The New Clarion

This last Wednesday I happened to flip channels (while the Mrs was on our only computer, which fact is going to change sometime this year) and caught the beginning of Geraldo At Large on Fox. He was covering a tea party convention where Sarah Palin was about to give the keynote speech. So I watched. [Read more →]

Healthcare is not a right. It is a good and service to be bought voluntarily from willing providers, like anything else. Do I tell my barber that a haircut is my right, and then force him to provide me with the haircut of my choice at the price that I dictate to him? That is what socialized medicine does to doctors.

If it is my right to that haircut, what has happened to the right of the barber to offer his service on terms agreeable to him? And if his rights are violated — if he is reduced to the status of an unwilling servant — imagine how lousy my haircuts will look, as he rushes them along to provide them at the price set by government.

Now consider that this same scenario plays out right now with a far more vital service, one upon which all of our lives depend. Today about 50% of medical costs are paid for by the government under terms set by government. We have 50%-socialized medicine in the United States. The problems we have are due to this high level of socialism that already exists.

The solution is not to drink the whole bottle of poison and condemn all of us, doctors and their patients, to life-shortening medical “care” by rights-less doctors and their disgruntled, sick patients.

The solution is freedom. It has never really been tried. Abolish government funding of medical care. Eliminate the rules that bind insurance companies and doctors from offering the care that customers want. Respect the rights of doctors and their patients to freely contract with each other for medical services.

Healthcare is not a right, and our lives depend on acknowledging this fact.

Say “no” to any scheme to further entrench socialized medicine.

*****

Originally posted here on a website that is soliciting solutions for the problems in healthcare. Register your vote.

Free market supporters love to use the hypocrisy argument against statists. It’s been around a long time. To name a few examples of actions that are called hypocrisy:

• The health care of Senators and Congressmen is better than what Americans would get in the plans of those politicians.
• Al Gore’s house leaves a huge carbon footprint. Political leaders from around the world flew carbon-spewing jets to Copenhagen.
• Nancy Pelosi’s relatives flew military jets instead of commercial airlines.
• A Canadian politician goes to America for his heart surgery.

You can probably think of more examples. None of these is actually hypocrisy. The politicians involved all believe they are in a special class to which the rules do not apply. It’s not hypocrisy, it’s the prerogative of power.

[Read more →]

“And did we tell you the name of the game, boy? 
We call it Riding the Gravy Train.”  (Pink Floyd)

From the Guardian comes a story titled “The west owes Haiti a bailout. And it would be a hand-back, not a handout.”  Yes, it’s all our fault.  Our fault that they were poor, poorly governed, unprepared for natural disasters.  Certainly, it wasn’t the fault of the Haitians themselves.  Who could have foreseen the lack of economic progress in a nation that was more collectivist than capitalist?  If the Haitian people were content to live under the bad government they had, rather than instituting a better one at any cost or risk, or emigrating to a better one, can we blame them?  Inertia isn’t easy to overcome. 

But the West, now, there is as selfish a collection of uncaring nations as can well be imagined.  Billions upon billions of dollars for bailing out bankrupt financial institutions, but precious little for those that need it most—the Haitians:

The scale, urgency and determination with which western governments moved to salvage a broken [financial] system stands in stark contrast to their laggardly, inadequate and negligent approach when it comes to rescuing a broken society. I refer here not to the emergency aid operations in Haiti, which, given the logistical obstacles of operating in a crushed nation, have been impressive. Nor to the charitable donations from all over the world that prove that people are far more generous than the governments they elect. But to the resources and long-term systemic solutions that Haiti needs and the west could summon – if it so desired.

Haiti has needs.  The West has means.  One side of the equation neatly balances out the other. 

And if simple need isn’t enough justification, there are also the sins of our fathers to account for:

 Haiti gained its independence from France in 1804 through a slave rebellion – the first postcolonial, independent black-led nation in the world. For this audacity they would pay for generations . . .

The US refused to recognise the new country for more than half a century, and would then go on to occupy it for 20 years between the wars. The French burdened it with a punitive debt the country shouldered for over a century.

Both the US and France backed the Duvaliers’ brutal dictatorships and when democratic government did arrive it was hogtied by terms imposed by the IMF and the World Bank. Among other things, rigged trade agreements transformed Haiti from a self-sufficient rice producer to importing the bulk of its rice from subsidised growers in the US. When Haiti fined American rice merchants $1.4m in 2000 for allegedly evading customs duties, the US responded by freezing $30m in aid. With friends like these, Haiti does not need enemies.

So Haiti’s bailout would not be an act of charity, but reimbursement and reparation. This is not a hand out but a hand back. In terms of Haiti’s needs, it would be the beginning not the end. The country needs investment in its social and civic infrastructure so that it can shape its own future.

Is there a country on earth that couldn’t point to similar mistreatment from some other nation at some point in its past?  Should we hold the British of today responsible for the expenses of the Revolutionary War?  Or all the money our forefathers lost due to the anti-capitalist trade restrictions the British imposed upon us in the colonial era?   These trade agreements with the IMF and the World Bank—they were agreements, right?  Both sides agreed to the terms?   These things cannot be imposed on any country by a bank.  Only an occupying army can impose anything. I’m not aware of the IMF or the World Bank having a military wing. If Haiti now doesn’t like the terms of these agreements, is that too our fault, here in the West?

The actions of the IMF and the World Bank are not likely to be capitalist, in that their funds are presumably derived from taxation. The solution to that is the abolition of these institutions, not more collectivism.  Does Haiti want investment in its infrastructure?  On what terms: collectivist, or capitalist?  If it wants them on capitalist terms, the way to get there is by instituting a capitalist government, not demanding tax money from foreign governments, that is, the citizens of foreign governments.  If it wants it on collectivist terms, it wants what can never be justified.  It wants the enslavement of others to themselves.

James Dobbins, a special envoy to Haiti under President Clinton and director of the International Security and Defence Policy Centre at the Rand Corporation, saw other possibilities. “This disaster is an opportunity to accelerate oft-delayed reforms,” he argued. The reforms included “breaking up or at least reorganising the government-controlled telephone monopoly”, and restructuring the ports. In other words, privatising what little is left of the country’s state enterprises.

Clearly, to the writer of the Guardian article, capitalism is the problem, not the solution.

People are on to Obama. They know he’s a liar. The Washington Times:

While Mr. Obama was bashing lobbyists during his State of the Union, his administration already had planned private briefings with powerful K Street lobbyists for the very next day. According to The Hill newspaper, the Obama Treasury Department invited lobbyists to “a series of conference calls with senior Obama administration officials to discuss key aspects of the State of the Union address.”

Senator Inhofe:

“I was thinking back during the first State of the Union Address by Bill Clinton and I thought, ‘This guy can say things that aren’t true with greater conviction than anyone I’ve ever seen.’ I honestly think that Obama is better.”

[Read more →]

It gets harder as I age to force myself to watch SOTU’s or the Oscars. The presidential speeches have degenerated in our benighted age from their original constitutional purpose to a laundry list of ways the president intends to buy votes from special interests with the money I make. Why would I want to be reminded that I’m a part-time slave to a bunch of pretentious fools in Washington, D.C.? And Hollywood’s big night is a celebration of mediocrity in an art form I care less about every year. Given the choice of spending $20 on mindless spectacle and popcorn or staying home with a good book, the latter wins every time. I can make popcorn at home.

Reading around the internet, however, it looked like there might be enough in the speech for a blog post. So I watched the State of the Union speech on YouTube. The whole goddamn thing. Obama likes to talk about sacrifice. I sat through 69 minutes of his lies; that’s sacrifice enough.

[Read more →]

Many years ago, I read a fascinating short story by Theodore Sturgeon, entitled “If All Men were Brothers, Would You Let One Marry Your Sister?”

(A key spoiler follows below the break.  It is not necessary to read the story first to grasp my point, but I highly recommend it; it is a good one.)

[Read more →]

Ever since Obama was elected president the conservative press has been referring to him as the ‘Messiah,’ the ‘anointed one,’ the ’savior,’ and so on largely in response to how the liberal press fawned and cooed over him and was loath to question or mention any criticism of him. [Read more →]

During the Bush years I tried to balance my blogging with attacks on both the Democrats and Republicans. I don’t want to be a Republican water boy like Limbaugh or Hewitt. As bad as the left is, the right certainly deserves its share of blame for the mess we are in.

I still strive for balance, but now I fail. Nowadays I’m Johnny One Note, ever pounding on the left. The Dems have all the power and make all the news.

What do Republicans do these days but sit back and let the Democrats immolate themselves on their power-lust? The converse of the Spider-Man line is with no power comes no responsibility. And no blame. Republicans are in the ideal position now; they don’t have to do anything, and even when they propose something, the media are too busy reporting on their god in the White House to notice.

Someday the Republicans will regain power, and then they will do stupid things that piss me off, and you readers of New Clarion will be the first to know about it. I promise.

We now return you to our scheduled programming.

Myrhaf offers some advice to the Democrats on how to proceed in the aftermath of the Scott Brown win: he says that they need a crisis.

I don’t expect them to actually precipitate one on purpose, but the basic premise — that the American Left is in a do-or-die position — is very likely correct.

Objectivists have been saying for years that the Left is at the end of its intellectual road, and that its position in control of the academy is slowly slipping away.   I think the Left knows this as well.   I believe that the core Left is afraid that if they don’t succeed in pushing America over the tipping point during this administration, they may never get this chance again.

What is this goal — this “tipping point” to which I refer?

[Read more →]

Democrats are trying to figure out what has gone wrong, why they’re losing voters, and what they can do about it. They’re doing what passes for soul-searching on the left — that is, making excuses and demonizing the right.

Kevin Drum, writing before the Massachusetts election, said the “noise machine” of the right  is winning the battle of the narrative. Whenever leftists complain about the right-wing noise machine, it means the truth is getting out and it is persuading people. The term is like their earlier term, McCarthyism: both are meant to deflect criticism of the left by demonizing the enemy.

David Plouffe offers a strategy for how Democrats can mitigate an electoral disaster this November. Plouffe spins, as you would expect from a campaign manager.

Everything I have read from the left is BS. I’ll tell you what has happened and what the Democrats should do about it.

[Read more →]

1. Democrats are all shook up. For a year the Democrats have acted in the most partisan manner possible, passing without Republican input huge bills in the middle of the night that no one reads, and that the people do not want. It’s been the greatest display of arrogance and contempt for the governed that anyone has seen in America. The election of a Republican to the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy was a much needed act of justice. A slap in the face, a wake-up call, a canary in a coal mine — choose your metaphor.

[Read more →]

There’s so much bad news coming out of Washington, D.C. that it’s hard to keep up. Now they’re coming for your 401k account:

Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) — The Obama administration is weighing how the government can encourage workers to turn their savings into guaranteed income streams following a collapse in retiree accounts when the stock market plunged.

The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort.

It sounds innocent, doesn’t it? They care so much about us that they want to make sure our 401k accounts don’t lose money. How nice that we have the state to protect our retirement.

[Read more →]

The astonishing election in Massachusetts of a Republican to the Senate seat long held by Edward Kennedy is the fruit of the ideological clarity that John Lewis wrote about. After one year of Obama-Reid-Pelosi attempting to ram socialism down America’s throat in the middle of the night, voters are frightened and angry. Even voters in liberal land.

I’m happy to see Americans rebel against big government, and I want more. Let 1,000 tea parties bloom, and make Keith Olbermann’s head explode. (Can a vacuum explode?) Aside from the excitement of a growing movement of people centered around the idea of less government, I’m still wary. Judging from some of their comments, it looks like the political leaders in Washington, D.C. have not changed.

[Read more →]

In my darker moments, when my view of the future dims at the latest “hell in a hand basket” news story, I worry about the sort of a world my children will grow up into. We strive to foster in them an abiding sense of curiosity and wonder about the world. We raise them as independent, ambitious little girls and boy. But all around us we see parents who coddle their children, turning them into wilting violets or, alternatively, domineering masters of their households. By all accounts, my kids should have an incredible advantage in whatever they choose to do with their lives. Knowing themselves and letting reality be their guide, the world should be open to whatever they dare to dream.

Then I read something like this story out of San Diego and I feel like I am setting them up for a life of strife, struggle, and obstacles. There will always be some petty bureaucrat or administrator who will try to stub out their spirit when they show some spark or initiative. This little boy, who committed a “crime” but without “criminal intent,” had to surrender his innocent science project to a bomb squad while he and his fellow students were first put in lockdown and then evacuated. I’m sure he won’t make that “mistake” again.

[Read more →]

If a nation loses the integrity of its elections, then it loses its freedom. Without clean elections, voters have no voice. Those who count the votes can put who they want in power, regardless of what the voters want. We see what a joke elections are in dictatorships, where those in power win landslides. Everyone knows those elections are rigged.

Given the importance of clean elections, you’d think Americans of all parties would be zealous in protecting the integrity of the process. Well, not the totalitarian left.

Listen to this brief audio clip of Ed Schultz.

[Read more →]

A clear example of the mainstream media’s hatred for capitalism, free markets, bankers and lenders in general is found in the Jan 13th Detroit Free Press’s editorial titled “It’s Bankers’ turn for the 3rd degree.” [Read more →]

In a free country reporters ask politicians tough questions, to which the politicians either answer or ignore. Preferably, they give an honest answer, as that is what the people deserve from their representatives. Disagreements of opinion are answered with more opinion; reason is answered with reason, and peace reigns throughout the land.

Well, not anymore — at least not on the totalitarian left. When a reporter asks a tough question, the left thinks he deserves this:

[Read more →]

Tucker Carlson’s new internet publication The Daily Caller is worth a click. It has a good piece on Brandon Darby, a man who stopped radical leftists who were planning to use force at the Republican National Convention in 2008. He is now reviled on the left:

Darby has learned that if you disrupt a terrorist attack on Americans by Islamic fundamentalists as Dutch tourist Jasper Schuringa did on Christmas Day, you’re a hero, but disrupt a terrorist attack on Americans by left-wing fundamentalists and you might as well be a terrorist yourself.

This is because among many on the left — even some moderate liberals — there is a presumption of good intentions by terrorists who claim to pursue social justice ideals. “My left-wing crazies are better than your right-wing crazies,” progressive talk radio host Thom Hartmann said in an interview last year. “Our left-wing crazies are incited to violence because they’re trying to create a better world.”

These “left-wing crazies” had firebombs that could have killed people or inflicted terribly painful injuries, but it’s okay “because they’re trying to create a better world.” The better world they’re fighting for is a collectivist dictatorship. Force is fine to the totalitarian left because the end justifies the means.

We should thank Brandon Darby for his courage in standing up to the militant left. Hollywood won’t make a movie about him as they are for the radicals who were arrested. Mr. Darby is an American hero.

Walter Williams gives us some remarkable facts in his latest column, “Global Warming Is A Religion.”

Over long periods of time, there is absolutely no close relationship between C02 levels and temperature. Humans contribute approximately 3.4 percent of annual C02 levels compared to 96.6 percent by nature. There was an explosion of life forms 550 million years ago (Cambrian Period) when CO2 levels were 18 times higher than today. During the Jurassic Period, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, CO2 levels were as much as nine times higher than today. Contrary to what educators are brainwashing our children with, polar bear numbers increased dramatically from around 5,000 in 1950 to as many as 25,000 today, higher than any time in the 20th century.

Are his facts right? If so, then the whole push to pass wide-sweeping laws restricting CO2 production is based on bad science, to put it kindly.