Even if it seems right on the money. (more…)
In Triskelionese. (more…)
From James Q. Wilson’s Bureaucracy: (more…)
“A clause in the bill likely would allow most Amish families an exemption from the insurance requirement, but the bill could still create sticky issues for the young people who have not formally joined the church.” (link)
A disturbing aspect of laws with religious exemptions is the notion that religious beliefs are the only legitimate kinds of personal preference. Something matters so much that we pass a law or ruling to make that the way things are, yet there are exemptions for members of religious bodies that don’t think that’s the way things ought to be? Kind of lousy for the person who also disagrees with the law, but for non-religious reasons.
Liberty has to be upheld for everyone. Any law that can justifiably have a religious exemption is a law that shouldn’t exist at all. A person shouldn’t have to belong to a church to get relief from laws running his life. If religious people are only defending religious liberty, and that becomes the only liberty left, then soon enough it will be curtailed as well.
This report seems to support the idea that red flags were ignored.
The obvious hypothesis is that Hasan’s superiors didn’t dare fire him for reasons of political correctness. If there is a plausible alternate hypothesis, I’d like to hear it.
This genuinely puzzles me.
“Canadian MPs will be served seal meat this week in support of hunters fighting an EU ban on products from the animals.”
. . .
“Last month, an offer of seal meat caught by indigenous hunters to the world’s leading economic ministers at a G7 meeting in Iqaluit, 200 miles south of the Arctic circle, sparked outrage.” (link)