AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (18 comments)

  1. morganovich

    i’m curious as to what the criteria were for freedom of the press.

    germany, for example, has many laws that make even bringing up certain viewpoints illegal.

    how is it they score better than the us or australia?

    1. I was in a hurry before, but have now updated the post and added a link to the full report and to the organization’s website.

  2. Freedom of the press in Canada?!?!

    Hmmm, Mark Steyn would take issue with that…

    1. They recently overturned the laws used to get Mark Steyn – at least on his last defamation suit.

  3. More Drug War Causalities“…

    Well damn!

    Well for what its worth…

    Teen pot use could hurt brain and memory, new research suggests

    The present day policy (and since Richard Nixon) of the so called war on drugs is obviously problematic at best and that’s probably a very optimistic over sell of it…

    Still something needs to be done if the contents of the ABC article is at all factual…

  4. Jon Murphy

    I read that Bloomberg piece on Pope Francis Sunday, and I’m not sure I agree.

    The Pope’s Evangelii Gaudium, which is where all this spawn from, to me reads more as a call to the rich to share, rather than governments to take up the sword against the rich. The way I read it, while being poor in economics, is good in theology and ethics: extolling those of us with more to share with those with less.

    I am quite confident some will grossly misinterpret what the Pope is saying to push any political agenda (see the “Marxist” comments and the cries of “more regulations because the Pope said so!”), but what I see here from reading the Pope’s words is a call for individual action, not brute force. Generosity, not envy.

    1. Christians have always believed in helping give the poor a helping hand. In fact it was this belief, and creation of the first soup kitchens in Rome, that stopped the Romans from throwing Christians to the lions – realizing a well fed poor, will lead to less unrest.

      However the Catholic church has gone from this viewpoint to one of having government take over welfare, and encourage Catholics to want government welfare for the poor. I think this is wrong. We went to “Give unto Caesar, that which is Caesars and the Lords.”

      I don’t understand how the church went so left wing.

      1. Jon Murphy

        You may be right, Marque. I don’t have a lot of exposure to the Catholic Church. I do know for a fact that my own church, the United Church of Christ (UCC), certainly does advocate for government programs such as minimum wage and higher taxes.

      2. Actually it has always had this position. If you recall until John 23 the church felt that it should be the state church, and as a result effectively part of the state. Of course this was after the enlightenment when the church got kicked out of government in France. Recall that in germany if you belong to a church you pay the church tax, and it used to be that one could not opt out (today one can).
        As is pointed out in Anglican England for a while you automatically belonged to the local parish and paid its rates. Under the poor law of Elizabeth i it was the parish that was responsible for those needing aid (and the aid was funded by parish taxes). While the poor law was not a lot it did care for the infirm at least, as indeed in the US the old poor house handled largely the elderly infirm until Medicaid.
        So the popes model is to return to where society is responsible for those who need aid thru the instrumentality of the government.

  5. Regarding Milk: A link from my other favorite blog

    http://junkscience.com/2013/12/13/thanks-louie/

    1. morganovich

      raw milk has some risks that pasteurized milk does not.

      personally, i see those risks as minor if purchased from a reputable dairy and would happily incur them to use better tasting milk in my morning latte.

      thus, to my mind, the question is not “is raw milk as safe” it’s “who gets to make the choice about trade offs in safety and taste”.

      i think that someone should be each of us.

      1. Actually in other fields there is a solution here, a strong warning label in large black type on the container, saying warning drinking raw milk could be harmful to your health. And like drugs if you advertise it you must include the warning on the label. This is transparency in action. let folks know the risks and make their decisions. However you must let folks know the risks, just like with the drug adds on tv.

        1. Lyle

          Would you favor a strong warning label in large black letters on packages of leafy vegetables which account for nearly the same number of hospitalizations due to food borne pathogens, or on poultry products which account for twice as many deaths from food borne pathogens as dairy products? Note that that is ALL dairy products, of which raw milk is a very small percentage.

          People aren’t children who need their hands held as they go about making food choices. I doubt that there are many folks who buy raw milk who aren’t aware of the extremely low risk of illness from a product they *chose* to buy with their eyes open.

          The issue isn’t so much food safety as it is consumer choice. What possible right does anyone have to tell another person what they can eat or drink? A person’s choice to buy raw milk is a voluntary exchange between a buyer and a seller. It’s none of yours, or anybody else’s business, so butt out.

          1. Actually the whole recession thing proved that a lot of folks don’t understand a lot of things, i.e. they were taken by fast talking salestypes on mortgages they could not afford.
            Anyway the warning label idea is basically the trend since the 1930s and the SEC i.e. information lets one make an informed decision. The idea is if you are informed of the risks then you made an informed decision, rather than outright banning something.

          2. You didn’t exactly answer my question, Lyle. If you believe strong warning labels are a good idea, should other food products that cause more illness and death than raw milk be labeled also, or is it just something about raw milk you’re uneasy about?

    2. marque2,

      It’s nice to know that there are people out there willing to impute the worst in people who simply have different preferences than they do. After jabber jawing about how stupid raw milk “Luddites” are, he concedes that raw milk tastes different than pasteurized milk.

      Technology is so awesome these days that those who fear monger over raw milk, the way Milloy does, are the actual Luddites, as raw milk properly handled, the way modern dairies who produce it do, is pretty safe. The use of the police state to impose your, and Milloy’s, preference of pasteurized milk over raw milk is really quite detestable.

      Smug assholes who use the state to make the preferences trade-offs, including safety, for everyone else, rather than simply for themselves, are just that: assholes.

      1. Amen.

        I was surprised and dismayed to see this from Malloy, who seems so rational on other subjects. And he never once mentioned the real problem, which isn’t product safety, but limiting individual choices.

  6. Impressive challenges once and for all, you only acquired the company logo completely new audience. What would you advise concerning your publish for you to produced few days in past times? Any kind of a number of?

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content