Steve Chapman summarises my position exactly on Spitzer’s Sin: “I understand why Spitzer’s alleged hiring of a call girl was stupid, selfish, reckless, immoral and a betrayal of his family. What I don’t understand is why it was illegal. …. Some brilliant lawyer ought to ask the courts why the state may ban one type of sex between consenting adults but not another. Maybe Eliot Spitzer would like to take it on.” Yes; actually it seems it could be argued that banning prostitution is unconstitutional. I’d like to see that go to the Supreme Court in the way that the 2nd Amendment will be considered there next Tuesday.
An LA Times editorial today takes issue with the California 2nd District Court of Appeals decision which effectively bans the homeschooling of children. It’s an insane judgement that I wish I had more time to write about, the result of which means that the state essentially owns the kids of California parents. A ban on homeschooling (a basic right) amounts to that by default. And allowing parents to homeschool their children isn’t as ‘risky’ as it sounds. As the Times says: “There are rare cases of parents who use home schooling to hide abuse or neglect. Far more common are the stories of responsible parents providing a good education. A home- schooled teenager wrote the bestseller ‘Eragon,’ something a public school homework load alone wouldn’t have allowed.”
Ronald Bailey reports on some analysts predicting a burst of the oil bubble soon, and saying that demand for oil is actually falling in many places around the world, including a drop in demand for petroleum products in the US: “…both Evans and Lynch believe that the price of crude will settle at around $60 to $70 per barrel in the next couple of years.” Now that’s a positive outlook.
And on the other side of the pond, Nathalie Rothschild thinks that, “We must stand up to the prudes and paternalists who would ‘protect’ us from offensive ads.” Couldn’t agree more.
Enjoy the rest of your Thursday!