Jeremy Irons Expresses Skepticism on Gay Marriage, Runs Into the Loving, Tolerant Left

Oscar-winning actor Jeremy Irons, star of The Mission and The Borgias, told HuffPost Live that he is a libertarian and sees unintended consequences following the legalization of gay marriage.

The 64-year-old said he “doesn’t have a strong feeling either way” on gay marriage but suggested it could be manipulated to allow fathers to pass on their estates to their sons without being taxed.

He said: “Could a father not marry his son”

When reminded about laws which prohibit sexual relationships between family members, he responded: “It’s not incest between men”, adding: “Incest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don’t breed.”

The father-of-two said: “It seems to me that now they’re fighting for the name. I worry that it means somehow we debase, or we change, what marriage is. I just worry about that.”

A spokesman for lesbian, gay and bisexual charity Stonewall, told Huffington Post UK: “Few people will agree with Jeremy Irons’ bizarre ‘concerns’ about equal marriage. Sadly his comments do seem to indicate he’s taken his role as a Pope in The Borgias a little too seriously.”

There are currently laws against incest, just as there are currently laws against polygamy. But upon what are those laws based, and will they withstand court challenges

There will be unintended consequences to changing the nature of marriage, whether they take the form that Irons discusses or some other form. There are always unintended consequences to every policy or cultural change. I don’t know what those consequences will be, but there will be some. To deny that there will be some if we change marriage is to deny reality.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

The Low-Information Voter’s Guide to Politics

Are you typically lost when co-workers discuss current events around the water cooler? Do you have trouble figuring out the national debt or who that Ben Ghazi dude is, but you know what’s on Kim Kardashian’s grocery list?

If you think you only deserve fun answers to all life’s questions … you’re right! This primer will help you look smart and morally superior in any political discussion. Just memorize these big words, explained in easy terms you already know from TMZ and The Daily Show:

BIASED: If you have a weird friend who goes to church and her parents are still married, that’s what they are.

ELECTIONS: These are like the Teen Choice Awards: the coolest and most popular wins. Democrats always win because they are cool and popular. Republicans are more like your weird friend’s parents.

DEBT CEILING: This is like Lindsay Lohan’s probation: by law, she should go to jail if she gets arrested, but we all know she won’t.

PUBLIC EDUCATION. Think Memento. Remember how the guy in the movie learned to go through life and fight enemies by relying on snapshots, notes, and tattoos? Public education does that on a national level as a free service.

IM-MI-GRA-TION: Whew, that’s a long word – just like that velvet rope outside nightclubs. When really fun people arrive, you just open it right up.

QUAN-TI-TA-TIVE EASING: Remember Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can, and how he printed his own checks? Well, that’s what the Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, does. It’s really cool.

TRILLION DOLLARS: This is a sillynumber. If someone says: “The U.S. national debt has topped 16 trillion,” take it easy. Remember how Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to fifteen life terms while having only one life?

Once you owe more than you can pay, numbers stop making sense. Anything above that is free money; spend it fast so you can get more.

ECONOMIC STIMULUS: It’s like Whitney Houston upping her dosage to get the same high, always needing to use more and more to “chase the dragon.”

SE-QUE-STRA-TION: This is just a made-up word that Republicans say to make you feel stupid.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

Voting Obamacare: Health Care Law to Drive Doctors to Retirement

Oh no, no way. Nine out of 10 physicians right now recommended that their family not become physicians. It used to be families would all be in medicine; not anymore.

Schoeling, who graduated in 1986 from the well-regarded University of Kansas School of Medicine, said the effects of Obamacare, if it were to be fully implemented, would be far-reaching and detrimental:

We will lose a lot of the patient/physician relationship, in that instead of me recommending to the patient what kind of screening test or things like that, it’ll be much more of a cookbook kind of thing.

That fundamentally isn’t the expensive thing, but that’s been the thing that most physicians treasure, most patients treasure – that ability to have that open communication and that control over your patients’ health care.

Many critics of the legislation say millions of people will move from private insurance – already expensive for doctors to manage – into the Medicare and Medicaid systems. It’s a move which will put a strain on doctors, who already struggle to break even on the Medicare and Medicaid patients they have.

Schoeling said he expects a rise in Medicare and Medicaid patients if Obamacare is fully implemented, and while he currently continues to see the Medicare and Medicaid patients he has, he’s not accepting new ones:

If we’re (lucky Medicaid is) 20 to 30 cents on the dollar from what we get from insurance rates. Obamacare cuts $716 billion from Medicare. The way that’s implemented is it will be a 27.1 percent cut in reimbursement in Medicare and Medicaid patients to private physicians and hospitals. Medicare is about 35 percent of my total practice and it affects internists even more because it’s almost 70 percent of their total practice.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.

Obama vs. Capitalism

In September of 2004, I attended a conference on economic development in the Donetsk region of Ukraine. A Ukrainian academician proudly presented the major achievement of his institute – a twenty-year plan for developing the market economy in the region.

After his presentation I asked: “Why does the market economy need a twenty-year plan?” The angry scademician replied: “How can it develop without a plan? It would be a chaos.”

“I don’t think so,” said I. “The market will regulate itself. No one planned for Microsoft or Apple.”

“I am sure that you are wrong,” said the academician. “Some people in the White House definitely thought that through.”

I recalled that exchange recently when I heard President Obama say: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

I realized once again that the idea of an invisible hand may be not so agreeable, even for people with high intellect and good education. Indeed, the idea of market self-regulation is very complicated theoretically and is yet to be proven with the rigidity of the laws of physics.

Many of those who appreciate the idea do so as a result of personal experience. The Obama administration has a dearth of such people. The fact that there are far fewer persons with entrepreneurial experience in the current administration than in any previous one may explain the administration’s obvious distrust of the market economy and strong belief in government regulation.

In a recent TV interview, White House adviser David Plouffe said: “We wouldn’t have an automotive industry if he [Mitt Romney] had been president. President Obama secured that.” Plouffe was talking not about any particular plant, not even about General Motors, but about the industry created by Henry Ford, Alfred Sloan, and other entrepreneurial geniuses and the thousands of talented engineers and highly trained workers that work in it. To think that the existence of that industry is secured not by all those people, but by a few bureaucrats, who have never created anything in their life, is delusional.

Unfortunately this delusional economic philosophy underlies the basic premise of the Obama’s administration that without guidance by the government the private sector is unable and unwilling to do things which are good for the American people.  That is why Obama decided to spend $90 billion to develop “new” sources of energy. The money was not spent on fusion  but on technologies that can be developed by private companies, without governmental assistance, if the companies decide that there is a demand for them.

And here comes the second part of Obama’s economic philosophy: we cannot count on demand since the people don’t know what is good for them and can be easily deceived by evil corporations. The only benevolent force to protect people not only from those corporations but also from themselves is a federal government.

Vezi sursa articolului aici.