Lord help me, I think I agree with a Vox article.
The wonky, smug liberal rag birthed by dweeb Ezra Klein is well-known for its clickbaity style that masquerades as journalism. From arguing that the American Revolution was a mistake to claiming that Hong Kong protesters used the “hands up, don’t shoot” gesture without evidence, Vox publishes Salon-style retardation without the depravity.
But by golly, they might be onto something with one of their recent shock pieces.
I’m talking about executive editor and sartorial ignoramus Matt Yglesias’ case for “letting children vote.” There is no good reason for disallowing children to vote for public officials, Yglesias argues. “It’s time to do away with another taboo,” he declares, “and start letting people vote regardless of age.”
I know the proposition sounds insane. Voting should be a privilege conferred on responsible, property tax-paying adults. It’s not a right. And it’s not a ticket to the welfare trough, as many leftists seem to think.
ObamaCare is the law of the land, now and forever. Well, at least until the country goes broke and the entitlement state falters.
The Supreme Court’s second upholding of President Obama’s health care law was as comical as it was predictable. Conservatives fumed over Chief Justice John Roberts’ dereliction of duty. Liberals basked in the victory, with the president proclaiming, “The Affordable Care Act still stands, it is working, and it is here to stay.”
And stay it will. The left already knows it. King vs. Burwell marks a huge victory in the march for progress. Many on the right are still unwilling to accept the loss, and can’t wrap their heads around the fact that the highest court in the land just effectively changed a law’s wording, thus legislating from the bench, instead of judging the law as it was. Such a maneuver represents a complete abandonment of the American conception of rule of law. For those who believe law should be strict and straight-forward, this was a devastating blow.
Reprinted from the Press and Journal
Mark my words: Come January 20th, 2017, Hillary Clinton will be sworn in as the first female president of the United States of America. The media will swoon, the nation will rejoice (at least the half that voted for her), and Chris Matthews will get that old thrill of up leg.
Hillary is, of course, the wife of former President Bill Clinton. She was Secretary of State under President Obama. And she served as a senator during the Bush administration, supporting most of his key initiatives, including the ill-fated Iraq War. With that kind of experience, Hillary will continue many of the same policies, domestic and foreign, that have defined Washington for the past 20 years.
There is something new, however. During her recent campaign kickoff on Roosevelt Island in New York City, Hillary announced that if America sends her back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, she will implement “universal, automatic” voter registration for any citizen who turns 18-years-old. The crowd went wild over the idea.
At first blush, automatic voter registration doesn’t sound sexy. We live in a democratic republic, so it makes sense that citizens should be able to vote. But why the push for registering all 18-year-old citizens automatically?
There is a reason why many notable conservative thinkers hold the concept of ideology in low regard. Often times, ideologues, so married to their ideas of right and wrong, make grand propositions to showcase their intellectual superiority and flair for dramatics. The ideologue’s job is rarely the search for truth but instead to turn philosophy into a dazzling light show.
At least that’s my take on a recent screed in the Jacobin titled simply “Abolish the Senate.” Given that the piece appears in one of the most radical leftist periodicals in America, I expected hyperbole. But the article, written by journalist Daniel Lazare, surprises in its lack of thoughtfulness and overuse of dog whistles meant to inspire base anger in progressive readers.
So what exactly is wrong with abolishing the Senate, an institution 225 years of age? As a Nockian, I’m inclined to endorse the sentiment. Representative democracy on a large scale is hogwash and deserves a good axing. Unfortunately, history warns against such radicalism, and shows us that revolutionary calls to action are often sown with the seeds of complete societal upheaval. That’s not exactly my cup of tea. Hence I’m not so keen on pushing the proverbial button and abolishing the much-maligned state in one fell swoop, including the Senate. Perhaps one day we’ll get there, though it’s doubtful.
Back to the piece, Lazare is adamant about tossing out what Washington called the saucer that cools the populist longings of the House of Representatives. His reasoning is simple: the current United States Senate is “one of the world’s most undemocratic legislatures.” How so? The men and women who make up the legislative body are disproportionately representative of the country. The millions who live in New York City essentially have the same amount of votes as the half-million hicks that reside in Wyoming. And that just ain’t fair.