This is great. The NYT editorial department is trying to have it both ways. They are all for "States Rights" when it is for freedom to take drugs, but they don't want the court to let the states stop congress from passing all the laws to restrict people that THEY are in favor of.
I thought they were pretty clear about how they were splitting this baby. They aren't for states rights. But, if states rights is the way decisions are going at this time, then the Court, to be consistent, should make the same finding in this case. They made it pretty clear that they'd prefer on principle that the Court uphold the broader view of the commerce clause. They were warning the Court against the hypocrisy of siding with the feds on this one. You're just being a sourpuss. <g>
This is the same pots-and-kettles issue that Tim Fowler and I were discussing the other day based on
<<The “creative destruction” which Joseph Schumpeter celebrated sweeps away the old and inefficient through the engine of competitive markets. This is genuine progress, as judged by the people making their buying decisions. But this sort of progress is unpredictable and uncontrollable, since it is at the mercy of countless independently-acting producers and consumers.
The left has no use for this sort of progress.>>
Message 20797216
I'm getting so tired of the two sides alternately advocating principle-based decision-making and situational decision-making depending on whose ox is being gored. Both sides do it. Either type of decision making is supportable. Both sides have agendas that are supportable. What is not supportable is the hypocrisy of railing at the other side for doing something that you do, too, sometimes in the same breath.
I was particularly excercised over the assertion that only the right favors the creative destruction of the marketplace as I watch the right cheer the creative destruction of the media, the environment, the protestant establishment, etc. while decrying the creative destruction of marriage, gender roles, religion, nationalism, military service, etc.
Institutions evolve. This is a Good Thing. Some people don't want to accept that it's a Good Thing. And others consider it a Good Thing only when they approve of the evolution. How institutions evolve is either via the marketplace or directional control or a mix. Personally, I prefer to let the marketplace do its thing even as I recognize that the marketplace sometimes gets it "wrong." I respect the POV of those who want centralized control although I disagree heartily.
The pots and the kettles, OTOH, favor the marketplace when the marketplace chooses their preferred direction and directional control when they disapprove of the marketplace's choice. And somehow they don't find anything illogical or dishonest about that. That hypocrisy has become one of my favorite hobby horses. Choose to operate off principle. Or choose to operate situationally. But don't complain about the other side doing both while you're doing both. That's double hypocrisy.
PS, since that piece worked its way up to rant mode, I will add another bit on evolution, specifically Evolution. I am still amazed at the latest Gallup showing 45% agreement with "God created man in present form." And we wonder why the Europeans think we're a nation of retards! I wonder how those 45% explain their appendixes. |
