If you can't run with the big boys, stay on the porch!

Liberals often criticize conservatives for the views they hold, and vice versa.  That is acceptable debate.  What is not acceptable debate is shutting down your opposition by stifling debate.  One way liberals stifle debate is by declaring certain words or phrases off-limits, due to their implied racial undertones or hidden meanings.  There are many examples, but most recently there are these two.

First, Hillary Clinton's campaign released a list of words you may not use to describe Hillary.  Really?  Yes, really.
Here Are The Words Hillary’s Supporters Won’t Let You Say

Second is the use of the word thug to describe people involved in the criminal activity commonly called protesting, but which actually is looting, destroying, stealing, and burning.  These are criminal acts that are not under the banner of protesting.
VIDEO: Fox News Hosts Debate Whether It's OK To Use 'Thug' And The N-Word

So if you oppose Mrs. Clinton's desire to be the next president, you cannot use the list of words to describer her or her positions on various topics.  Stifling debate is what that amounts to.

And if you use the word thug to describe criminals taking advantage of  circumstances to commit crimes when they are least likely to be caught, you are using a racially insensitive word, much like the N-word.

If you cannot argue your point of view without stifling those who have opposing points of view, then you lose your argument.  Valid debate includes the use of arguments, facts, and expert opinions, statistics, to convince others your opinion is correct.  It does not include shutting your opponent up.

Job Creation

Jobs: How to Create Them

John Stossel wrote this article to detail how the government does not really create jobs regardless of what politicians say about that.  Business owners create jobs when they invest in a product or service that people are willing to pay for.  If profit can be made form the enterprise, then wealth is created and job numbers can grow.

Capitalism is an economic system that allows for free enterprise, private property, and wealth creation.  No other system has done so much to grow wealth, create jobs, and raise billions of people out of poverty.

Deal With It People

In recent months there have been a number of stories about college students that leads me to believe today's students need to grow up and toughen up.  Students are demanding so many protections against speech and activities of others that they should not need.  In fact, being exposed to such speech and activity will better prepare students for life, during and after college.

Examples include:
Being offended by a movie at Michigan
Needing to cope with tough times at Columbia
Safe zones at schools to protect feelings
Fraternity hazing which can hardly be called hazing

I really think our students today are being overly protected, and demanding of more protection.  When law students need to be excused from exams to deal with emotional distress over a legal matter involving crime, what does that say about their future prospects as lawyers?

If students in their late teens and early twenties cannot deal with hearing or seeing possibly offensive subjects, then how will they ever deal with jobs, families and society after college?

Isn't college intended to be a place where a variety of viewpoints, subjects and activities are to be learning exercises that will prepare you for life? 

Our nation, our world, will be in deep trouble if people are taught and trained to avoid unpleasantness by retreating into a cocoon or burying their heads in the sand.  People truly to embrace the reality that no one has a right to never be offended or troubled.  Deal with it people.

Want to Stop Poverty, Create Wealth?

Then read this column by Walter Williams, Ph.D.

When will we begin to realize that intentions mean nothing without results?  This builds on my eralir post:  Social Science and Social Policy

Clintons Don't Deserve the Respect They Get

Clinton Memory Lane: George Will

If you read this column by George Will, you should recall all of the scandals involving President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.  The latter being a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State, and now the eventual Democrat nominee for President.

If the Clintons were Republican, this would never be allowed to stand.  The media would be playing hardball with them in that case.  Even today liberal minded journalists predict great things for Hillary and say those things will happen because these scandals are just more among many that won't stick.

Voters need to ask themselves if voting for the first woman President is really more important than voting for the best candidate for the job.

Prisoner Gender Swap

Convicted Murderer to Get State Funded Surgery

Question #1:  If this person was not a convicted murderer serving 17 to life in prison, who would be paying for this surgery?

Question #2:  Did this judge consider the feelings of the murder victim's family before deciding they should help pay for this surgery?

Tax Incentives Work, So Why Not More of Them?

The Cincinnati Enquirer reported on the lack of tracking by the city of Cincinnati for return on the investment of tax incentives designed to attract businesses to the area.  They found there is no such tracking of ROI.  City doesn't track return on incentives

The state of New York has been advertising their program of reduced taxes, abatement and other incentives to attract businesses and expansions in their state. The federal government has been giving grants, low interest loans, and tax incentives to many businesses to expand and build, especially in the area of green energy technology.

Does this work to attract new and expanding businesses?  It does, but how much so is the question.  Cincinnati cannot tell you that answer.  Maybe others can. My point here is that if tax incentives work, even in mostly liberal New York, why are liberals opposed to reducing taxes for all business, and even for all people?

The tax incentive business is a negotiating ploy to get business owners to choose one city or state over another for the location of new business or expansions.  If I was the governor of any state, or mayor of any city, I would fight to lower all taxes, then tell all business owners to move here.  In fact I would tell all citizens that our doors are open for business and all taxes are lower than you'll find in the next state over.

We know there is an optimal tax rate where tax receipts are the highest possible and the rate is the lowest possible.  Lowering tax rates has lead to higher tax receipts under Kennedy, Reagan and G.W. Bush.

Liberals typically claim corporations are not paying their fair share.  The 1% are not paying their fair share.  But then they create these tax incentive zones to attract business.  Well, which is it?  If it works in some places, why not all places?

If we really want the economy to take off and wealth to be created, then why don't we actually practice what we know to be true?