It’s about time. According to a report, nearly 100 lawmakers recently met at Mount Vernon to discuss and the possibility of holding a Constitutional convention in the near future.
From the Blaze:
Close to 100 legislators from 32 states met in Mount Vernon, Va., Saturday to discuss the…
Today, eight leading internet companies have published in several major newspapers an open letter to President Barack Obama and to Members of Congress urging them to rein in the growth of the national security surveillance state.
We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens. But this summer’s revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide. The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual — rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. This undermines the freedoms we all cherish. It’s time for a change.
For our part, we are focused on keeping users’ data secure — deploying the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorized surveillance on our networks and by pushing back on government requests to ensure that they are legal and reasonable in scope.
We urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight.
So they basically acknowledge taxation makes your living conditions worse?
How nice of them to steal a little bit less of their money in the spirit of Christmas.
Can you imagine participating in a protest outside the White House and forcing the entire U. S. to government to resign? Can you imagine a group of randomly chosen private citizens rewriting the U. S.
Scary. Insane. Ridiculous. Invasive. Wrong. The Washington Post reports that the FBI has had the ability to secretly activate a computer’s camera “without triggering the light that lets users know it is recording” for years now.
This is so dumb. Even if we ignore the impossibility of defining “need”.
This would be the equivalent of saying “Yes, people die from falls. I get that. And they need the ability to float effortlessly above the ground. But I want to ask you the physics of it.”
Would we attack that person as being heartless and inhuman? Not at all.
And the laws of economics are likewise inescapable. So we need to consult them if we actually want to make sure our grand plans to save everybody from all hardships are not themselves going to do more harm than good.
Essentially what Stuart Varney is saying is this, “Yes, it would be nice for people on minimum wage to make more money. I agree that this would be desirable. But IS IT ACTUALLY POSSIBLE TO LEGISLATE THIS WITHOUT HURTING THOSE SAME PEOPLE WE ARE TRYING TO HELP?”
Because that is the relevant question to any discussion of minimum wage increases. And economics teaches us that raises in the minimum wage will have the effect of putting marginal low-skilled workers OUT OF A JOB. Yes, this is unfortunate. It is always sad to learn that we cannot magically make everyone better off by simply passing a law, but if we actually care about people, we need to try to learn a little bit about these kinds of things before we set out to do-good through government decrees.
But if we, like Stewart, simply shut our ears and adopt the anti-science approach of saying “IF SCIENCE CONTRADICTS MY FEELINGS AND ASSUMPTIONS THEN ITS HEARTLESS AND LALALALLAA I CAN’T HEAR YOU MEAN ECONOMISTS LALALALA!!!” then we’re going to end up in a whole mess of trouble.
What Jon Stewart is effectively saying in these gifs is this, “Dude, you’ve already admitted that people on minimum wage would be better off with more money, so that’s it. There’s no need to further investigate whether or not the minimum wage policy will actually achieve that goal. My assumptions and feelings tell me that it will, so that’s the end of the debate. In short: if you agree with me about ENDS, than it is impossible to disagree with me about the best MEANS to achieve those ends, because the means I chose are automatically right because I assume that they are. And if you so much as question the wisdom and effectiveness of the ends that I chose then you’re a bad person and I don’t have to listen to you because you’re just mean and heartless for no reason.”
(sidenote: I thought the left was supposed to be pro-‘science’ and reject the anti-intellectualism of the right? huh, weird.)
/\/\ This is the response I was hoping someone would write when I first saw this gifset. Thank you, eltigrechico.