The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board ponders “the madness of Luigi Mangioni.” A slice:
It’s a dreadful sign of the times that Mr. Mangione is being celebrated in too many places as a worthy avenger instead of an (allegedly) deranged killer. But that is how our culture has degraded—egged on for political purposes or audience ratings by many who know better.
Brian Thompson’s sons will never see him again. Mr. Mangione faces a murder charge in New York that could send him to prison for the rest of his life. Anyone who sees that as anything other than a tragedy deserves the scorn that we hope they receive.
National Review‘s Charles Cooke gets, in short order, to the heart of the sickness of Mangione:
I won’t dwell on the pathetic “manifesto” that the murderer of Brian Thompson had in his possession when he was arrested yesterday, except to note that one of its lines serves to underscore how abject and how disgraceful his actions truly were. Having tossed off a few ignorant lines about the American healthcare system, he then says:
Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument.
Ah, okay. So the problem is “complex,” and he wasn’t the most “qualified person” to make the “argument,” but, despite this, he considered himself justified in committing a murder to advance it? That’s entitlement on an unimaginable scale.
Tad DeHaven asks a sensible question: “Will DOGE hear crickets on Capitol Hill?”
Timothy Taylor writes with his usual, welcome wisdom about Argentina and Javier Milei.
Also writing about Javier Milei on the first anniversary his taking office is Ian Vásquez.
Like many supporters of the Dreamers, Mr. Trump believes that it would be unjust to make children pay for the illegal acts of their parents. He has a point, yet it’s curious that such reasoning doesn’t extend to some other aspects of his immigration agenda. In the same NBC News interview, Mr. Trump vowed to ban birthright citizenship by executive order on his first day back in office. Birthright citizenship is a principle enshrined in the 14th Amendment that grants American citizenship to almost anyone born on U.S. soil. “We’re the only country that has it, you know,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous.”
Mr. Trump’s insistence to the contrary notwithstanding, more than 30 other countries, including Canada and Mexico, also honor birthright citizenship. More important, it’s doubtful that the policy can be altered by executive order rather than through a constitutional amendment or act of Congress. Critics of birthright citizenship say it doesn’t apply to the children of illegal-alien parents, but that’s not explicit in the text of the amendment, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the state wherein they reside.”
She was without a doubt a founding mother of modern libertarian theory, a fierce proponent of individualism, an uncompromising critic of racism and other collectivist perspectives, and a proud defender of laissez-faire economics. All of that comes through loud and clear in Rose Lane Says: Thoughts on Race, Liberty, and Equality, 1942-45— in a fine biographical introduction by the editors, followed by eighty-four essays by Lane herself, all of which appeared in the largest black-owned newspaper of its day, the Pittsburgh Courier.
…..
When I finished the Introduction, I was salivating to read the 84 Courier columns that Beito and Witcher present. I was not disappointed. Lane’s writing is mesmerizing. She’s direct, concise, and clear as a bell. No column — no paragraph, in fact — leaves the reader wondering what she was trying to say. How refreshing it is to read the work of a writer who says what she means and means what she says, with no ifs, ands, or buts to muddy the message!
Robby Soave makes clear that “Biden’s covid-19 response eroded civil liberties.”
Roger Pielke, Jr., describes “how universities went off track.” A slice:
Such policing has become institutionalized in the creation of a new field of study, called misinformation research, in which certain professors appoint themselves as arbiters of truth in scientific and public debates. Like most academics, the self-described political views of misinformation researchers are skewed far to the political left.
Together, large parts of science communication and misinformation research comprise the yin and yang of today’s pathologically politicized academic enterprise. The former is about promoting the right messages, and the latter is about preventing others from promoting the wrong messages.
This letter by Scott Kaufmann in today’s Wall Street Journal is worth a read:
Bob Stein, in his Dec. 6 letter responding to your editorial “What the Top 1% Really Pays the IRS” (Nov. 30), is concerned about the increasing concentration of income in the top 1%, because “their share of income since 1980 has more than tripled while their share of taxes has more than doubled.” But these aren’t the same people.
The evidence shows great change in individuals’ incomes throughout their lifespans. Some of them might hit the top tier through a onetime sale of a business, for example. One in eight individuals will end up in the top 1% at least once in their lifetimes; only 1 in 166 will remain there for a decade.
In 1980 the top marginal tax rate was 70%, which discouraged entrepreneurial activity and encouraged tax avoidance. Today the top income bracket is 37%, so more people are becoming successful, making more money, creating more jobs and paying more taxes.
Sounds like a win-win to me, as it did to Ronald Reagan.
