2 and 3. 

Climate changes; it always has, and it always will. Life has always adapted to climate, not the other way around, and this will continue to be the case. The non-adapting life will eventually become extinct. 

Every cover of "Mad World" is better than Tears for Fears' original.

I love Hendrix, but John Mayer's "Axis: Bold as Love" is pretty good.

Ugh.  Good intentions are what's really important, I guess. 

I still don't really understand what is meant by getting immigration behind us; as Peter's question indicated, passing a bill now will only be the beginning of a long, demagogic, recurring process.

It's possible that Uncle Tsarni is both right and wrong. The boys were unsettled losers, angry at their unsettled-ness, like the Weather Underground were unsettled losers.  

The question is how much of an influence did Marxism play in UNSETTLING the WU, and Islam with the Boston bombers? What would these people have done with their lives if they had never heard of the ideology that motivated them to violence? Would they have become philanthropists, or petty criminals, or would their innate 'unsettledness' have manifested itself in some other way? 

Maybe religion in general, and Islam in particular, an analogy for the gun debate. By itself, the religion can't hurt anyone. Good people can use any religion for good, but people are also using the religion for evil. Or, maybe each religion is a type of gun - Christianity is a hunting rifle, Islam is a rocket launcher, Buddhism is a bb gun? 

Agree. I've been thinking along these lines for a year or two now.

I had been enamored with the "get the government out of the marriage business" idea, but there is so much existing law dealing with marriage, and with child custody that I think it would be more difficult than it sounds. 

Beefing up marriage by removing no-fault divorce is the obvious alternative; it more directly addresses the problem (marriage becoming meaningless) in a positive way, without directly alienating/insulting gay men and women. In fact, it really aligns well with the stated goal of SSM, which I keep hearing is to strengthen families and the tradition of marriage. 

The downside could be that less people will get married, but isn't that preferable to everyone being married, and marriage the meaningless equivalent of a facebook status?

If the guy in the middle is the individual, then the State is a heavy structure held up by the pillars, which will crush the individuals when the pillars are broken.

I agree with this logic. Doesn't fully counting illegal immigrants encourage the sort of behavior the 3/5 rule was intended to discourage?

Blue state governments incentivize local county and city governments to make  illegal immigrants welcome, artificially boosting their census numbers and their representation at the federal level.

Throw him under the bus. Republicans have no margin of error - they must be better than this, hold themselves to a higher standard.

As far as his not being racist for using the term, that may be true, but to me it's the same as some old person telling me, without any ill intentions, that they used to live next to some ni**ers. That person is from an age gone by and should not be linked t0 conservatives or Republicans.

I don't think Freakonomics specified the race of the aborted fetus - Bennett was following their science down its slippery slope. Using more science.

Regarding the 'let science dictate policy' line of thinking, I am reminded of Bill Bennett's infamous 'aborting black babies would reduce crime' quote. Bennett was making the point that you can't blindly use statistics to dictate policy, i.e., why you CAN'T simply use purge logic, or 'science' to address every problem.

I had this thought again recently when hearing Bloomberg mention overweight people and their burden on society (i.e., the state), since the state was paying for their healthcare.

The same day, amidst the SSM and DOMA discussions I came across several studies documenting the much higher rates of mental illness and HIV among gay men when compared with straight men.  Using the 'let science be our guide' philosophy, maybe Bloomberg should ban gay bars and broadway shows.

My takeaway from this post is almost the opposite of its message. 

Republicans have had terrible messaging, and continue to be unable to articulate the problems with modern progressivism, and how conservatism/libertarianism/anti-statism would be an improvement. In a nod to the author, Republicans can learn from progressives - they should, like progressives, take the long view privately, but the immediate, short term view publicly.

They should try to win small victories that nudge policy in the direction they desire by demagoguing the other side, not using the language of religion, or first principles, or even freedom or liberty, but of selfishness and narcissism, i.e.,  figure out ways to make the policy 'nudge' an urgent issue that will positively affect people in the near term.

Nobody really wants to totally end the welfare state - there are millions of people (like me, when I was a child), who have benefited from programs like food stamps. People like me also remember it as an embarrassment, something to be gotten over quickly and to be avoided in the future. 

If a state, say, Utah, or West Virginia, passed a law making the legal marriage age 13 with parental consent, and there was a push to make the marriages legal at the federal level, would libertarians support that?

If the young newlyweds began then moving to New York or California in droves, I wonder what would the reaction on the enlightened, libertine coasts would be.....

Won't giving SSM the protection of law raise it to level of civil rights law, so that it's not just the state, but every individual and every business must also treat SSM as equivalent to traditional marriage?

Won't that force private insurance companies to cover SS couples, and force employers to grant benefits to SS spouses? I thought the pure libertarian position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was that the government improperly interfered in individuals' right to associate.

So, then, shouldn't libertarians be using the SSM debate to push for the compromise of getting the government out of marriage, instead of jumping on the SSM bandwagon?

Yes, this is correct. I actually think it would make more sense to REQUIRE every immigrant to be put on a "path to citizenship" immediately, but it should take 15-20 years of working, clean living, and advanced training in American history and economics (strike that).... capitalism....  to reach the destination.

I agree it sounds like a good idea, but what will stop politicians from viewing those millions of legally working, permanent resident non-citizens as a victim class to be exploited for political gain?

Realists should consider how lawmakers can prevent, or even mitigate, these 'non-citizens' from becoming ground zero for the next civil rights 'struggle'. All, or most, of the same anecdotes will exist with this group, where people have been here for decades, going to church, raising families, doing stuff 'in the community', but still unable to vote, collect Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, housing benefits, etc.

Haven't seen either, yet.  I also read the story about pessimists living longer;  I think it has something to do with having lower expectations,  less disappointment, and ultimately more happiness.

I think of myself as resilient, rather than optimistic - prepared for the worst,  hoping for the best.