Betsy McCaughey writes about the views of Ezekiel Emanuel on the value of life. Quite shocking was the following written by Emanuel:

"Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

Even more shocking:

"Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments...As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworking argues, 'It is terrible when and infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys."

The government has no right whatsoever to decide whose lives are most important. It is arbitrarirally discriminatory. It is true that leaving decisions to the market can be harsh and discriminatory as well. But I prefer the discrimination of nature to the arbitrary discrimination of government bureaucracy.

The absuridity of hate crimes

Here is an article by Richard Cohen from the Washington Post. Hate crime legislation is immoral and discriminatory in nature. It legislates against thought and speech which are constitutionally protected. Not to mention it seems to me to be a redundant term. Maybe all crimes are not motivated by hate per se; then again, what exactly is a "love crime?" Should it matter that the person that rapes and kills an innocent woman or child is so desensitized that s/he has no feeling for that person or even claims to "love" the person? Should that person be treated any differently? If so, what does that say about the value of life of the victim relative to victims of a "hate" crime? It suggests that the value of life is not equal. If two people are victims of the same crime are treated differently, it suggests that the value of life of one was greater than the other. This is completely at odds with the concept that "all men are created equal." (HT Don Boudreaux)

Protecting Cheese

A little known tariff on roquefort cheese from France (HT Donald Boudreaux and Caleb Brown)

The Law of Unintended Consequences Revisited Again

This article in the Deseret News points out some issues I hadn't thought about. In addition, to encouraging people to take on more debt to buy a car they otherwise wouldn't have purchased, those of us who choose to live our lives in thrift and only buy used vehicles are going to pay an even greater price. Used cars will inevitably go up in price due to the significant reduction of used cars on the market.

The whole idea of "cash for clunkers" is completely moronic. It doesn't even create the benefits it claims. It certainly does not help the environment. How does filling up our dumps or recycling plants in order to produce new cars that otherwise would not have been produced actually benefit our environment? Sure, there might be a reduction in CO2 emissions due to higher fuel standards. But there is also an increase in C02 emissions in order to produce these new fuel-efficient vehicles. And mind you, recycling is a very costly use of resources as well. It is much more environmentally friendly to re-use what we have as long as the good still functions than waste resources converting these goods into other goods. Nothing is better for the environment than using the goods and services we have for as long as possible regardless of the negative impact that it might have on GDP. Another great example of how good the government is at appearing like it is doing something good.