I've never really understood why supply side economics doesn't embrace the labor movement.

I've always felt that the uniting of workers to negotiate the value of their human capital as a particularly free market and supply side idea.

Workers have product X (their labor) which they seek price Y for. Employers as their customers decide if they wish to pay that right or not, and will sign long term contracts with their supplier to guarantee products and prices in the years to come despite what the economy might do.

Now certainly you could argue a monopoly of labor, but then you need to deride all monopolistic practices (which a real free marketer needs to do).

Unions are like any other supplier of raw materials deserve to merge with others in the same field to increase market share, and increase efficencies which will eventually lowe costs to the end consumer.

For example, if we take a pro union perspective, the Union becomes the supplier of labor to GM, as such GM has no workers, but is merely contracting with the union to receive workers of a certain quality at a certain price. The legacy costs of these workers are then passed onto the Union, and shared equally by all customers of the union.

Since there will always be differnt unions (as well as private contractors) you will always have competition, but like any competitors who watch the market, it is unlikly that the UAW will charge less than say the Teamsters who might also provide workers to GM.

Everyman's right to profit should be sacrosanct to free market economists. That shouldn't apply to worker on the line as much as the board member is simple hypocrisy.

We doubt his argument because his actions do not fit into God's usual MO.

To my knowledge God hasn't instructed any of his prophets (note prophets not military campaigners there are differences) to abduct young girls, hold them hostage, and wed them.

The case has no biblical precedent, and as such is doubtful even to those who believe that a personal god has spoken directly to certain blessed individuals over the centuries.

Now, there are specific sects where such activities might be within the bounds of their beliefs (such as the fundamentalist Mormons discussed elsewhere), but in those situations there is usually a stipulation on who has the franchise of god (one would not assume god would speak to a profit other than their profit).

In an expanded way, this person's claim of divine communication is doubted based on the fact that he seems to have no legitimate franchise to god. Again although there may be biblical precedent for such lone voices in the wilderness, his actions do not move in keeping with the generally accepted narrative of such lone prophets.

Had those who opposed such policies under one regime didn't continue their protestations when another leader came to the for.

I expect Ms. Shehan to go on Fox News soon to raise her call to arms, and once again strange bedfellows will lay together.

In my rush to make my previous point, I should point out that most mentally ill people are not evil, in fact the numbers of mentally ill people who are violent, or even cause moderate trouble are so few as to make them statistically insignificant in the mentally ill population (as it is currently defined).

Most mentally ill people, quite to the contrary of the image we are given by sensational stories like this, have little or no interest in criminal activity since it requires them to engage a harsh and stressful world that their mental illness is usually a defense against.

It would be nice if the state provided more care to the majority of those who are ill, instead of focusing all their efforts on the few who are violent.

It's sad that often one has to actually be activly threatening themselves or others before they are noticed by the system and receive help.

The two states are not mutually exclusive, infact, given that evil requires a certain level of sociopathology, one could argue that the evil are always mentally ill.

Mental illness is not, and should not be a get out of jail free card. It is a state where one is incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy. To that end virtually all sex offenders (since most will tell you their victim enjoyed or was asking for it) are mentally ill.

The bottom line is, he is sick, and likely will never be well, if he were well the first evidence of this would likely be incredible remorse at the evil he committed and a realization that they should not be let out of the institution that houses them.

Anything short of that level of self awareness implies illness, and guarantees recitivism.

In the 1970's it was manditory in many states to circumcise new born baby's (That's how I got cliped).

Hardly a hardship of course, but if you are someone who is inordinatly preocupied with your penis, I can see how such a legal mandate might feed into your own mental illness.

So, yes, if there is ever shown a significant advantage to circumcisian (as at one time there was belived to be) then expect the state to mandate or at least suggest it yet again.

The problem here isn't the state of course, but the mentally ill who have difficulty understanding that certain basic sanitary procedures are advisable, even if they happen to want to collect their urin in jars.