New York officials announced Monday Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to raise the legal limit for buying all tobacco products from 18 to 21. It would not, however, prohibit adults under 21 from smoking cigarettes. In other words, cool older brothers across the New York metropolitan area just became a lot more popular.
So how does Mayor Bloomberg decide to introduce this surely overwhelmingly popular proposal? Well, given the “success” of his large soda ban, he hides of course. Instead of boldly announcing this healthy dose of paternalism himself, Bloomberg grants the honor to Christine C. Quinn, New York’s City Council speaker, Mayoral candidate, and soon-to-be human ashtray.
In early 2007, at the unveiling of her statue at Westminster, Margaret Thatcher remarked, “I might have preferred Iron. But bronze will do. It won't rust.” True to form, her memory will continue to inspire long after she is passed.
Margaret Roberts was the daughter of a grocery clerk. She studied chemistry at Oxford, and she would later work to give the world the first of her many contributions: soft-serve ice cream. After marrying and having twins, the new Mrs. Thatcher trained as a tax attorney. However, I write not about Thatcher the student, the chemist, the attorney, or the mother, but, of course, Thatcher the prime minister.
Spotting a gay conservative is like seeing a unicorn; you’re breathless as you scrounge in your bag for a camera to capture this majestic site. But before you know it, they’ve galloped away.
In light of this, consider when a conservative politician like Jon Huntsman comes out in favor of gay marriage—is he doing this to appeal to his swarms of gay supporters? No. I don’t recall seeing a Huntsman float in the gay pride parade. How much political capital do Republicans stand to gain by supporting gay marriage? Not much, though maybe some on the left choose to hate them a little less. Infrequently can one know for sure if a Democrat really supports gay marriage or if they are trying to gain public appeal from their rainbow constituents.
This article is meant to be a general tribute to Clarence Thomas, my favorite Supreme Court Justice.
In a hearing in mid-January, the Supreme Court considered the competency of the lawyers of the defendant. After hearing the lawyers had attended Harvard and Yale, Clarence Thomas was heard making a snide remark about the aptitude of Yale Law students. However, the stenographer at the court’s proceedings, recorded only “Well- he did not-” before laughter drowned out the rest of a surely wondrous insult. Oh, the possibilities of what this venerable Justice might have said. A few suggestions:
No, I am not saying government is not “rocket science,” nor am I saying it is not “an exact science.” Government, simply put, is not a science. This is not to say that government should not use science, but rather that it should view science as a tool and not the basis of all insight.
It’s entirely understandable why government wants to be considered a science. Firstly, science describes things in definite terms. We can argue endlessly about whether Harvard is too liberal but we only have to count to discover 11.6 percent of Harvard votes Republican. The complex ideas we express in words take such energy to write, read, and debate, whereas a pie chart is a pie chart is a pie chart.