Well, now that we can decide our own gender (kind of like voting about it), doesn’t it make sense that we can vote about whether killing is really killing, whether up is really down, and all kinds of other immutable laws we like to pretend aren’t so?
 March 27, 2015 at 4:02pm
I’m glad someone understands in a narrow way what the rest of us have known for a long time: you can’t trust this administration!
 March 26, 2015 at 11:46am
So let’s recap: global warming will result in the melting of glaciers and ice caps, yet there will be less water available? Land that was permanently frozen will now be arable and yet there will be less food? I get that if their projections are correct (which they aren’t, but just go with it for the sake of argument), some currently useful land would turn into deserts, but they seem to conveniently forget that areas previously too cold to use for anything would also become useful. Even if you accept their premises, their conclusions fail!
 March 26, 2015 at 11:43am
It’s amazing how quickly you can go from a position of power in the world to being nearly irrelevant and failing at literally every turn in foreign policy.
 March 26, 2015 at 11:41am
Sledgehammers? What ever happened to the good old days of making a pile and throwing the frag grenades on top and taking cover? Way more fun!
 March 26, 2015 at 11:30am
Read up on Plato and the other ancients’ view of democracies. Heck, even read up on our Founders’ view of it. Many features of the Constitution, some of which have been amended and others ignored, were designed to mitigate the excesses of democracy. The key flaw is that it degenerates into mob rule and is ruthless in its treatment of minorities. Of course, a budding communist like yourself would naturally be drawn to a system which allows everyone to band together and vote themselves other people’s property.
 March 26, 2015 at 11:27am
Stupid questions and answers, but somehow I ended up at a Republic!
Probably on their way to Mexico as we speak for fast and furious II.
The money is secure in a Govt. controlled vault in Holders home, the guns are in Mexico and the collectable ones will be smuggled(read walked) across the border to American Collectors. I'm looking for a lever action in .45 LC
 March 25, 2015 at 1:00pm
Of course, the suggestion is firmly tongue in cheek, but it is my belief that government has no business providing assistance to anyone, ever and that to take their assistance is to accept slavery at the government’s hands while simultaneously committing theft (the fact that the government put its gun to my head on your behalf to steal my money does not diminish your moral culpability). There are family, churches, other organizations, and just plain private citizens to render assistance in legitimate cases of need. The difference is that it is done willingly on the part of all, so both giver and receiver are made better, rather than encouraging moral decay. And lest you think I’m a hypocrite, I’ve made my home and food available to women getting out of abusive domestic situations and assisted with food to unemployed, both personally and through my church.
 March 25, 2015 at 12:53pm
Another good reason to disrupt the government monopolies on this kind of infrastructure and instead allow privatization (I mean for real, not the pseudo private utilities) and thus, decentralization of the grid. Anytime you allow something to aggregate and concentrate like this, it raises big vulnerabilities.
 March 25, 2015 at 11:13am
Maybe we should resort to public shaming? We could man grocery stores and whenever an EBT card comes out, gather at the register and offer to help the person out of their unfortunate situation. I’m betting at least a few would quit the programs!
I wouldn't go that far, to be assuming of a stranger's situation just makes you an ass. Some people get suddenly laid off of their well paying jobs and are left with no options but to accept assistance in the short run. It's even harder on single mothers who have lost husbands or had to divorce to get out of an abusive relationship. If you're going to offer help, be sincere instead of being a pretentious holier-than-thou shrew.
Wouldn't work. They would just charge us with a hate crime.
Of course, the suggestion is firmly tongue in cheek, but it is my belief that government has no business providing assistance to anyone, ever and that to take their assistance is to accept slavery at the government's hands while simultaneously committing theft (the fact that the government put its gun to my head on your behalf to steal my money does not diminish your moral culpability). There are family, churches, other organizations, and just plain private citizens to render assistance in legitimate cases of need. The difference is that it is done willingly on the part of all, so both giver and receiver are made better, rather than encouraging moral decay. And lest you think I'm a hypocrite, I've made my home and food available to women getting out of abusive domestic situations and assisted with food to unemployed, both personally and through my church.
That would probably get you thrown in jail these days.
There would be no shame….they would simply take your handout and the government's handout as well.
The only way out of this is to cut the entitlements off. Cold turkey.
No more welfare, no more food stamps, no mure subsidized housing, …..no more entitlements period. Yes, people would die, there would be mayhem, but eventually people would realize that if they want to eat,….well….they are going to have to get a job that can support their love/need for food. Sadly, no one has the guts to do this because they are afraid of losing their cushy well paid job as a politician.
 March 25, 2015 at 11:06am
Hair loss is a result of malnourishment. Looks like healthy school lunches are coming home to roost!
To these people, it’s inconceivable that different kids might have different needs based on different metabolisms and such. The skinny kids are always the ones who eat the most, so they suffer because of the fat kids’ and their parents’ excesses? This is standard progressivism, punish the innocent because of the guilty. What a bunch of arrogant jerks.
 March 25, 2015 at 10:55am
Here’s legal education on fine display. Kelly clearly hasn’t read or doesn’t understand the Federalist Papers’ explanation that the whole point of most of the federal structure was to create gridlock and stop things from getting done. The idea is that only those ideas with overwhelming support over a sustained period of time should pass, and Cruz was filling the role of the minority who does precisely what they are supposed to do.
And as I said yesterday, Cruz accomplished the single greatest thing anyone can, and he did it as a junior senator: he shut down the government! As PS said, let’s hope we can do it for longer and more comprehensively in the future.
 March 25, 2015 at 10:49am
Why not just eliminate subsidies altogether? It makes no sense and distorts everything. Just let the market determine who grows what and how much. If you’re no good at farming, get out of it. If the market doesn’t need more corn, don’t grow it. Seems pretty simple right up until the central planners think they’re smarter than reality (aka the market).
Never underestimate the importance of farmers, criticize the markets all you want…
1) The market is based in part on speculation. It is completely unreliable. Especially 7 months in advance. If the market determined who grows what and how much, it’d be outright socialism.
2) Small farmers have to contend with hail, tornados, drought, etc. One bad year could knock them out. The alternative is Corporate farming. Think they won’t be (aren’t) subsidized?
3) If the market doesn’t need more corn, there are these circular structures for storing grain referred to as grain bins.
4) If a farmer doesn’t grow a crop, he and his family starve. Can we apply that to every profession? Fortunately there is always a need for food around the world.
5) These subsidies keep Chevy and Ford in business, regardless of if anyone prefers to drive foreign made cars.
 March 25, 2015 at 10:41am
“Recruits must be free of any contagious diseases or medical, physical, mental or psychological conditions that would limit the person’s ability to perform”
So they’re trying to pretend that inability to accept the reality between your legs isn’t a mental or psychological condition that would limit a person’s ability to perform? Worked out well with he/she Manning, huh? How can you expect fidelity from someone so out of touch with the most stark of realities?
 March 24, 2015 at 5:14pm
More people are waiting to get healthcare now than they were before it passed, suggesting that nominally having health insurance is not the same thing as having healthcare. Thus, I argue that repeal makes it better, but getting the government completely out of healthcare is the only way to make dramatic improvements. Quit trying to outsmart markets, it’s impossible and ends badly.
March 24, 2015 at 4:22pm
See bharris0′s comment below for your answer. Who says anyone needs to buy insurance? Why not just pay for your health costs as you incur them? From an economist’s perspective, insurance is really problematic because it distances you from the actual cost of your care, leading you to take greater health risks than you might otherwise and to be less cost-conscious. The solution to the problem is the exact opposite of Obamacare: don’t force insurance, get rid of it. Now, I’m not for forceful bans of an industry, and there may be a place for catastrophic plans and mutual aid societies, but mandated comprehensive medical insurance is the best way to guarantee out of control costs.
I used to be uninsured, and I liked it. I paid cash for services, and had to shop around for prescriptions. THEN, one day I got my Obammy card in the mail... I never went to the web site, never applied, and NEVER signed anything, elctronically or otherwise...... I don't know how it's legal to just forcibly make someone have coverage they don't want, but there's No way to opt out of it now that I'm IN........ Currently, I have to wait months for referrals, and can't get my medication in a steady reliable fashion. My health has declined to the point that I can't work.... Thanks Obama.... Thanxalot !
 March 24, 2015 at 4:16pm
I sincerely hope that in addition to this being good strategy, Cruz also believes he’s not above the rest of us. He hasn’t given me reason to doubt this yet, and I hope he doesn’t!
 March 24, 2015 at 1:17pm
This is a well-written article suggesting an intelligent solution to a serious problem. Unfortunately, anyone who thinks outside the box or suggests anything that doesn’t seem politically viable is branded an extremist. Just ask Ted Cruz. As for me, I’ll take more extremism if it means thinking critically about difficult issues and not restraining ourselves to solutions that don’t really change much.
Who will insure all the elderly, most who have pre-existing conditions?
See bharris0's comment below for your answer. Who says anyone needs to buy insurance? Why not just pay for your health costs as you incur them? From an economist's perspective, insurance is really problematic because it distances you from the actual cost of your care, leading you to take greater health risks than you might otherwise and to be less cost-conscious. The solution to the problem is the exact opposite of Obamacare: don't force insurance, get rid of it. Now, I'm not for forceful bans of an industry, and there may be a place for catastrophic plans and mutual aid societies, but mandated comprehensive medical insurance is the best way to guarantee out of control costs.