Uncle Sol Starting a thought farm

Perez calls his plan "unique and creative approach." Governor Schwarzenegger called it "legal gymnastics." I call it "fiscal insanity".

I wonder if the mainstream media feels like it found a magic bullet to shoot down libertarian-type candidates by raising questions about their beliefs regarding legislation designed to control how citizens behave, when their behavior might not be politically correct. They're smart enough to know that 99% of the public has no idea what the specifics of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stated, but that most listeners will equate such a statement with thinking that the politician is opposed to civil rights in general. The laughable part of this is that this demagoguery obscures the point that most mainstream politicians couldn't give a rat's rear end about civil rights and the politicians these questions are targeted to discredit would do far more to restore civil rights to this country than any of those crooked hacks currently in office ever would.

Agree or not, shouldn't Americans armed with historical perspective be able to engage in constructive dialogue about the positive consequences—and some of the negative complexities—of legislation from 1964? (I know. Just kidding.)

Some critics eagerly blasted "naive" libertarians, and others, like Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, used Paul's "extremist position" to wring their hands over the coming Republican crusade to overturn the Civil Rights Act—which fits neatly into an arching (and largely imagined) narrative that puts America squarely in the mid-1960s.

This goes well beyond ideology. Even the liberal media's standard bearer, the New York Times, was appalled to discover that New York is home to several ex-government employees who retired in their 30s whose pensions now pay them more than $100,000 a year. This is legal, contractual and totally unconscionable. No retired policeman can reasonably claim to have ever put his life on the line to the extent that a Marine Corps private making one-quarter as much while stationed in Afghanistan or Iraq does.

I know it sounds wonderfully fair. But the reality of net neutrality makes as much sense as mandating that tricycle riders have the same rights and privileges as cars and trucks on our roads—highway neutrality.

The FCC promises it doesn't have any intention of controlling Internet content, only of making access fair. But empowered with the ability to regulate the flow of online traffic, it offers a semantic, not substantive, excuse for a power grab.

We had the inflation. Punishing, cruel, ridiculous inflation. Yeah, I know, you don't think it happened because it was "only" a doubling of gasoline and diesel prices in a five year span (well, actually, it was closer to a tripling, but who's counting, right?)

Of course this very same inflation showed up in other things, like houses and stock prices. This made people "feel rich", but in fact they were not, because their wages did not accelerate at anywhere close to the same rate, nor could they.

Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alarcon is a complete fool, unless of course he is pandering to voters, perpetually buying votes to get re-elected.

With many of these shows, the police department gets veto power over what footage makes it on the air. So you won't be seeing footage of many mistaken raids. That said, A&E should air the footage of this raid to show that the violent tactics these shows repeatedly glamorize can and do have tragic consequences. If the network has any guts at all, it will make sure the same episode looks at the possibility that the presence of its own cameras contributed to the death of a little girl.