There's a big difference between slaughtering livestock, and slaughtering dogs. The latter have been domesticated and brought into intimate personal relationships with human beings. It's like slaughtering a family member in my opinion.

Furthermore, it's disloyal. Domesticated dogs are so dedicated to their owners, they'll take a bullet for you, they'll stay up waiting for you... they'll sit by the front door to guard the home like it's their job. No other species has shown the same dedication to their human masters. I think they deserve a little more loyalty from humans than we'd show to chickens or pigs.

So I'd argue dogs, Canis lupus familiaris, are specially deserving of a more honorable position than "dinner," based not on any real physical difference in the pain and suffering of the species, but on the basis reciprocal loyalty.

I guess the stars like McCain. I wonder if she talked to Ronnie. He misses her so...

It never made sense to me that Keynes could've fallen out of intellectual favor. Decades of human experience showed that Adam Smith's invisible hand worked no better in practice than communism at producing ideal social & economic conditions. Markets need to be overseen in order to maintain the necessary competition to produce efficient results.

Anyone who thinks we live in a totally free market is intellectually dishonest. Political corruption is rampant in this country and constantly skews incentives away from efficient market outcomes... toward whoever has their local (or national) politico on the payroll.

I see why Friedman would be so popular with the pro-business crowd. I don't see why policy makers should've ever agreed to loosen regulations.

Ronald:

Yes, paradoxically, when political corruption screws with market efficiency, I think the answer is more government.

Well, not necessarily more... but more transparent, and more professional. Regulatory agencies have to have teeth, and have to be independent enough to operate without political interference. I guess there's always the risk they go too far, but this is no excuse to take a completely hands off approach.

I think the current administration is FAR too political when it comes to allowing regulators (in every dept.) to do their jobs properly. Remember the neocon mantra "When we're done with the Federal Gov't, you'll be able to drown it in a bathtub." By failing to exercise proper oversight, these bums have allowed all sorts of negative externalities to creep back into the equation.

For example, lead paint in toys from China. Sure it's cheaper to have no oversight of toymakers. But who is measuring the cost to consumers of lead poisoning? Or the reduction in demand when people stop buying Chinese imports altogether because they have little faith the gov't is properly screening them?

Ignoring ALL the costs of an activity is just bad for business in the long run. I guess nobody thinks in the long run anymore...

Anyone who compares the circumstances of laissez-faire to those of socialism and finds laissez-faire to be worse is a complete jerk, or a product of a typical American University.

Oh... well, now not all of us could get into such illustrious institutions as Bob Jones U, or Oral Roberts, but we studied hard all the same.

Clinton had nothing to do with the "interest rate freeze." (whatever that was). The Fed sets rates, and the Fed is politically independent (or at least it was until 2005). Please, tell me where you studied. I'm really impressed.

We are winning the war...

There are still many challenges left, but we are making progress...

The media is only reporting the "bad things..."

The Surge was a successful strategy (according to the LA Times in a story on McCain last week)...

These are not the Droids you are looking for...

Sorry, I misunderstood. I haven't paid much attention to anything the "other Clinton" says in this election campaign, because my support is firmly placed elsewhere in the Democratic party now.

Suffice to say, I do not think Hillary CLinton's rate freeze is a good idea; I don't agree with it in theory or even as a political talking point.

There are better ways to tailor gov't intervention than arbitrary price controls, floors and ceilings. In fact, I wouldn't even consider these valid ideas.

Kids should be taught this book in grade school, along with Chomsky. Reading some Chomsky was what opened my eyes to the slanted perspective we are really getting, dressed up as "the news." Glenn's column has helped to fine tune the BS detector. Topics like:

"Oh, THAT'S what they really mean by 'terrorism.'"

"Discerning FACT from OPINION on FOX"

"Weasel Words 101"

"What the Constitution REALLY says, and why it says it."

I don't see how you can be a true American citizen without getting some antidote to the daily propaganda eminating from the boob tube. Like an intellectual immunization... it can preserve some of the independent thought that's necessary for our democracy to thrive politically and economically.

Assuming the world imitates an episode of 24, which I seriously doubt, we would indeed be constantly beset by ticking time bombs about to go off, which can only be located by inflicting (or threatening) such greivous bodily harm on the perpetrators that they reveal all.

OK... but why can't the President just pardon anyone who uses torture to save the day? You can see how easy it was to commute Scooter Libby's sentence; there will likely be little, if any, opposition to pardoning an agent that justifiably tortures a suspect in order to gain critical intelligence. So why do we need to legitimize this practice, sullying our own moral high ground?