Demonstrated by some ultra liberals. Over the last thirty years liberals have become quite adept at using coercion.

Here is some video on the 15′ beagles that competed in the Westminster. Its nine minutes of pure heavenly bliss.

Here is the link to the 13′ beagles. Its also nine minutes of bliss.

That eighteen minutes of pure heavenly beagle bliss. Don’t ever say enableate doesn’t take care of its readers.

UPDATE: Holy Bejebsus those 13 inchers are cute!

Its taken a while to for people to believe beagles are the cutest dogs in the world.

However, in a major coup, a recent consensus was reached amongst dog experts regarding the beagles status.

What are you going to do? Not only does science say it’s true but there now is a consensus. When there is a consensus amongst experts it’s Extra Super Duper Immutable True. Non-nonnegotiable true. Absolutely, Categorically true. Damage the global economy and hurt poor people True.

Beagles are the cutest dogs in the universe. Follow the link for incontrovertible proof.

Several years ago me and a fellow coworker got into an argument about the implications homosexuality being determined biologically. Eventually a fellow coworker asked us to stop discussing because the content was making her uncomfortable. We complied immediately and went back to work.

A recent ruling at the federal level has decided that this woman could sue not just Duke but also me for creating a hostile work environment. The Volokh Conspiracy has the details:

Last week, the federal district judge in this case (Doe v. City of New York & Bruce Tefft) held that plaintiff’s case may go forward — that, if the facts are as the plaintiff alleges them to be, Tefft can be financially liable based on the anti-Islam/anti-Muslim/anti-Arab speech. Such speech could be, under the relevant legal standard, be “severe or pervasive” enough to create a “hostile, abusive, or offensive work environment” based on religion and ethnicity for the plaintiff and for a reasonable person. And the damages in such cases could easily go into the hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.

This, I think, well illustrates what I’ve been arguing for 15 years: In many (though certainly not all) contexts, hostile environment harassment law violates the First Amendment. Here a court is saying that speech can lead to massive liability because of the viewpoint that it expresses, and the offensive environment that the viewpoint causes. The speech doesn’t fit within any exception to First Amendment protection — for instance, it’s not “fighting words” (a narrow exception that’s limited to one-to-one speech likely to cause a fight, and that generally excludes political advocacy conveyed to a broad group of listeners), nor is it incitement to lawless action. The government isn’t just acting as employer to restrict speech by its employees (an area in which it has a freer hand); the court is enforcing a law created by the government acting as sovereign, a law that equally applies to private employers.

One of the reasons why I point this out is because me and Darwin have had countless arguments in this room and I’m sure some of the people were offended by the things we said. According to this new ruling, those people now have a legal avenue in which they could sue us for expressing our opinion to each other in a work place environment.

This is particularly ironic because many of me and Darwin’s discussion focused on whether the state should give additional rights to minorities because of their ‘status’. Obviously Darwin argued that minorities should be granted extra-constitutional rights. Well it seems in part the federal judge’s rationale for allowing people to sue those that create a hostile work environment was to protect minorities from being harassed by fellow coworkers. So in a roundabout way Darwin can now be sued for arguing in favor of granting extra-constitutional rights to minorities provide those minorities find that kind argumentation a harmful work environment.

Good work Darwin. Dismantling the first amendment one extra-constitutional minority right at a time.

Over at Buckhorn Road, Chanman writes about how the local JC Penney’s store is only accepting bilingual applicants. Indignant, he avers he will never shop at Penney’s in protest of this policy. He then writes:

I realize that JC Penney is a private company, and if they want Spanish-speaking employees, then as a private company, I believe they have the right to follow this wrong-headed employment requirement if they wish. However, as a consumer who is free to shop anywhere I please, I am under no compulsion to do business with JC Penney, and I am likewise perfectly free to criticize JC Penney for a company requirement that is fundamentally wrong. From now on, I’ll buy my t-shirts and dress shoes elsewhere.

Well lookie here. Chanman understands that companies can’t force him to do their bidding. He also prefers that the state not be used to force companies to do his bidding. Notice that he is free to take his business elsewhere when a company does something he is dissatisfied with. I wonder if he has ever been dissatisfied with state decision and was able to take his business to another state in protest. I just forgot, he can’t do that cause unlike JC Penney’s, the state has a monopoly on coercion.

I wonder if JC Penney’s stands to make more by being more amenable to Spanish speaking immigrants even though they will shell a small segment of their current shoppers. What better way to find out then to leave it up to the free markets to decide. Capitalism is there anything it can’t do?

Over at Argghhh! a poster makes some astute observations about public education.

1. Teaching Math In 1950s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

2. Teaching Math In 1960s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

3. Teaching Math In 1970s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

4. Teaching Math In 1980s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Math In 1990s

A logger cuts down a beautiful old-growth hardwood forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes?
Remember, there are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it’s okay.

6. Teaching Math In 2007

Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

Yes sir microwaves are much more important than our children’s education.

Over at his blog he writes about Darwinism.

Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts. I wonder how long Darwinism’s life span will be. Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything, is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators. Maybe Darwinism will be different. Maybe it will last. But it’s difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do. Theories that outlive their era of conception and cannot be verified rarely last unless they are faith based. And Darwinism has been such a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies, maybe we would be better off without it as a dominant force.

I have my Iron Umbrella open. Bring the hellstorm.

We have fine officers like the one featured below to protect us from the bad guys.

From the Wikipedia entry on Commanding Heights, the authoritative source documenting the thrashing capitalism has given any alternative system attempting to help the poor, states:

The market also requires something else: legitimacy. But here it faces an ethical conundrum. It is based upon contracts, rules, and choice — in short, on self-restraint — which contrasts mightily with other ways of organizing economic activity. Yet a system that takes the pursuit of self-interest and profit as its guiding light does not necessarily satisfy the yearning in the human soul for belief and some higher meaning beyond materialism. In the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930s, Republican soldiers are said to have died with the word “Stalin” on their lips. Their idealized vision of Soviet communism, however misguided, provided justification for their ultimate sacrifice. Few people would die with the words “free markets” on their lips.

Like Braveheart I would die for FREEDOM………OF MARKETS.

I have for years been saying that the state has a monopoly on coercion. Imagine my happiness when I read this today:

The monopoly on the legitimate use of violence (Gewaltmonopol des Staates, also known as monopoly on legitimate violence and monopoly on violence) is the definition of the state expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation, and has been predominant in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century. It defined a single entity, the state, exercising legitimate authority or violence over a given territory as territory was also deemed by Weber a characteristic of state.

Woo hoo. Turns out there are many people that agree with me that the state has a monopoly on coercion. Depending on their politics they would be more or less inclined to agree with using the term ‘coercion’. Looks like that Max Weber, the guys who first used this definition, is almost as smart as me.