[Robert Rector and Vijay Menon, "Understanding the Hidden $1.1 Trillion Welfare System and How to Reform It," The Heritage Foundation, April 5]
What Martin Luther King, Jr., did for America. Jonah Goldberg on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.:
It's popular today, particularly in certain corners of the Left, to deride the hypocrisy of the Founding Fathers by pointing to the disconnect between the rhetoric of the founding and the reality on the ground. The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." And yet America countenanced slavery, among other lesser but still abhorrent assaults on the ideal of equality.
But hypocrisy is possible only when it illuminates a violated ideal.
It was not until Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address that the ideal embedded in the Declaration fully became both the plot and theme of the American story. "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
That idea, always present in America's self-conception, became the heart of the American creed. But it was not truly so until 100 years later, when King called upon Americans to live up to the best versions of themselves.
"When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir," King proclaimed in the figurative shadow of the Great Emancipator at the Lincoln Memorial. "This note was the promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
King was not demonizing "white America," he was appealing to its conscience, asking his fellow Americans to live up to the ideals that they claimed defined our best selves. Rhetoric, literary critic Wayne Booth said, is "the art of probing what men believe they ought to believe."
King's rhetoric did exactly that, which is why he, like Lincoln, not only belongs to the ages now; he belongs to every American.
[Jonah Goldberg, "Like Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr. Belongs to the Ages," National Review, April 6]
Drug prices are the solution, not the problem. Scott Atlas:
American patients in particular have benefitted more than others from drugs. For decades, the United States has been the country where new drugs have been made first available. Four times as many life-saving cancer drugs were first made available in the United States compared to countries like Germany, Japan, Switzerland, France, Canada, Italy, and the UK, as reported in the Annals of Oncology in 2007. Similarly, 29 of the 45 novel drugs approved by the FDA in 2015 were approved in the United States first. Most recently, a 2017 study of 45 FDA-approved new cancer drugs found that all of them were covered by Medicare in the United States, while only 26 were approved and covered in the UK, 19 in France, 13 in Canada, and only 11 in Australia.
This early and broad drug access is a key reason why America has better treatment results compared to nationalized systems elsewhere, where drug prices are strictly regulated by government, for virtually all serious diseases reliant on drugs, including cancer, heart disease, stroke, and the most important chronic disorders, including high blood pressure and diabetes.
Not surprisingly, prices and profit margins for prescription drugs in the United States dwarf those in foreign markets. This discrepancy may seem unfair, yet it is undoubtedly a key incentive for the constant innovation and first access to life-saving drugs that Americans enjoy.
[Scott Atlas, "An Overlooked Key to Lower Drug Prices," Hoover Institution, April 4]
How dare a conservative outlet express a point of view! David Harsanyi on the furor over Sinclair broadcasting instructing all its stations to read a prepared script on air:
[H]aving read the panicky coverage before watching the Sinclair videos, I was surprised by the innocuousness of the spots. The anchors were plainly reading a scripted public service announcement that claimed there is a "troubling trend of irresponsible, one-sided news stories" at major news outlets and then offering themselves as an alternative. They then cautioned viewers to avoid the "sharing of biased and false news" on social media, which is, I am often told, a plague on democracy. "But we are human and sometimes our reporting might fall short," the script goes on to say. "If you believe our coverage is unfair please reach out to us."
The rhetoric was a less sanctimonious version of CNN's apples and bananas commercial from a few months ago—another finger wagging aimed at political foes and competitors. One peculiar complaint about the Sinclair spots is that local anchors were being "forced"—a word widely used by those reporting on the incident—to read opinions they do not share. "I felt like a POW recording a message," one aggrieved newsreader told CNN. As a writer, I can sympathize with people being asked to say things that undermine their beliefs. In truth, though, no one can force you to say or write anything. If you find the words "fake" and "news" morally and professionally objectionable, quit.
The concept of free will has little part in any of our national conversations these days. You'd think that Russian bots, Facebook posts, and local news anchors all have the preternatural ability to burrow into your brain and make your choices for you.
CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter went as far as to claim that viewers were being "force-fed" the Sinclair viewpoint, which would mean that every time an outlet is "leaning forward" or telling us that "Democracy Dies in Darkness" or lecturing us about "fake news," it, too, is force-feeding consumers their partisan talking points.
[David Harsanyi, "Liberals Finally Find Some Media Bias They Dislike," Reason, April 6]
Can the playing field ever be tilted enough for the unions? From Vincent Vernuccio and Chantal Lovell, a sample of what some pro-union legislators are up to while awaiting the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. AFSCME—the case that could give public employees the right to opt out of paying unions entirely:
Washington state is the breeding ground for most legislation attempting to undermine the court. HB2751 passed the state's legislature in February and would mandate that the state collect dues for government unions, something a majority of Americans think is inappropriate according to recent polling.
If you think dropping your cable or internet service is difficult, try disassociating from a union in New York. There, legislators are considering making it so hard to stop paying a union that public employees are effectively trapped. Like New Jersey's S2137, New York S5778A would limit the period its members have to opt-out to a short "window" of time that are different for each employee.
Politicians are so worried workers might have a choice in paying unions that they're scrambling to find ways to keep public employees in the dark about their rights. As in New Jersey, Washington's SB6082, would prohibit public employers from notifying employees of their right to not pay a union in the event the court rules in workers' favor. They're also discussing SB6079, which would make it harder for nonprofits inform employees of their rights. Connecticut is considering a similar bill.
Meanwhile, Washington, New Jersey and Maryland legislators want to ensure their employees do hear from government unions and are pursuing legislation forcing new hires to sit through union sales pitches. Think timeshare presentations, without the beach and all-inclusive bar.
Vermont legislation seeks to keep workers tied to unions, even if they've checked all the boxes and opted out. S.238 would give non-union members no choice but to hire (and pay) a union to represent them if they have a grievance.
[F. Vincent Vernuccio and Chantal Lovell, "Unions Circumventing the Supreme Court, Before It's Even Ruled," Madison.com, March 29]
-
Comments
Post a Comment