URLs du Jour


■ "Sluggards" are also a frequent target of Proverbialist taunts (I count 14), and Proverbs 20:4 is another example:

4 Sluggards do not plow in season;
    so at harvest time they look but find nothing.

So, is the problem that sluggards are merely lazy? This suggests an additional feature: they're also stupid.

■ At NRO, Michael Tanner writes on the latest GOP effort to repeal-and-replace: Graham-Cassidy Is a Too-Mild Improvement on Obamacare.

Think about it. In the battle of ideas over health-care reform, Republicans have unilaterally disarmed. When was the last time Republicans explained what a free-market health-care system would look like, how it would work, and why it would be better for health-care consumers? The old adage is true: You can’t beat something with nothing.

That’s why Republicans are once again trying to eke out a narrow win on a bill that slows but doesn’t reverse the ongoing march to socialized medicine.

I am mildly in favor of Graham-Cassidy, but I won't be heartbroken if it loses.

■ An amusing column from David Harsanyi: After Self-Reflection, Journalists Discover They’ve Been Too Critical Of … Democrats.

Journalism is in crisis. After some much-needed self-examination, however, reporters are finally beginning to figure out why many Americans are souring on their industry: They’ve been too critical of the Democratic Party.

As Harsanyi notes, many critics—Hillary Clinton, for one—are maintaining that "the press didn’t do its job — which is to say, help her get elected."

■ Catherine Rampell's reportage in the WaPo has caused a stir: A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech. For example:

A fifth of undergrads now say it’s acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive and hurtful statements.”


  • 44% of polled students believed, falsely, that the First Amendment does not protect "hate speech".
  • 62% of students believed, also falsely, that the First Amendment requires that a university event with "offensive and hurtful" speaker be balanced with a speaker presenting an "opposing view".

As Rodgers and Hammerstein said: "You've got to be carefully taught."

The kids aren't just "hostile" to free speech.

They are, also, not simply "ignorant" about free speech.

They've been miseducated to believe things about free speech that just aren't so.

■ Jacob Sullum's column this week bemoans the recent vote on Rand Paul's amendment repealing the 2001 open-ended authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against 9/11 perpetrators: Congress Does Not Want Its War Power.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) thinks Trump is a "buffoon." Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) says Trump is attacking "basic institutions of government…in unprecedented ways." Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who last year remarked that Trump "doesn't seem to know what's happening outside of Trump Tower," recently worried that he "tries to make national security policy or foreign policy through tweeting." In July a hot mic caught Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) calling Trump "crazy."

These senators view the president as ill-informed and reckless, if not mentally unbalanced. That they are nevertheless OK with granting him a blank check to use the world's most powerful military as he pleases suggests how desperate members of Congress are to dodge their duties.

For New Hampshirites, our state's other senator, Maggie Hassan, also voted to table Paul's amendment.

■ Matt Ridley takes a contrarian position on "climate change", but even if you disagree, you might want to check out how The poor are carrying the cost of today's climate policies.

Here is a simple fact about the world today:

• climate change is doing more good than harm.

Here is another fact:

• climate change policy is doing more harm than good.

Counterintuitive! And probably correct. Check it out.