Muda69

Oops.

Government Control Turns Schools into Partisan Battlegrounds: https://reason.com/2019/05/06/government-control-turns-schools-into-partisan-battlegrounds/

Don't Let the Woke Scolds Ruin Cinco de Mayo: https://reason.com/2019/05/05/cinco-de-mayo-cultural-appropriation/ Suffice it to say, this is a rather backward understanding of white supremacy—an ideology that stresses differences and divisions between the races. The alt-right doesn't want white people wearing sombreros: They want Mexican people to take their clothing and food and head south. White nationalism is obsessed with keeping the white race pure—with making sure other peoples, cultures, traditions, and values do not dilute white identity. There's no better way to undermine this pernicious ideology than to engage in rampant cultural blending and borrowing. As a practical matter, it would be impossible to disentangle distinct ethnic traditions from the blended fabric of American society. Cinco de Mayo is a Mexican holiday, but one that's primarily celebrated in the U.S. rather than Mexico. That's what happens when cultures mix: New traditions form. Much of the outrage over cultural appropriation is confined to leftist social media enclaves and college campuses, where de-problematizing Cinco de Mayo is a frequent goal of racial justice activists. Their efforts call to mind H.L. Mencken's famous description of Puritanism as "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." ....

One of the awful ends results of our government lying and betraying the people it is supposed to serve. Yet people still blindly trust government to this very day. Agreed, never forget.

High School Mulls Removing George Washington Murals Because They 'Traumatize' Students: https://www.dailywire.com/news/46683/high-school-mulls-removing-george-washington-joseph-curl Here's the irony, though. The murals were painted in 1936 by artist Victor Arnautoff, who was a protégé of Diego Rivera and a communist. "He included those images not to glorify Washington, but rather to provoke a nuanced evaluation of his legacy. The scene with the dead Native American, for instance, calls attention to the price of 'manifest destiny.' Arnautoff’s murals also portray the slaves with humanity and the several live Indians as vigorous and manly," The Wall Street Journal reports. Historian Fergus M. Bordewich told The Fix that it is "a deeply wrongheaded habit to project today’s norms, values, ideals backwards in time to find our ancestors inevitably falling short." "It betrays a very troubling intolerance of art and the ambiguity of art and the aspirations of art," he said. "It’s incredibly stupid if we try to erase history. It still happened, and you should argue about its meanings."

Obamacare Isn’t Paving the Way to Single-Payer: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/05/obamacare-failure-shows-folly-government-health-care/

Everything that has massive government regulation has increased in price...who would have thought?

Clinton mocks: ‘China, if you’re listening, why don’t you get Trump’s tax returns?’: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/01/hillary-clinton-china-tax-returns-1296868

https://reason.com/2019/05/02/here-are-3-bad-reasons-were-still-in-afghanistan/ Agreed. It is far, far past the time to get out of Afghanistan. And while Mr. Trump may not yet be totally beholden to the military-industrial complex his string of national security advisers surely are.

Right?

R.I.P. Peter Mayhew, Star Wars' Chewbacca: https://news.avclub.com/r-i-p-peter-mayhew-star-wars-chewbacca-1834489871 A sad day. Truly an American icon, Mr. Mayhew will be missed.

"We" in this particular case also means the citizens of Clark County, who elected them to the position of judge in the first place. Methinks Mr. Adams and Mr. Jacobs face some explaining to do to those citizens who elected them, regardless of some disciplinary commission's ruling.

Exactly. Are we not supposed to hold public servants, elected judges nonetheless, to a higher standard of behavior?

Not to mention going to a training class in the morning hungover after only probably 3-4 hours of sleep. Nice behavior for an elected official being trained on probably the taxpayer's dime.

Not when they supposedly in Indianapolis for for training purpose, which one could logically conclude was being paid for by taxpayers. As for "out on the town" did you even read the article?: That sounds like "out on the town' to me. And for your information Frankfort, Indiana currently doesn't have a White Castle.................

"Interstate Commerce"

Why Social Democracy is Failing Europe: https://mises.org/wire/why-social-democracy-failing-europe

Gillibrand Proposes Giving Every Voter $600 To Donate to Campaigns: https://reason.com/2019/05/01/gillibrand-proposes-giving-every-voter-600-to-donate-to-campaigns/ Frankly what a stupid plan.

https://reason.com/2019/05/02/10-colleges-where-you-wont-have-to-walk-on-eggshells/ Congratulations to Purdue University for making this list.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2019/05/02/clark-county-indiana-judges-shot-at-white-castles-indianapolis-what-know/3649427002/ Hmm. If I were a resident of Clark County I would want to why two elected officials, judges of the law nonetheless, were doing "out on the town" at 3am. Doesn't seem to be behavior conductive to their purpose for being in Indianapolis in the first place, a purpose very likely being paid for by Clark County taxpayers.

Baloney. It most certainly is crony capitalism. You as a private citizen effectively can't sue Merck if one of their vaccines causes harm to you or a family member: https://www.policymed.com/2011/03/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-protecting-vaccine-makers-from-state-lawsuits.html

Meh, she's a city kid, not a country kid. Millions more like her out there.

Lots of guarantees, none of them leading to anything but earlier death and the depravities of socialism.: https://spectator.org/medicare-for-all/

American Interventionists Hurt the Cause of Freedom in Venezuela: https://mises.org/wire/american-interventionists-hurt-cause-freedom-venezuela Indeed, humanitarian interventions have hardly been slam dunks even in cases like the Rwandan Genocide, as Stephen Wertheim noted: Given that the current socialism-induced disaster in Venezuela hardly rises to a level even approaching the Rwandan Genocide, it's hard to see how US's record on foreign interventions in recent decades could possibly be overlooked in favor or yet another invasion. Of course, opposing US bombing of Venezuelans — which is what "humanitarian intervention" likely means — is not the same thing as supporting the Maduro regime itself. Nor is the fact that immoral opportunists like John Bolton and Michael Pompeo hate the Maduro regime reason enough to like it. The problem with Pomeo and Friends isn't that they badmouth kleptocrat politicians like Maduro. The problem is US Bolton, et al incessantly push the line that is is either moral or effective to launch yet another "humanitarian" war. Nor do these interventionists even offer a critique that is either unique or insightful. Nearly anyone who isn't a true sympathizer with socialist regimes — i.e., Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn — can see the transformation of the Venezuelan economy from a mixed economy to a largely socialist one — known as Chavismo — has been predictably terrible for the Venezuelan standard of living. By most accounts, shortages are rampant, blackouts are frequent, the entrepreneurial economy has been decimated, and homicide rates are way up. Proving the Chavistas Right And this is why its so unfortunate the US administration has essentially declared war on the current regime. By declaring war on Maduro, the US administration only helps the regime shore up its base, play the victim, and draw on nationalist tendencies to secure its position. For example, supporters of Maduro — and his predecessor Hugo Chavez — always drew a sizable amount of support from Venezuelan nationalists who opposed any US meddling in domestic affairs, and who suspected the US was seeking constantly to essentially turn Venezuela into a puppet regime. Chavez bragged repeatedly about his ability to withstand us efforts at replacing him through various CIA machinations and coup attempts. Whether these were real or imagined, both Chavez and Maduro were able to solidify their base through fears of US meddling. Now, by explicitly declaring war on the Venezuelan regime, the US regime has only confirmed what Chavez and Maduro have claimed all along. The Administration has, in a sense, legitimized Chavismo foreign policy. Moreover, the US declaration of War against the regime has served to make it easier to accuse all opponents of the regime as US stooges. It's easy to see how this works just by observing American politics. In the United States nowadays, it's quite easy to be accused of being in service to the Kremlin — as John McCain said of Rand Paul — by taking certain political positions. Specifically, anyone who supports the Trump Administration — which is said to be in the thrall of Vladimir Putin — or who pushes a relatively restrained foreign policy, opens himself to labels such as "foreign agent" or "traitor." These terms are thrown around casually as if it's simply self-evident that anyone who opposes the CIA's latest scheme, or who points out James Comey's obvious bias and incompetence, must be doing Moscow's bidding. Now, imagine if the Russian state had come out in 2016 and said it openly supported the Trump candidacy and planned to invade the United States if Trump were not elected. Clearly, this would inflame sentiments of nationalism and whip up support for those who were seen as enemies of the Kremlin. It would become easy to accuse anyone who supported "Russia's man Trump" as a traitor. Being "pro-American" might become synonymous with opposing Donald Trump. The analogy fails in some respects, of course, because no well-informed person thinks Russia can actually invade North America. In Venezuela, on the other hand, the threat of invasion by the US is very plausible and real. Thus, the stakes in real life in Venezuela are far higher than in our imagined US scenario. Faced with a very possible invasion — and aware of the US's abysmal record on spreading "freedom" in Latin America — many Venezuelans may be even more inclined to support a regime they don't like if it's perceived as a bulwark against becoming a puppet state of the United States. Moreover, US sanctions against Venezuela provide a scapegoat for the regime's failed economic policies. As the Venezuelan economy continues to stagnate, the regime can simple say "we'd be doing much better if we didn't have these US sanctions to contend with." The same phenomenon has been observed in Iran for decades. Various US administration repeatedly threaten Iran with invasion, sanctions, and destruction, yet the residents there don't rise up to welcome their new American overlords. Indeed, the constant war of words only gives the Iranian regime a convenient scapegoat. Americans are no different. Thus, by choosing sides in the Venezuelan conflict, the US has likely made the replacement of Maduro even less likely. The internal conflict has been transformed from a fight over which factions shall control the central government, and turned into a referendum on preventing US control of Venezuela. The thought of US control, of course, isn't opposed by everyone. But given the long history of Latin American nationalism — which is often reminiscent of US nationalism — it's not hard to see why many Venezuelans have failed to take the streets to demand the current regime be replaced by the CIA's preferred candidate. The United States of America is not the world's cop.