The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

Cavalcade of Links 7

April 28th, 2011 by Myrhaf · 12 Comments · Link Cavalcade

1. With Q&A Charles Alan Kors’s speech, Socialism’s Legacy: Lest We Forget, lasts one hour and 33 minutes; it is worth every second. Leftists continue to commit intellectual fraud by evading the extent of socialism’s evil. Dr. Kors reminds us of a most important lesson of the 20th century. His speech is an inspiring act of justice.

2. Economic growth in the first months of 2011 was 1.8%. At the same time inflation is surging:

Milk. A gallon of skim. At the local Giant in Central Pennsylvania:

January 11, 2011: $3.20
February 28, 2011: $3.24
March 6, 2011: $3.34
April 23. 2011: $3.48

That would be a 28 cent rise in a mere 102 days, from January to April of this year. The third year of the Obama misadventure.

Then there’s the celery. Same sized bag. Same store.

January 11, 2011: $1.99 a bag.
March 6, 2011: $2.49 a bag.

A rise of 50 cents in 54 days.

Vodkapundit has charts.

3. Disarming while at war:

From 1940 to 2000, average annual American defense expenditure was 8.5% of GDP; in war and mobilization years, 13.3%; under Democratic administrations, 9.4%; under Republican, 7.3%; and, most significantly, in the years of peace, 5.7%. Now we spend 4.6%, but, less purely operational war costs, 3.8% of GDP. That is, 66% of the traditional peacetime outlays. We have been, and we are, steadily disarming even as we are at war.

4. Andrew Bernstein on “Religion vs. Morality”; Harry Binswanger debates a socialist who equates Ayn Rand with Nietzsche. Both are around two hours long.

5. Keynes vs. Hayek. Is it my imagination or are the production values in this video higher than those seen in the Atlas Shrugged Part 1 trailer?

6. The Democrats released an ad claiming Paul Ryan’s budget would “end Medicare,” hoping to scare seniors. I always fall for these negative ads and think better of the Republicans. Going by Democrat attacks, I’d be ready to put Paul Ryan’s face on Mt. Rushmore. Turns out, alas, the ad is a lie. Ryan’s budget increases spending on Medicare. His budget is an attempt to make the welfare state run on time. The Democrats are so locked into their playbook of demonizing Republicans and fear-mongering pressure groups that their claims have no relation to reality.

UPDATE: Revised the description of the socialist in item #4.

12 Comments so far ↓

  • Shane Atwell

    Agliaro should have held a competition for the script writing or perhaps the whole production.

  • L-C

    Our gas price is $9.17 / gallon, as of yesterday. I guess A really is A.

  • madmax

    Our gas price is $9.17 / gallon, as of yesterday.

    Yeah, but you get free health care. Don’t you know that Sweden is the model of the perfect welfare-sate and a truly enlightened society? That’s what all my left-liberal friends keep telling me…

  • Neil Parille

    I watched half of Andrew Bernstein’s “Religion vs. Morality” lecture. I seriously wonder if Mr. Bernstein has read any works on theology. I don’t think he has a clue what religious people believe.

  • madmax

    He essentializes Neil. Something you are constitutionally incapable of doing.

  • madmax

    I’ll say this though. Bernstein says that religion endorses faith over reason. Here I think he needs to realize that theistic arguments are more sophisticated than that. The theists that I have read redefine reason and argue that reason mandates the belief in god. They reject “materialist reason”; ie reason which reduced knowledge back to evidence of the senses. That IS the only legitimated definition of reason but the theists deny it. They believe in a “super-natural” dimension and think that reason can prove the existence of the supernatural. How? Through revelations for one which they believe are real (insane I know). And two through logical inferences such as the Design Argument or First Cause Argument, etc. They think these arguments are legitimate. They’re not. They may be structurally sound but they contain flawed premises so their conclusions are worthless. But nevertheless to a theist they represent “real reason” not that “Randian materialist version”.

    That being said, Bernstein’s speech was good allbeit somewhat boilerplate.

  • madmax

    By the way Neil, what do religious people believe? Why don’t you lay out a list of 10 or so bullet points so we can get an idea of what YOU think religious people believe. That should prove very enlightening.

  • Neil Parille

    Mr. Max,

    I’m not a fan of essentializing (at least as it’s done by Randians). It’s the surest way to misrepresent someone’s ideas and draw nutty conclusions such as that Kant was responsible for the gas chambers.

    Religious people believe all sorts of things, some of which are quite opposed to each other. Part of the problem is that Bernstein (at least in the part I listened to) treats all religions as if they taught the same thing.

    And I don’t find Bernstein all that knowledgeable. He said that the “separation of church and state” was advocated in the Renaissance. Where? Savonarola’s Florence? And were the Founders really proto-Objectivists? I imagine Jefferson et al would have puked at the idea that selfishness is a virtue.

    BTW, Objectivist morality worked out well when Rand put it into practice by having an affair with a fan boy half her age, didn’t it?

  • Neil Parille

    Mr. Max,

    I did write something related to your question some years ago —

  • Myrhaf

    “BTW, Objectivist morality worked out well when Rand put it into practice by having an affair with a fan boy half her age, didn’t it?”

    I expected better from you than this, Neil. How does the affair with NB indict Objectivist morality? Rand was honest, and she was deceived. And I’m no fan of NB, but even I would not characterize him as a “fan boy.”

    If you hate Objectivism as much as this snarky comment suggests, why do you torment yourself by reading Objectivist blogs? Just curious.

  • Inspector

    I thought Kors fell a bit flat when he couldn’t make sense of Scandinavia. I bet a few of the commentators here – who actually live there – could educate him quite a bit on how totalitarian that region really is, even if it is a squishy variety.

  • Drew

    Where does Bernstein (or any Objectivist for that matter) claim the founding fathers were proto-Objectivists? He answers a question later on, with the caveat that he is not a historian, but a philosopher, so not to take him as a final word pertaining to historical matters. Nonetheless, nothing he says seems controversial; church-state separation evolved out of the Renaissance, what’s the big deal? He’s cutting to the philosophic heart of the matter.

    I’m not sure what Neil’s philosophic allegiance is, but much of what I’ve come across smacks of positivism or some kind of extreme empiricism. How one can claim knowledge that “Thomas Jefferson et al would have puked…” coming from that framework? It’s just