Paul Ryan has a modest proposal on streamlining government aid. I suspect the end result would make sure the same bureaucracies are getting their cut of the pie and numbers would be fudged to ensure that it looked like people were getting help. Still, I like the idea of empowering states to try different stuff and while I’m sure it could be worse, that seems unlikely.
An explanation on why the left is so uptight about the Hobby Lobby decision. To sum up: positive and negative rights and the growing intrusiveness of government.
A government scientist cleaning out an old storage room at a research center near Washington made a startling discovery last week — decades-old vials of smallpox packed away and forgotten in a cardboard box.
It’s not the beginning of an apocalyptic novel, it’s just life. There was probably some old guy, ten years after retiring, sitting on the lake, fishing, “Maybe I should have mentioned I left the smallpox in that storage closet when I retired. Oh well.” On the other hand, security through obscurity.
Peter Marks, deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Research and Evaluation, said the discovery was unexpected but not a total shock. He added, however, that “no one’s denying we should have done a better job cleaning out what was there.”
I like him.
“Today’s decision jeopardizes women’s access to essential health care. Employers have no business intruding in the private health care decisions women make with their doctors. This ruling ignores the scientific evidence showing that the health security of millions of American women is strengthened by access to these crucial services,” Reid said. “If the Supreme Court will not protect women’s access to health care, then Democrats will. We will continue to fight to preserve women’s access to contraceptive coverage and keep bosses out of the examination room.”
This is why I think health care is broken at its very core. Health insurance should be paid for by the individual. This would require it becoming much cheaper. I couldn’t afford the coverage I have if my employer wasn’t footing the bill. The person that holds the purse strings, controls the content. And whether it’s my employer or the government, I’m relying on their benevolence to provide me with a service. Either one could change their minds at any time and I have no control over it.
Keith Olbermann’s lovely takedown of soccer in America
The Supreme Court recognizes that we are entitled to some digital privacy and safety from unwarranted searches.
To demonstrate how cellphones differ from other items that you might be carrying in your pocket, the Court chronicled, in some detail, the many functions of cellphones – as “cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers” – and emphasized their “immense storage capacity.” Having all of this information stored in one place, the Court explained, collectively provides much more information about our lives than, say, a calendar or camera would, standing alone. In fact, the Court posited, because of the different kinds of data that can be stored on a cellphone, searching a cellphone could provide police with even more information about your life than they could get from searching your home.
If this kind of aggregation is what it takes to stop the piecemeal destruction of the 4th amendment, then great. Go google. Maybe this can reverse the flow.