Happy Bill of Rights Day

Via

Reminder

Via

Linky Links

Stuff I found interesting or amusing and thought I'd share.

- Good news on Global Equality. Inequality is shrinking and it is capitalism that gets the credit. Still not perfect but getting better. (HT Steve Landry)

- Fill the tub. Good advice.

- NCAA reaches anti-trust deal. Supposedly Division 1 schools could have up to 790 scholarships with up to 105 for football.

- The Constitutional Case against Exclusionary Zoning. (HT Steve Landry)

Linky Links

Stuff I found interesting or amusing and thought I'd share.

- I support Catherine Herridge. Guessing there's some billionaire somewhere willing to foot her $800 per day fine for not giving up her sources.

- From the archives: Sam Altman on how to be successful. Good advice.

- Tennessee might start a trend

- Some Masters trivia

Linky Links

Stuff I found interesting or amusing and thought I'd share.

- Wise words from Frank Zappa

- Interesting long read on the seriously messed up 1982 draft by the Tampa Bay Bucs

- On the other end of the spectrum - how Red Auerbach assembled the 1986 Celtics starting five. Did not know about the Ralph Sampson angle. There should be a follow up on how Red put together the bench because it was perhaps the greatest bench in NBA history.

- Fantastic look into why daily fantasy sports sites are for suckers

- The "economic bomb" Saudi Arabia faces because of low oil prices

- Heh heh

- John Stuart Mill was a fascinating character (and this review of his biography is so long that reading the book might not be necessary)

- Heh heh - Denmark has had enough of Bernie Sanders

- This picture of Pete Rose cannot be unseen

- Maybe HGH does stand for "head growth hormone"

Abortion and the 14th Amendment

This posts about using Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to protect the unborn got me thinking.

The 14th Amendment says that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The idea is that the unborn have rights too but I see trying to make this argument leading to a slippery slope of unintended consequences.

The idea is to protect the unborn but you know that it is more likely that some in government would use it to exercise more control over the "born". Using such an argument you would have some in government taking away children from parents who smoke cigarettes under the guise of protecting the child's life. Same too for parents who refuse to get children inoculated. What about parents of obese children? Shouldn't the government step in and take the child since the parents obviously aren't providing the child with a healthy diet and thus reducing the child's life expectancy?

Slippery slope and unintended consequences.