Category: Commentaries

Instapundit says “Atlas is shrugging.”
Consider the evidence:

Millions of men like Mr. Beggerow — men in the prime of their lives, between 30 and 55 — have dropped out of regular work. They are turning down jobs they think beneath them or are unable to find work for which they are qualified, even as an expanding economy offers opportunities to work.
About 13 percent of American men in this age group are not working, up from 5 percent in the late 1960â??s. The difference represents 4 million men who would be working today if the employment rate had remained where it was in the 1950â??s and 60â??s.

What could be causing all these men to stay home? For the full story, see Dr. Helen Smith’s post on the topic.

From a new op-ed by Ed Hudgins published in the Washington Times:

Critics charge many Starbucks products are high in calories and high in fat, especially those tasty trans-fats that are really bad for us. So what? Starbucks offers everyone a choice. If you don’t like the venti vanilla caramel Macchiato with extra whip, don’t order it. In any case, Starbucks lists on its Web site and brochures in its stores the nutritional information about its products.
But that’s not enough for the self-appointed health police. They’re trying to shame Starbucks into putting all of that information on menu boards in their cafes which, aside from being redundant, would make those menus, crowded with numbers, look to most people as confusing as the big board at the stock exchange. In any case, come on people, we all know whipped cream and cakes are fattening. Starbucks’ upscale clientele is certainly educated enough to figure that out.
Critics also want Starbucks to “voluntarily” cut down on the fat stuff in their fare. Normally, boring biddies can natter at us all they want and we’re free to take their advice or tell them to take a hike. But that’s not what the Center for Science in the Public Interest wants. They and their kind are bent on stopping us from being unhealthy — by their definition — no matter what.

Keep reading…

FrontPage Magazine has just published an interview with Henry Mark Holzer, discussing his new book The Keeper of the Flame: The Supreme Court Jurisprudence of Justice Clarence Thomas.
The Atlasphere published an excerpt from this book in our recent article “Clarence Thomas: The Keeper of the Faith.”

A new article from Ed Hudgins begins:

Governments often get their wealth-destroying, morally depraved ideas from our often misnamed institutes of “higher learning.” The latest that’s popping up in bulletins, newsletters, and probably soon in legislation is from a 2005 study on “The Economics of Workaholism,” co-authored by Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan and Daniel Hammermesh of the University of Texas in Austin.
The study starts by stating that “Economists have recently re-considered whether a range of individual behaviors are self-destructive, and possibly addictive, and have proposed that it may be Pareto-superior to tax them in order to induce people to abandon or cut back on them.”
“Pareto superior” is an economic term that refers to some alternative distribution of wealth or resources that makes some individuals better off and no one else worse off. In this context the term means that would-be philosopher-kings pretend to know what’s good for us and what is not and are probably poised to grab our freedom or our wallets and have their way with us.
Sure enough the authors go on to say, “The focus of this ‘new paternalism,’ associated with the burgeoning field of behavioral economics, has been on a set of activities (smoking, drinking, overeating, and gambling, in particular) â?¦ and on public policy responses in the form of ‘sin taxes’ that are highly regressive.” The authors go on to state, “Here we begin to explore the economic implications of a self-destructive behavior that is likely to be more prevalent among affluent people — workaholism.”

See the full article for more.

A second-year law student at Louisiana State University has published a searing analysis of the way freedom of speech is being handled in modern academia. He begins:

Higher-education institutions are no longer havens for free intellectual discussion and open debate. Since public universities have lost nearly every court battle over clearly identified speech codes, administrators have developed stealthier ways to regulate unwanted speech. These covert speech codes are hidden in university handbooks under seemingly harmless provisions such as e-mail guidelines, diversity statements and harassment policies. Even though these policies arenâ??t identified as â??speech codes,â? university administrators are still able to use them to repress unpopular opinions, censor parodies, hinder political speech and restrict academic freedom.

Included in his analysis is the treatment the NYU Objectivist club received from administrators during their recent attempts to foster discussion of the Mohammad cartoons.
See the full article for more.

Robert Bidinotto has published an article called “High Noon” at Borders which provides an interesting perspective on Borders Bookstores’ recent public relations fiasco.
He is particularly interested in the media’s excuses for not standing up to bullies:

These people proclaim that standing up to Islamists isn’t their responsibility — that it’s the job of the U.S. military or FBI. Yet many of these same media representatives have made careers out of denouncing and opposing the U.S. military and the FBI. They oh-so-bravely expose and denounce military abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo; they very-very-courageously take editorial stands against Bushitler and the CIA, NSA, and Patriot Act, in defense of Our Threatened Civil Liberties; they ever-so-valiantly demand the sacred Constitutional right to publish photos of returning coffins of U.S. troops or degrading images of abused Iraqi prisoners.

And:

Thanks to these traitors to the First Amendment, America is fast becoming Will Kane’s Hadleyville. They more and more resemble the cringing, “civilized” town fathers in that corrupt fictional crossroads: prostrate in spineless supplication before the town bullies, projecting shameful resentment against the Will Kanes whose bravery shows them up for the cowards that they are.

See the full article for more (including an ending that’s fit for Hollywood).

From an open letter to Borders executives:

I have been a loyal Borders customer — now a Borders Rewards customer — for quite a few years. I spend many hundreds of dollars annually in your store.
However, I have just learned that Borders and its affiliated Waldenbooks have banned the next issue of a publication, Free Inquiry, from your magazine shelves, because that publication is reprinting the controversial Danish cartoons of Muhammad on inside pages. The reason given by Borders is alleged fear of violence from radical Muslims, and desire to “protect” customers and employees.

Keep reading…