itself and all that goes into just making it. The trees, the trucking, the fuel, the wasted byproduct, the shipping. And let's not even get started on that infernal plastic lid. Perhaps you start to feel guilty. Perhaps you should. Perhaps we are a nation of consumer whores. Perhaps we should all watch this when it airs on April 9th:
From the ashes of Rage Against the Machine and Audioslave, Morello has birthed a new identity/solo project that is as heavy handed as it gets. In the following clip, he talks about his activism projects, how you can get involved and performs two songs. Whether or not they're any good, is of course up to you....
What does "Freedom of Speech" really entail? Our new best friends over @ Bureaucrash have some ideas.
From Janet @ Bureaucrash.com:
I've been thinking a lot lately about freedom of speech. It is something that everyone in Canada and America values, or at least claims to value.
Ask a Canadian if they'd be willing to give up their freedom of speech, and they will likely tell you that in Canada we believe in free speech. Ask an American to support a candidate for president who's running on a promise to repeal the first amendment and they'll likely laugh in your face.
We are two of the freest countries in the world, and for all of our flirtations with socialism, free speech is something that average Canadians and Americans continue to have at least a strong superficial belief in.
So why is it that so often we hear the words "I believe in free speech, but..."
But what?
Well the one I hear most often is, "We believe in free speech, but freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility."
OK, so we need to make sure that people are responsible for their actions. Let's examine this argument against free speech. (And it is an argument against free speech - unless you have complete freedom of speech, you do not have free speech. Is it freedom of religion if you can be any religion but pagan/Catholic/Jewish? Same deal.)
In the video below, Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute explains how tax competition is spreading around the globe and working to lower taxes and create prosperity. And how politicians are fighting against it.
*This is a new regular segment here at the show. Stay tuned every week for more.
Now is it just me or is this a really BAD IDEA! I mean come on, Mayor Bloomberg (a RINO if I ever saw one) is really going to force the men and women of the tri-state area, who work hard to earn a living in NYC, pay a fee for going to work in their own cars just because they happen to be traveling during "Peak Hours"? This is just another ploy by statist politicians to take away more choices from individuals. And I call bullshit! Remember folks; Politicians can never be trusted to do what's right for the individual, all they really want is power.
From the NY Post:
Mayor Bloomberg's congestion-pricing scheme has cleared its first major hurdle, the City Council, and is now headed to Albany - where it faces an infinitely more formidable roadblock: Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.
The council passed the legally required home-rule message by a 30-20 vote (by Council standards, an unusually slim margin). Now the Legislature must give its final approval by next Monday - the deadline for $350 million in federal transit funds needed to offset the program's startup costs.
But Silver is in no rush to get anything done - even though the Senate's GOP majority is ready to take up the issue right away.
In fact, the speaker says he won't even begin considering the matter until both houses have passed the state budget - which likely will take until Friday.
This means that congestion pricing would come before the Legislature as a stand-alone item, rather than as part of the budget process - making it much more difficult to pass.
In voting to endorse congestion pricing, the City Council recognized the plan for what it is: the biggest boost for New York mass transit in decades.
The Legislature must show the same wisdom. Albany lawmakers - notably Speaker Sheldon Silver and Assembly Democrats - should approve pouring the billions of dollars that would flow from congestion pricing into transportation improvements.
The Council stepped up big-time. Led by Speaker Christine Quinn, members voted, 30 to 20, to require drivers to pay $8 (minus tolls) to enter Manhattan below 60th St. on weekdays.
That means tolling the four East River bridges, a step long viewed as akin to touching a political third rail. What made it smart and do-able was the commitment to dedicate revenue for transit improvements that would benefit the majority of New Yorkers.
Amazingly, two-thirds of Council members who voted yes represented the outer boroughs. Some of their constituents would be hit with the charge, but commuting would get easier for many more.
Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases, but it has many drawbacks. Now a radical new technology based on thorium promises what uranium never delivered: abundant, safe and clean energy - and a way to burn up old radioactive waste.
