Carnival of the Vanities CVI

| | Comments (1)

The 106th COTV is at Last One Speaks. My fifth affirmative action post on the reparations argument is part of it.

I don't know a lot about the estate tax (AKA the death tax) issue, but it comes in pints? knows a bit about it, and one argument sticks out to me. The estate tax hurts the middle class because property counts as part of an estate, and smaller estates are mostly illiquid property, such as a family's house. If you don't have the resouces to pay the tax because it's all in the house, that's not good. Those who favor this tax think it's a tax on the rich, and rich people do have to deal with this tax, but those who aren't that rich can really be harmed by it.

RoguePundit discusses a non-addictive painkiller derived from a mutated poppy. In other words, it's non-addictive opium. I guess want to know if it gives a high and muddles thought processes. If not, this is great. People have been working for a while to synthesize some of the chemicals in marijuana that have the medical effect but not the high or the other undesirable effects (well, some people find them desirable, but I don't understand that at all). This may be a natural way around that problem.

I'm not happy with all the harshness of Key Monk's treatment of the voter fraud issue in Florida and Missouri, but I think his points are pretty much right (with a few exaggerations perhaps). I hadn't heard about the fourth-grade class who had no problem with the Florida butterfly ballot. It didn't look that hard to me either. The most interesting stuff, though, was on black disenfranchisement, including the hoax of the black felon purge (which, to whatever extent it occurred, was mostly white) and the backfiring effect these charges have had on convincing black voters to stay home from the polls in 2002. This conspiracy theory has been shown false (thanks to this Watcher of Weasels post, also in this COTV, for that last link), and it's insulting to black voters to keep perpetuating it.

A couple lines at the end of this post on gay marriage at Let's Try Freedom seem to me to be full of real foresight. I would prefer to see the judiciary bow out. Gay marriage is something that should come to pass, if it comes to pass, because a significant and permanent majority of people want it to happen, and go to the trouble of pressuring their legislatures to enact it. Otherwise it will turn out to be abortion all over again - judicial fiat overriding democratic debate, and creating a permanently festering wound in the body politic. Since it is clear that the judiciary will NOT bow out, then I favor tying their hands. The FMA was a bad idea, because it took power away from the states; jurisdiction stripping leaves power in the state legislatures (and the populace, in states with the referendum) while cutting the courts out of the equation. I can see the similarities to abortion, and I think that's exactly where this is going to go.


Hey, thanks for the link!

Leave a comment


    The Parablemen are: , , and .



Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff


    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible

    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)

  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04