Best argument against Legalizing Prostitution I've seen
Has Europe lost all sense?
The blog of The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society www.johnadamssociety.org
My first instinct is to say, no, Howard, I had no special obligation to disclose this information. I'm a marriage expert. I get paid to write, edit, research and educate on marriage. If a scholar or expert gets paid to do some work for the government, should he or she disclose that if he writes a paper, essay or op-ed on the same or similar subject? If this is the ethical standard, it is an entirely new standard.This seems right on to me, except for the apology part. I just don't see the need to apologize.
I was not paid to promote marriage. I was paid to produce particular research and writing products (articles, brochures, presentations), which I produced. My lifelong experience in marriage research, public education and advocacy is the reason HHS hired me.
But the real truth is that it never occurred to me. On reflection, I think Howard is right. I should have disclosed a government contract when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers.
Rolling Stone magazine declined to run an advertisement for a new translation of the Bible aimed at young people, the nation's largest bible publisher [Zondervan]said Wednesday. .... On Tuesday, USA today quoted Kent Brownridge, general manager of Wenner Media publisher of Rolling Stone], as saying his staff first saw the ad copy last week, and "we are not in the business of publishing advertising for religious messages." [emphasis added]
Personally, I would have thought that Wenner Media was in the business of making money. While I wholeheartedly support the notion that a business can pick and choose which advertisers they wish to allow into their publication, I reserve the right to have an opinion on their decision, and this is a bad one.
It's not like it's an advertisement for the KKK. Then again, perhaps in Wenner Media's view, an ad for a bible might indeed be on the same level as an advertisement for the Klan.
Sad. Simply sad.
"We're just going to stay in Washington while getting ready for our move [to New York, where Shrum, starting next month, will teach at NYU]. My aim is to stay out of the 'limited traffic zone.' How am I feeling? Disappointed. Right now, I'm waiting for a camera crew from CNN to interview me about Karl Rove. Just think, a switch of 55,000 votes in Ohio, and I wouldn't have been doing this interview. But you've got to be gracious." -- Lloyd Grove, New York Daily News
Hmmm. That won’t do it either. Let’s try giving him the 59,386 in Ohio, but we’ll take 33,745 vote switchers in Oregon.
Bush - 286 – 20 + 10 = 276
Kerry - 252 + 20 – 10 = 262
Bush - 286 – 20 + 7 = 273Dang. Let’s try the Ohio swap with 49,223 switchers here in Minnesota
Kerry - 252 + 20 – 7 = 265
Bush - 286 – 20 + 10 = 276I guess that it’s perfectly OK to pick-and-choose vote switching states when it works in their favor, but not in ours. I shouldn’t be surprised. I seem to recall this strategy being tried and failing in Florida a few years ago.
Kerry - 252 + 20 – 10 = 262
Of all the lies -- let's call them by their right name -- that the Bush administration is spreading about Social Security, none is as vile as the canard Bush repeated last Tuesday, when he said, "African-American males die sooner than other males do, which means the [Social Security] system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people. And that needs to be fixed." That is an entirely phony assertion; it has been debunked by the Social Security Administration, by the Government Accountability Office and by other experts. Bush and those around him know that. For them to repeat what they know to be a blatant lie is despicable fear-mongering.
Social Security is a complex program, so it's easy to tell outright lies or make misleading statements about it with little fear of contradiction from the general public. All Americans should be on notice that the Bush administration, in its drive to start dismantling Social Security, isn't telling the truth on several fronts.
The system is not in crisis; it has money to last for about the next half century, and even then, if nothing is done the required benefit cuts would still leave retirees better off than those getting benefits today. Pay close attention to this debate, and don't get snookered. The crisis in Social Security is no more real than the "crisis" that led the United States to war in Iraq.
Contrary to the assertion in yesterday's editorial, yes Virginia, there is indeed a Social Security crisis, even though there are many facts which might cause one to be incorrectly unworried. For instance, right now the Social Security trust fund is solidly in the black and becoming more so every day. Further, the problem is not that benefit payouts will exceed Social Security taxes starting around 2018, and thus benefits will have to be paid by dipping into the trust fund. There is nothing wrong with a system which in some years brings in more than it pays out and in other years pays out more than it brings in. That's what the trust fund is for. The problem isn't even that the trust fund will be exhausted sometime around 2040, or when today's twenty-somethings retire. If demographics were such that from then on, taxes would cover benefits, having nothing left in the trust fund wouldn't be a problem. But the demographics are NOT favorable in 2040. When today's twenty-somethings retire, not only will there be no Social Security trust fund, but the ratio of retirees to workers will most likely be so large that Social Security taxes will not even come close to covering benefits. Now the date 2040 is, of course, an estimate. Perhaps the day the system hits the wall will be later (and perhaps not). But our best estimates are that the system will hit a wall where nothing, not a trust fund, not Social Security tax revenues, but a big fat nothing is set in place to pay benefits to today's young workers. That is indeed a crisis.
"...want the government to give you some money to help you create your own wealth..."What's so insightful about this is that Ms. Liasson, the good lefty that she is, still inherently thinks that all money is the government's money. The truth, of course, is that it is OUR money, not the government's money, and the concept of private accounts simply let us keep more of our own money. The fact that she and many others on her side of the aisle still fail to recognize this basic economic fact tells us just about everything we need to know about their agenda.
The Labor Department reported this morning that the economy added 157,000 jobs in December, and the unemployment rate remains at 5.4 percent. All told, reports ABC News' Daniel Arnall the economy added nearly 2.1 million jobs last year — the best for growth since 1999. But President Bush's first term still shows a net job loss of 210,000.
A few things struck me when I read this
The economy has been heating up for some time now. How great it is for GWB to be re-elected so that he can get the credit for the sound tax policies that were implemented in his first term.