Some Fun Links for Your Lazy Saturday
I will finally get around to posting this article (it’s somewhat late, so I apologize) about their British counterparts. You see, it seems that when Britain’s Border Agency went on strike, the expected hellish lines and hours-long delays at Heathrow not only did not materialize, but conditions actually improved.
Perhaps we only think we need these people. Perhaps the private sector would be doing it anyway – and better. Read all about it at the Daily Mail.
More on China:
A few days back, China cut its reserve requirements for its banks by 50 basis points, injecting extra cash and liquidity into a market already swimming in paper debt. Bloomberg charitably reports that this “might signal a slowdown.”
Socrates reports that this is yet another step towards the inevitable Chinese conflagration. Will it be today? Tomorrow? Five years from now? Whatever the case, a fool for China and his money will soon be parted.
Intellectual Property and the Urge to Regulate the Internet:
Quick, what is the most creative, fastest growing sector of the economy? No, it’s not General Motors. It is, of course, the “internet economy,” or broadly the information technology that has connected the entire world over the past couple of decades.
And get this, the internet revolutionized our entire lives in spite of being completely devoid of regulation! Wait, scratch that, it revolutionized our entire lives because it was completely devoid of regulation.
That is why Google happens to be correct in its excoriation of the new “online piracy” bill, which in reality is just intellectual property on steroids:
Google is exhorting senators to oppose an online piracy bill, arguing it would threaten national security, shackle the Internet with regulations and imperil free speech, according to a document obtained by The Hill.
The memo that is being circulated on Capitol Hill lists five reasons not to co-sponsor the legislation. It argues the bill puts at risk “the ability for free speech and the ability of political parties to spread their message” while creating a “thicket of new Internet regulations similar to the administration’s net-neutrality rules.”
It also calls the legislation “a trial lawyer’s dream” and claims it seeks to “regulate the Internet.”
This thing passes, and the internet as we know it dies.
An Update on the Whereabouts of the Anti-War Left:
A while back, I put out an APB on the anti-war left, which disappeared completely once their pro-war president was elected. Turns out, it is still missing.
Reason has been patrolling the same beat, and Sheldon Richman argues persuasively that “Obama’s War Record Should Appall Progressives.”
Watch as Richman batters the tired arguments of formerly anti-war left, who are now left to rationalize the actions of “their” president, who happens to be ratcheting up all of the failed policies of the former president.
Oh, and if anyone can find where the real anti-war left went, please let me know. Thanks.
The Unintended Consequences of Race-Based Preferences:
The Supreme Court is choosing whether to hear a case on the racial preference system of the University of Texas. George Will, who in the last few years has been razor sharp, argues that the court should hear the case and be confronted with the failed legacy of affirmative action:
The Supreme Court faces a discomfiting decision. If it chooses, as it should, to hear a case concerning racial preferences in admissions at the University of Texas, the court will confront evidence of its complicity in harming the supposed beneficiaries of preferences the court has enabled and encouraged…
For 33 years, the court has been entangled in a thicket of preferences that are not remedial and hence not temporary. Preferences as recompense for past discrimination must eventually become implausible, but the diversity rationale for preferences never expires…
But what if many of the minorities used in this process are injured by it? Abundant research says they are, as two amicus curiae briefs demonstrate in urging the court to take the Texas case…
“Academic mismatch” causes many students who are admitted under a substantial preference based on race, but who possess weaker academic skills, to fall behind. The consequences include especially high attrition rates from the sciences, and self-segregation in less-demanding classes, thereby reducing classroom diversity.
The entire article is well worth a read.
And hey, it’s Saturday. What else are you doing?