Design a site like this with
Get started

Walter E. Williams on “Empathy Versus Law”

President Obama has chosen Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be our next Supreme Court Justice. Judge Sotomayor agrees with Obama that Justices should have “empathy” for either the underprivileged or people who belong to races or national origins, etc. that have histories of discrimination. She believes that a “Latina” would be more qualified than a “white male” to judge based on empathy. This means that she does NOT believe that Justice is “blind” or “objective,” which is what actual justice really is, and is what our laws really should be based on.

George Mason University Economics professor Walter E. Williams explains it here in his recent column, Empathy Versus Law.

Michael Savage Banned from United Kingdom

Michael Savage is suing the United Kingdom for banning him from entering their country. Their reason is because of his “hate speech” that could incite violence or terrorism, and his reason for suing is that they’re violating his First Amendment rights to free speech. Well, he has a First Amendment right to free speech here in the US, which is the only place the US Constitution applies. Also, the UK has the right of national sovereignty to ban anyone, any non-UK citizen from entering their country, and for whatever reason, just as does our country. In my view, Michael Savage is now a huge hypocrite, given he has constantly and for years been arguing for our right to ban anyone from entering our country, including illegal immigrants, based on that right of national sovereignty. His main slogan is “Borders, Language, Culture.”

Another thing that’s questionable about Savage is his legal fund for this matter and for his past legal fiasco with CAIR, in which this highly rated, multi-millionaire syndicated talk host, asks his listeners, many who are of modest means, to donate to the fund. Can you imagine Rush Limbaugh doing that? I can’t. And Limbaugh would probably just tell England to go to Hell and forget about it.

Another Reminder of Why I Stopped Getting the NY Times

Maureen Dowd is in the news, herself accused of plagiarism. I stopped getting the NY Times in October 1987 after that Biden-Kinnock speech-plagiarizing fiasco, because of Dowd’s direct involvement in it. Accoding to Boston Globe stories by Joan Vennochi, Stephen Kurkjian, and Chris Black at that time, Dowd called then-Dukakis for President campaign manager John Sasso regarding an unrelated story about Joe Biden, and Sasso told Dowd about the particular Iowa debate in which Biden quoted British politician Neil Kinnock without attribution, even though Biden gave Kinnock credit the previous times he used the quote. Dowd asked Sasso to make a tape of the Biden and Kinnock speeches for her as long as she didn’t identify its source. In her page one story Dowd paired the Biden Iowa debate speech with the Kinnock speech, but didn’t mention Biden’s previous attribution of that quote to Kinnock.

So, Dowd knew that Biden had previously attributed that quote but only on this one occasion forgot to make the attribution. My conclusion at that time with these articles was that Dowd was “in cahoots” with Sasso to sink the Biden campaign. And that wasn’t the first time I’d seen “biased” reporting with the NY Times.

Evolution vs. Creation

Recently, there have been criticisms by people in the news media of conservatives’ “listening tour,” with the pundits bringing up the old creation vs. evolution debate. They are constantly labeling those who believe in God or a creator as knuckle-dragging, flat-Earth-thinking Neanderthals. Most people who believe that we were created by a superior being or beings also believe that we were products of evolution from earlier life forms, and gradually over a period of centuries, millennia, etc. It’s just as each individual evolves from conception to birth to adulthood to death.

One may ask the critics of creationism how exactly humans formed, with the heart the way that works and the brain and how it functions, and so on. Is their answer that it all came about by total randomness, with particles and matter and chemicals coming together and developing the means of life on their own? What are the chances of our heart and entire circulatory system being the results of spontaneous events and randomness? Just look at how every part of us works, and how everything functions, and all working together. Look at the eyes and how complex the optic nerve is, communicating visual messages to the brain. It’s all coincidental?

All these biological facts of existence and their complexity really should be seen as evidence that we were created, because the odds of being the results of such randomness are so great, you’d have to believe in that randomness as a matter of faith.

Rush Limbaugh Is a Liberal

April, 2009

It’s too bad that people such as Rush Limbaugh, who believe in free market capitalism,  individualism and individual rights, which is advocated by “liberalism,” refer to modern day socialism and fascism as “liberalism.” That term really refers to the advocacy of freedom of the individual from authority, specifically arbitrary governmental or state authority. The Left hijacked that word a century ago to cover up  their anti-liberty views and policies. That is why FDR, LBJ and other fascists have gotten away with their fascism. Another distortion of the words “liberalism” and “liberal” is in describing a “cultural permissiveness” that excuses irresponsibility, recklessness and even social aggression, and by law. In the old days, “responsibility” meant that an individual was responsible for the consequences of one’s own actions. Now it means, as President Barack Obama has stated, “I am my brother’s keeper,” or words to that effect. In other words,  we all have “shared guilt or blame” for what other individuals do. Obama and his ilk also mean “responsibility” as “obligation.”  We have an obligation of self-sacrifice, not really as much to “serve others,” but sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, like there’s some kind of inherent duty of self-denial in living within a community.

In this new age of increasing government fascism, socialist redistribution of wealth schemes and politically correct dictates, we need to recognize the intrusions by government into our private lives and property from which the American Founders fought so hard to protect us. The public discourse of today’s important issues deserve clarity. Rush Limbaugh is a “social conservative,” but does he really want the government to dictate particular “conservative” ways of life that everyone must follow? If so, then he would be a fascist. But I doubt that. He probably believes that those things should be encouraged by cultural institutions such as families, churches and other social organizations, but not forced by government.   Limbaugh is really a  “liberal” in that he probably believes that the individual’s right to live freely, as long as one does not interfere with another individual’s same right, should be protected by the government, not violated by it. Instead of referring to “liberalism,” Limbaugh ought to use the terms “socialism” and “fascism.” And perhaps Michael Savage’s book Liberalism is a Mental Disorder ought to be called The Mental Disorder of Extreme Social Abnormality and Cultural Permissiveness. And in the discussion of ultra-authoritarian government’s redistribution of wealth schemes, Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism should be called Robin Hood Fascism or Do-Gooder Fascism.

ObamaCorps vs the Voluntaryism of Free Markets

May, 2009

President Obama’s revival of President Clinton’s AmeriCorps program, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, now called the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, aims at America’s youth. Now a voluntary program but originally mandatory, it will probably go back to being mandatory, given how fascist in nature most of Obama’s acts of governance have been so far. Even if it remains voluntary, it will no doubt be coercive.

There are plenty of young people of high school or college age who do volunteer work, some of whose purpose is to accumulate experience towards future work in the “social services” sector, such as caring for the elderly or working with disabled people,  and some of whom just enjoy helping others. These young volunteers are genuinely motivated to help others and aren’t forced nor coerced into these activities. And there are plenty of adults who also do volunteer work.There are also many teens who are very achievement-minded, who excel in their academic work as well as have part-time jobs, either out of self-motivation or from their parents’ pressure. And there are those who are not motivated, and some of those are “troubled” teens. It seems to me that these groups are the ones the AmeriCorps proponents are after, these more “impressionable,” non-future-oriented youths who may be more likely to fall into the trap of submission to the state.

Here are some examples of how people serve others: steel workers and carpenters in the manufacturing sector serve the companies they work for, but are really serving the actual consumers who need the items they produce, such as computers, trucks and office buildings. There are people in the service sector who serve people who need groceries, get coffee at the local diner and clothes at the department store. And of course there are charities who serve the needs of those who can’t afford the daily necessities. And there are professionals such as doctors, lawyers and accountants who serve many people’s needs.The people in the “social services” sector such as nurses and nurses’ aides serve the needs of medical patients and teachers serve the needs  of children and young adults who need to be educated.

Now, the people in all these groups are not forced nor coerced to serve others; they do it voluntarily, and yes, most of them are paid for their work. They receive a financial compensation which is in their self-interest and they do a service to others, and their work is not planned or mandated by state authority with the armed force of legal compulsion. At the same time, there are many, many people throughout the population who do volunteer work, also in absence of government mandates or coercion–they do it out of their own genuine concern for others. People who lack that concern will probably not do volunteer work even if it’s mandated by government. You would have to have state-imposed conscription to force them to do such “involuntary servitude.” However, their sacrifice is not needed.

Perhaps what AmeriCorps supporters like Obama and Kennedy are really talking about is not just sacrificing time and effort to serve others, but sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, that comes from the belief that people inherently “owe” something to the society.There seems to be more of an authoritarianism behind those who want the federal government to administer a very large social program of “volunteers” to serve their fellow citizens. It creates more of a “servant to the state” than serving one’s fellow citizens. The real priority of people for these big-government programs seems to be more government, more powerful state, and less freedom. Evidence of this can be seen in the amount of money the pro-higher taxes groups spent on the recent campaign in California, outspending by 10-1 the anti-tax groups. The pro-taxers could’ve spent those millions directly on programs for the elderly and disabled.

There is just something about a population of citizens engaged in labor and trade that effects in serving others, freely and without state mandates or control, that authoritarian control-freaks just don’t like. The randomness of free markets in the human services sector, as well as in business, produces better and more efficient service to others right at the level of those areas because the actual people involved know best what’s needed, certainly better than some centralized bureaucrat does.