Uncle Miltie

 “People have a great misconception in this way, they think the way you solve things is by electing the right people,” Friedman once said. “It’s nice to elect the right people, but that isn’t the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things.”
h/t to W. James Antel III

Michael Crichton on consensus

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/

helping the poor

As James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation reported last year, Census data from 2011 and 2012 show that "two thirds of individuals living below the poverty line did not work, and less than one in 10 worked full-time year-round. Families are poor not because they have low wages but because they do not have full-time jobs."

QOTD - Victor David Hansen

"one of the strangest things about illegal immigration is that a nation that is monitored, taped, videoed, and bugged, that is struggling now with the AP, IRS, and NSA scandals whose common theme is excessive government intrusions in our private lives, knows absolutely nothing about those who arrive illegally into the U.S."

QOTD George Will

Progressives, being situational ethicists regarding the phenomenon of money in politics, are selectively indignant about the rich throwing around the weight of their wallets. 

My jaw dropped when I read the MoDo sentence

Seven years after the feminists tried to bring down a Supreme Court nominee for sexual harassment — but really for his conservative stances — they went into contortions to defend Clinton. 
(my emphasis)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-gospel-according-to-paul.html?ref=opinion