This article by John Lott from 2010 talks about the five worst mass shootings in history. It is interesting to note that three of the five occurred in Germany, which according to Lott has the strictest gun control regulations in all of Europe.
Think Tough Gun Laws Keep Europeans Safe? Think Again... | Fox News
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Interesting advice for Romney
While I don't agree with Bruce Gabrielle's claim that the Romney campaign is "on the ropes" I like his advice.
http://speakingppt.com/2012/07/14/the-only-way-to-beat-a-story-is-with-a-better-story/
http://speakingppt.com/2012/07/14/the-only-way-to-beat-a-story-is-with-a-better-story/
Monday, July 2, 2012
Obamacare: Crony Corporatism At Its Worst
I wondered why it would take such a 2000+-page monstrosity
of a bill to "cure" the ills of our healthcare system. Wouldn't it be
easier to come up with something that does not disrupt what 90% of the
Americans have for health insurance and deal directly with those people who do
not have it? I'm thinking of something similar to what used to be called food
stamps. Maybe they would be called med stamps! Or do what they do in
Switzerland: provide a direct subsidy to people who cannot afford health
insurance or if the cost of the insurance exceeds a certain percent of their
income. One possible explanation is that Obamacare gives our wise government
bureaucrats complete control over a large sector of our economy. I'm sure
there's some of that motivating the drive to develop such a complicated mess of
legislation.
I also figured it had to be the result of the unholy
alliance we have between government and big business. (This relationship is
often referred to as crony capitalism, however I prefer the term crony
corporatism.) The post below by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute confirms
this suspicion by providing some background on the birth (or should we say
failed abortion?) of Obama care. Be sure to check out the link that Mitchell
provides in his post to an article that appeared in the Washington Examiner.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Thoughts on the Supreme Court Decision on Obamacare
I do not plan to
provide lengthy commentary on last week’s Supreme ruling on the
constitutionality of the healthcare act. Many other folks with whom I agree have
spoken on the subject. However I will make a prediction: five years from now
our situation with healthcare will be no better, if not worse, than it is
today. And that will spur further calls for even more government intervention
into the healthcare sector to "fix" the problems. This despite the
fact that government has been involved in healthcare for at least 100 years in
a series of actions, each of which has caused even further disruptions.
The first link from
the Ludwig von Mises Institute provides an extensive list of links to various
articles and studies on the effect of government's role on healthcare and how
will we have now is not anywhere close to a free market in healthcare.
The first link in
the list is an article by Murray Rothbard summarizes the history of the government’s
intervention in healthcare since around 1910. http://mises.org/daily/6099/Government-Medical-Insurance
The Heritage
Foundation collection of pictures and charts captures the key features of Obamacare.
Http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/obamacare/obamacare-in-pictures
Robert Bidinotto identifies
the collectivist premises that support the Supreme Court ruling and provides a
link to his analysis of why conservatives continually lose the moral battle in these
battles against the left. I strongly recommend reading both the article on his
blog as well as the link to his article on “Up From Conservatism. http://bidinotto.blogspot.com/2012/06/us-constitution-rip.html
Meanwhile
neo-neocon provides some interesting thoughts.
She also links to
this analysis by Andrew C. McCarthy. http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2012/06/28/obamacare-ruling-pure-fraud-and-no-due-process/?singlepage=true
And finally for a
counter to the moral argument Obamacare proponents unleash on anyone who dares
to oppose their “noble” cause check out Dr. Paul Hsieh’s article. http://pjmedia.com/blog/can-the-moral-narrative-of-obamacare-be-defeated/
The only way Americans can protect their long-term access to quality medical care is by demanding that the government respect their freedom and individual rights. Any system of “universal” health care necessarily requires a bureaucracy to control who can receive what services and when — if only to control costs. The medical rationing in Canada and the UK are typical results. In these countries, far from being a “right,” health care becomes just another privilege to be dispensed at the discretion of the bureaucrats.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Socialist or Fascist - Thomas Sowell - Townhall Conservative Columnists
Thomas Sowell makes a distinction that many conservative commentators miss when they accuse Obama of being a socialist or a communist.
It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.
What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.
…
One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.
I agree with him on this. He also correctly identifies fascism to the political left, not the right as most people do. However he doesn’t specifically mention how some folks like libertarians lay out the axis of the political spectrum with collectivism on the left and individualism on the right. A fascistic dictatorship, even if it favors business, still is a form of collectivism. The following definition provided in Wikipedia clearly shows the collectivist nature of fascism in which the individual is subjugated to the needs of the nation.
Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics.
Getting back to Sowell’s piece he makes a couple of key points.
Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.
Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous -- something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.
Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the "greed" of the insurance companies.
This might seem like an issue of semantics but I don’t believe it is. I hold that incorrectly identifying Obama’s political position harms the credibility of the person making this claim. A knowledgeable opponent would have cause to ignore the comment because it shows ignorance at worst or sloppy thinking at best. It also incorrectly pits the right as being purely pro-business regardless of its relationship to government (i.e., the right supports big business cronyism while the left is protecting us little folk who need the help of our enlightened politicians to fight for our rights against the juggernaut of big business and the rich.)
Over time the left has done a good job of usurping certain terms in our language. An example is their term “right wing dictatorship” which can be safely uttered and no one challenges it. If we accept this designation we’re faced with the choice of a dictatorship of the proletariat on the left fighting the dictatorship of the bourgeois on the right. The individual is conveniently ignored in this spectrum.
Monday, May 7, 2012
If I wanted the truth to fail
This article by Holly Munson in the Huffington Post talks about a video by a group called Free Market America which has received over 1,000,000 hits on YouTube. She compares it to an essay by E. L. Doctorow titled Unexceptionalism: A Primer. As Munson summarizes both:
The video opens with a grave-faced narrator: "If I wanted America to fail, to follow, not lead ... I'd start with energy." He then outlines a litany of objectives, such as using public schools to teach schoolchildren that people are causing global warming. The ominous kicker at the end: "If I wanted America to fail, I -- I suppose I wouldn't change a thing."Munson closes her article with a section titled The Analysis.
Then, this Sunday, the New York Times published an op-ed by writer E.L. Doctorow titled "Unexceptionalism: A Primer." The essay begins: "To achieve unexceptionalism, the political ideal that would render the United States indistinguishable from the impoverished, traditionally undemocratic, brutal or catatonic countries of the world, do the following" -- followed by step-by-step instructions, such as, "If you're a justice of the Supreme Court, decide that the police ... have the absolute authority to strip-search any person whom they, for whatever reason, put under arrest." The finale: "With this ruling, the reduction of America to unexceptionalism is complete."
So what should we make of the arguments made by Free Market America and Doctorow? Are they contributing to the lack of civility in public discourse by demonizing the opponent? Or are they thoughtful arguments, articulated in an effective, albeit emotionally manipulative, way?”I agree that many people find it much easier to demonize their political opponents rather than carefully, objectively analyzing their positions. Given the name of this blog you can probably guess which way I lean. However I also believe that a video or an editorial essay (or political commercials) are not appropriate vehicles for well constructed arguments. There is a legitimate place for passionate polemics and there is a place for probing debates and detailed analysis. (For the later check out publications by the Cato Institute and Brookings Institute.) I’m concerned that equating the two methods of spreading one's message smuggles in the solipsism of saying no one is right nor wrong. In the process incorrect or unfounded beliefs get treated as equivalent to well-founded ones. The truth gets lost in the process. And we lose.
There is room to argue that these are valid exercises in satire.
…
The problem is that when someone equates a particular policy position with The Destruction of America As We Know It, or equates those who hold that position as evil (and/or stupid), they disregard the fact that reasonable people can disagree, and that their opponents probably have decidedly non-sinister reasons for believing what they do.
It's also worth pointing out that both parties are guilty of this -- it's something we all need to work on.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
How I Learned Not to Deny Climate Change by By Robert Tracinski
For an interesting take on the global warming controversy (excuse me, I used the wrong term: climate change) check out this article. How I Learned Not to Deny Climate Change
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)