Following is a snippet from Sen. Rand Paul's comments at a recent hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee:
This is what your energy efficiency standards are. Call it what it is. You prevent people from making things that consumers want. I find it really appalling and hypocritical and think there should be some self-examination from the administration on the idea that you favor a woman’s right to an abortion, but you don’t favor a woman or a man’s right to choose what kind of light-bulb, what kind of dishwasher, what kind of washing machine. I really find it troubling – this busy-body nature that you want to come into my house, my bathroom, my bedroom, my kitchen, my laundry room. I just really find it insulting and I find that all of the arguments for energy efficiency – you’re exactly right we should conserve energy, but why not do it in a voluntary way? Why do it where you threaten to fine me or put me in jail if I don’t accept your opinion? In America we believe in trying to convince our neighbors, but not trying to convince them through the force of law. I find this antithetical to the American way.
Sen. Paul understands. There are so many freedoms we don't even realize we have, which is why the Founders in their wisdom constructed the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Charles Krauthammer's latest column at Human Events examines the Obama administration's treatment of the long-term need for Social Security reform:
Everyone knows that the U.S. budget is being devoured by entitlements. Everyone also knows that of the Big Three -- Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- Social Security is the most solvable.
Back-of-an-envelope solvable: Raise the retirement age, tweak the indexing formula (from wage inflation to price inflation) and means-test so that Warren Buffett's check gets redirected to a senior in need.
The relative ease of the fix is what makes the Obama administration's Social Security strategy so shocking. The new line from the White House is: no need to fix it because there is no problem. As Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.
This claim is a breathtaking fraud.
The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction.
The N.C. Supreme Court ruled* today against the state Libertarian and Green parties in their challenge of North Carolina's petition signature requirements for access to the state election ballot.
Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson writes:
In the present case, the two percent party recognition requirement of N.C.G.S. § 163-96(a)(2) may burden minor political parties somewhat, but it does not impose a severe burden. First, minority parties seeking recognition pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 163-96(a)(2) have over three and one-half years to acquire the requisite number of signatures. Second, section 163-96(a) places few restrictions on signatories. While these persons must be “registered and qualified voters in this State,” they need not register with or promise to vote for candidates of the party seeking recognition. N.C.G.S. § 163-96(a)(2). Signatories are even allowed to vote in a primary of a major party. See id. Third, a handful of supporters can acquire the requisite number of signatures. During the 2004–2008 election cycle, for example, over eighty-five thousand signatures were collected for the Libertarian Party by only five people.
Moreover, section 163-96(a)(2) does not impose a severe burden in that the two percent signature requirement is readily achievable. For instance, in 2008 the two percent threshold required signatures from only 69,734 of North Carolina’s approximately 5,734,000 registered voters. Further, a minor party has met the two percent recognition requirement eight times in the past five gubernatorial elections.
Third parties still could see ballot access restrictions loosened, despite this new Supreme Court opinion, depending on the response to the Electoral Freedom Act under consideration now in the legislature.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this entry listed an incorrect vote in this case.
The [Arizona] Republic examination found that revenue dropped from
$2.3 million to $366,446 over four years, and the number and caliber of
bookings has steadily declined.
And of course the solution is to pump more taxpayer money into the 32 year-old amphitheater.
The Raleigh city council has not learned from other cities. Its downtown amphitheater is likely to meet the same fate and it is only a year old. I guess it is too much to expect. Council members did built a money losing convention center and subsidized a hotel. Wilmington's answer to a money losing convention center is to subsidize a hotel. NC cities hire expensive consultants who always say that the solution to failure is more taxpayer money.
Did the principal of King's Mountain Intermediate School in Cleveland County, Henry Gilmore, use school district resources to produce the video posted below? Did he have permission from parents to use their children in the video?
Of course, it is possible that "hggilmore," who posted the video on YouTube, is not Henry Gilmore III, principal of KMIS.
Readers of The Atlantic might remember a recent Caitlin Flanagan article, “The Hazards of Duke,” that examined an infamous PowerPoint presentation from a female student assessing multiple male sexual partners.
The initial article now has generated an exchange in the magazine’s pages between Flanagan and the editor of The Duke Chronicle:
Although I took issue with several parts of “The Hazards of Duke” (January/February Atlantic), Caitlin Flanagan’s statements and assumptions about The Chronicle’s news sense with regard to rape charges against a former Duke sophomore misrepresent the paper’s coverage.
To say that The Chronicle and its editors found these accusations “of relatively little interest” is baseless speculation, and to say we covered the story “far more briefly” than the Karen Owen story is inaccurate. The Chronicle published three stories about the rape charges. All three ran on the front page, two of them as the lead story. We have continued to monitor developments in both story lines as they have occurred.
Editor, The Chronicle,
It is not I, but Lindsey Rupp, who has mischaracterized the essential facts of the case. On what did I base my assertion that The Chronicle covered the rape accusation far more briefly than it did the Owen PowerPoint? At the time my essay appeared in The Atlantic, the paper had published three articles about the rape case, and one letter from an associate dean of the university who questioned the paper’s journalistic ethics in its reporting of those stories. The paper refused to allow its readers to comment on the first two of those stories. In contrast, the paper published a total of 27 pieces concerning, either directly or indirectly, the Owen episode, which garnered a total of 225 reader comments.
This might be the most national attention the Chronicle has received since the even more infamous “Duke lacrosse rape case.”
Those interested in the future outlook for mass media might be interested in The Atlantic’s new cover story, in which James Fallows discusses the impact of recent changes:
One by one, the buffers between what people want and what the media can afford to deliver have been stripped away. Broadcast TV was deregulated, and cable and satellite TV arose in a wholly post-regulation era. As newspapers fell during the rise of the Internet, and fell faster because of the 2008 recession, the regional papers fell hardest. The survivors, from The New York Times to the National Enquirer, will be what British newspapers have long been: nationwide in distribution, and differentiated by politics and class. The destruction of the “bundled” business model for newspapers, which allowed ads in the Auto section to underwrite a bureau in Baghdad; the rise of increasingly targeted and niche-ified information sources and advertising vehicles; and the consequent pressure on almost any mass offering except for sports—all of these are steps toward a perfected market for information of all sorts, including news. With each passing month, people can get more of what they want and less of what someone else thinks they should have.
You might remember John Hood’s 2008 presentation to the John Locke Foundation’s Shaftesbury Society, in which he discussed the growing importance of ideological media.
State lawmakers are trying to figure out how to plug a multibillion-dollar hole in the state budget. Joseph Coletti offers an update on that process — including his own recommendations — during the next edition of Carolina Journal Radio.
While Coletti is focusing on the state budget picture, Stanford and Hoover Institution economist Michael Boskin outlines some of the challenges associated with red ink in the federal budget.
Rick Henderson will examine some recent silliness involving state licensing laws, including a dispute over who has the right to display a barber pole. Jenna Ashley Robinson of the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy will discuss the impact of left-leaning bias within college campus faculties.
And we’ll hear highlights from the recent legislative debate about a bill to scrap four North Carolina high school end-of-course tests.