Pages

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Healthcare Battle Royal

The McLaughlin Group was very entertaining last night. In this public television program, the gentlemanly host, John McLaughlin attempted to moderate a discussion between a few news people with markedly different viewpoints. There was a Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune. A leftist ideologue with decorum and a humorous aloofness. The other liberal, Elena Clift from News Week was a good example of why Rush Limbaugh calls this publication Obama Week. The conservatives, Rich Lowry of National Review and Monica Crowley of the Washington Post seem unflinchingly right on, (at least from my point of view.)

A few issues were discussed before they got to the health care plan. The form and not the substance soon became the message. The panel members could not finish half a sentence before they were interrupted by loud, vehement objections from their antagonists. The audience as well as the participants soon lost track of the substance of the debate. Mr. McLaughlin, as apparently is the format, addressed a question so pointed to Mr. Page that it seemed to me a cross examination that could not be met without capitulating the point completely. In fact, he liked the question so much that he repeated it two or three times, each with more devastating intonations. Mr. Page's deft retort was that he would gladly answer the question if only Mr. McLaughlin would stop asking it. Although I believed that his answer would be mostly obfuscation, it really didn't matter since he had already scored a point by discrediting the questioner. The answer and the question were soon forgotten.

It was gratifying to see such august personages behaving verbally like barroom brawlers. It was really impossible to hear what anyone was saying. Ms. Clift gained the floor for a few seconds when she shouted that she just wanted to finish her sentience. She did quickly finish her sentence and three or four more, then, although she was interrupted by everyone, she kept on talking, I believe, till the end of the segment.

The most effective arguments came from Monica Crowly. She articulated well some of the stronger conservative, pro-capitalism points with a single minded clarity that won her ten or twelve uninterrupted seconds. She capitalized on the fact that it is hard to defend some of the presidents statements. For instance, how can we believe we can keep our health insurance, as he repeatedly promises, after actually reading the bill. No one really tried to address this or any of her and Mr. Lowry's points and no one would have heard them if they did.

A realization came to me this morning when I spoke to a group of people at a Democrat Booth at the local Ethnic Fest. All I really wanted was a bottle of water for which I gave them the requested donation. When I saw the title of the Single Payer petition that they wanted me to sign. I told them, I thought politely, that that would never happen. They immediately started to recite talking points, which I attempted to refute by explaining that shortcomings in health care are chiefly the results of prior liberal programs. As they would not stop the talking points that I would not stop trying to refute, we were soon shouting to be heard. I really did not refute anything since I am not good with talking points. I walked away, repeating that single payer is something I could never be convinced to agree with because it is socialism, which is always a bad choice.

This and other experiences convince me that this is a pivotal issue that goes to the heart of people's political beliefs. It cannot be decided by talking points. Talking points usually offer an 'either or' type of analysis without admitting that there may be solutions other than theirs. If all I am given for an option is socialism, which is a false dichotomy, I would still not choice socialism, which the current proposal is (or a short step from it.) If some people have been forced into bankruptcy by medical bills or have been treated unfairly by their insurance company, that is still not as bad as socialism. Socialism is always a bad choice. Find a different solution or leave it as it is. What we have had of freedom, should convince everyone that freedom is the principle to strive for in any solution.

I try to point and link to those who, by careful analysis, explain that Socialism cannot succeed. Under socialism, the administrators do not have the data to make efficient allocation of our scarce resources. Only the price system of the free market can do that. Furthermore, the current medical proposal is proof that partial socialism will inevitably lead to complete socialism. Interference with the system is what has lead to problems that they are now offering to solve by more interference. This process will continue after our current interference until we have complete socialism in medicine then everything else. Under socialism, everyone is made poorer. All aspects of the economy are burdened, eventually to the breaking point.

The bitter irony is that the liberals claim to help people, while it is the conservatives who actually know how to do it. This is a paradox similar to the truth that sometimes big wars can only be prevented by small wars.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Supernormal Profits

In a lecture, one of my economics professors said that there are only two ways to make more that a "normal" profit over any length of time. Either 1) by providing something no one else can, by possession of a secret formula, for example; or 2) by providing something no one else is allowed to, by possession of a government patent, for example.

No entrepreneur wants to just make a "normal" profit. He or she goes into business to make a killing. Innovation and hard work is the starting point but once you start succeeding, the competition will start to imitate your plan. They might have better financing or more energy. This is where the government connection makes sense. The more power government has, the more it can help. Government can limit entry into your industry, allow you to (or prevent you from) buying up the competition, tax away foreign competitors, mandate the use of your product, there is a never-ending list of possibilities.

Favors, perks, and pay-offs to government officials often helps to smooth the way to higher profits. This is called "corruption." It is usually frowned upon. (For instance, George W. Bush is often accused of giving companies lucrative contracts for government work in Iraq, in return for some pay-off. If his administration did give out contracts without competitive bidding, it may have been because Halaburton was the only company that wanted the job.) Unquestionably, corruption leads to economic inefficiencies. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I WOULD CALL FREE MARKETS (see the Basiat quote in an earlier post). Preventive regulation hardly ever works, becomes corrupted itself, and stifles innovation more than it stops corruption. The best preventive is to refrain from giving the government much power to sell. Our founders created governmental checks and balances to limit the influence of this special interest corruption.

Ramming through legislation with arm twisting and political back room favors are exactly where the danger lies. This too used to be frowned upon. The current administration seems to be doing exactly what they accused the previous administration of doing but could never prove. Actually, the Republicans are usually kept in line by the press anyway. Democrats, because they favor bigger government, have always been more usefully to special business interests. Democrats also seem to have immunity from popular press criticism, until lately.

Cap-and-Trade Revealed

It is becoming clear why the Capitol Hill Mob did not want the global warming bill read or debated. It is a framework for complete control. The various pay-offs that they call credits or off-sets will buy whatever independence is left in the large corporations. As the climate "heats up" the legislation will be in place to tighten up the screws. Just as the propaganda machine was turned against the bond-holders of Chrysler and as GM had to do the bidding of the Party after it took their cash, the corporations will be under the power of the Central Committee once they start to play the cap-and-trade game.

To see how the bill can do this, read the comments on this web site: http://robbymoeller.blogspot.com/2009/07/50-ways-to-leave-your-freedoms.html , which links to the article, "50 ways to loose your freedom," which lists and explains 50 key provisions of the bill. These two sites do not even go into the fact that Global Warming is not a proven theory or even a plausible theory to begin with. They do explain why, even if there was man-made CO2 global warming on the way, this bill would not solve it. The bill is the power and money grab framework. Once adopted, the demagogues with the help of the press, a pliant congress, an intimidated court, community development organizations (i.e. ACORN), and now the corporate leaders could have their way with us. Why do you think this blog is named what it is?

Don't Waste that Crisis

“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste, You never want a serious crisis to go to waste; and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
-- Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, former Representative, Democrat of Illinois. [I have seen this quote worded slightly differently; a video must be out there to check.]

As the Mortgage Blowout developed, I was thinking along the lines of Comrade Emanuel. I thought that at last, this crisis would cause the nation to see the light: we can not keep interfering with the economy without concern for the long term results. Surely the nation would wake up and start to back away from the incessant overburdening of business with mandates and regulation. Furthermore, I though that the gravity of the situation would be an immediate spur to the American spirit. I thought we would knuckle down, get to work, and stop begging for handouts. Prices of everything, including our houses and labor, would adjust downward to a rational level. The crisis would soon end and we would be on a normal, sustainable path to strength and growth. I must admit that I was naive enough to be shocked when it didn't come down that way.

The press, the Emanuels, and the Noam Chomskites of this world quickly twisted the truth and blamed business, CEO's, and the "free market." Their deception lead in great part to the election of BHO. We went down the path of more government spending for handouts and more power at the top. A sad day for freedom, truth, and prosperity.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Rude Awkening

I was awakened this morning to the voice of Robert Redford on my clock radio tuned to National Public Radio (NPR). That's the only radio that I generally have tuned to that station. It helps me get up in a hurry, in order to turn it off. Mr. Redford was saying that obviously we cannot trust a corporation to tell the truth about not polluting, and incidentally about not breaking the law. This seemed a self-evident truth to the speaker and the interviewer, Mr. Bob Edwards.

Mr. Redford made remarks regarding the arts, public broadcast, oil companies in Alaska, etc. Of course he did not understand why our government did not support the arts as other nations do. Instead, some people even try to cut off funds to public arts and broadcasting. He also described the environmental destruction that would occur with oil drilling in Alaska. Mr. Edwards took a compliant stance. He did not questioning anything that was said, regarding veracity, sources, or opposing views. He didn't opine that we needed to get oil somewhere. Whatever this peculiar type of interview was, it was not investigative journalism. It is characteristic to public radio.

Most radio talk show hosts (Rush Limbaugh for example) refer to Mr. Redford and NPR, among others, as the Media/Hollywood Elite useful idiots. They are described as unbelievable naive, complete morons, hopelessly biased and indoctrinated, and illiterate regarding anything of substance. I cannot recall Mr. Limbaugh's more colorful phrases. I do know what I often hear from Hollywood stars and on NPR. I have also read about energy needs and Alaskan drilling. In the final analysis, if I had to choose between Redford's generalizations about corporations or Limbaugh's about Hollywood and NPR, I would pick Limbaugh's as the more supported by evidence.

The Czars v. Commissars

The czar was the autocrat of Russia. He was the highest leader in the land who answered to no one. Therefore, the current usage of the word czar for the political functionaries of the BHO administration, is a misnomer. There is precedent for the figurative use of the term for certain ad hoc administrators. I remember hearing of a baseball czar before there was the drug czar, who was the precursor of our current spat of czars. Now I understand we have 30 or so in charge of different functions of the government.

I propose the use of the more accurately descriptive term, Commissar. The Bolsheviks apparently started using the Russian equivalent of this term that was then used by the USSR. A Commissar was an operative of the Party given responsibility for and oversight of a certain aspect of the government. That sound like a much closer description of the duties of our various czars.

In the communist USSR, the government exercised control over virtually all of society, so the Commissars power must have been vast. Of course, in theory, he answered to the Party through some committee or other. I would imagine, more often that not, a bullet trumped any parliamentary debate regarding his performance in office.

Our Senate has no advise and consent function regarding the current Czars. The Czars are purely organs of the Democrat Party and do its bidding. They apparently answer only to the "central committee" of BHO, comrade Axilrod, comrade Immanuel, and a few unnamed others. They really should be called what they are, the peoples Commissars.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Some Quotations Re: Government Control v. Capitalism


"Yes we can." -- Barack Obama

"...as early as 1854
Gossen knew 'that only through private property is the measure found for determining the quantities of each commodity which it would be best to produce under given conditions. Therefore, the central authority, proposed by the communists, for the distribution of the various tasks and their rewards, would very soon find that it had taken on a job the solution of which far surpasses the abilities of individual men.' (Gossen, Entwicklung der Gesetze des menschlichen Verkehrs, new Edition, Berlin 1889, p. 231)." -- Ludwig von Mises, Socialism, 2009 Auburn, Alabama; foot note p. 135. /First published in Austria in 1922./

"The problem of economic calculation is the fundamental problem of Socialism." Ludwig von Mises, ibid, p. 135.

"Yes we can't." -- Alfred E Newman

"The literateur and the bureaucrat, both alien to an atmosphere of business activity, are filled with envy and rage when they think of fortunate speculators and successful entrepreneurs." -- Ludwig von Mises, ibid, p. 205

"Greed and profits are the problem; Capitalism is a failed system..." -- Almost everyone lately (also Karl Marx)

"Therefore State Socialism and planned economies, which want to maintain private property in name and law, but in fact, because they subordinate the power of disposing to State orders, want to socialize property, are socialist in the full sense." Ludwig von Mises, ibid, p. 276

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." -- William F. Buckley, Jr.

"What are you talken about, Joe?" -- Vice President Joe Biden (and many others). (God love him, he's almost a regular Joe.)

Like It or Not, Our Healthcare System is the Result of Market Forces

Producers are guided in their plans by the price of goods and services. They provide that which has, or which they predict will have, a good price. Since taxes and government programs have favored HMO's over the last few decades, producers respond to what the HMO's are willing to pay. As the health care consumer has had more to spend through their HMO's, a lot of expensive procedures were the natural outcome. That is good if it is what people want. In actuality, it has been what the government told us we wanted. Medical insurance has been highly regulated at the state and federal levels. Various terms and coverages have been mandated. Policies that do not meet certain minimums of coverage are forbidden. Expensive diagnostic imaging and other tests have become the standard. Elective surgeries with marginal benefits, such as some orthopedic procedures, have become more common. Of course, in this country, the standard applies to everyone, including welfare and medicare cases. For better or worse, without making a value judgment, it is easy to see how higher medical costs have resulted. Government involvement seems to be giving us more medicine than we want to the point we can hardly afford it. (Now the BHO/Congress plan is to require even more extensive coverage for everyone, which we are told will somehow cost less.)

A beneficial result of our current system is that innovations proliferate and competition brings prices down. Even in our over regulated and distorted medical market this is happening to a surprising degree. The government is trying to tell us how technical breakthroughs will dramatically improve alternative energy technology. This seems like a much better possibility for the near future in the area of medicine than energy. Our task should be to allow the market more freedom to work its wonders. This should involve tinkering with the system we have, not radically remaking it.

A Few Quotations

"... the worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended." -- Frederic Bastiat

"This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth." Frederic Bastiat /How well said, how true today./

"Do what you will, gentlemen; you cannot give money to some without taking it away from others. If you absolutely insist on draining the taxpayer dry, well and good; but at lest do not treat him like a fool. Do not tell him: 'I am taking this money from you to repay you for what I have already taken from you." -- Frederic Bastiat /BHO take heed/

one more:

"...competition in modern society is far from playing its natural role. Our laws inhibit it at least as much as they encourage it; and to answer the question whether inequality is due to the presence or the absence of competition, we need only observe who the men are who occupy the lime light and dazzle us with their scandalous fortunes, to assure ourselves that inequality, in so far as it is artificial and unjust, is based on conquest, monopolies, restrictions, privileged positions, high government posts and influence, administrative deals, loans from the public funds -- with all of which competition has no connection." -- Frederic Bastiat

Friday, July 17, 2009

A Man Alone: Frederic Bastiat

Radio host, Glen Beck, mussed that current events in these United States most resemble the final years of the Roman Empire. (Glen Beck is over dramatic if anything.) Although he may have a point in some respects, I do not think the downfall was precipitated by a radical departure from the status quo. I always thought that Rome's problems, although similar to ours, came on as a gradual decay. I do not know if there was a dramatic political change that greatly accelerated the trend, as is now occurring here.

I believe that a better comparison is to France prior to and during the 1848 Revolutions. Government Corruption, natural disasters, and economic downturn precipitated radical change. As changes occurred more and more rapidly, the corruption and economy worsened. I am in the process of reading a book on Frederic Bastiat, a member of the Chamber of Deputies, who was active as a political figure during those times. He was on a finance committee. While France was in the midst of more financial crises, Bastiat stood firmly against all of the socialist programs that had been adopted earlier and were being daily augmented. As I am just now reading the book, I will clarify and up-date this.

I had known about M. Bastiat from his writing and especially his aphorisms regarding politics and economics. I will put some in my next post. The book is, "Frederic Bastiat A Man Alone." It was written in 1971 by George Charles Roche III, published by Arlington House in their Architects of Freedom series.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Slight Correction

Credit to Michael Medved, on Seattle KVI for reporting a few of the provisions of the Health so-called Care bill. Since the employer will be taxed for not providing health insurance (at 8% I guess), then my plan to cancel coverage until I get sick would not be quite as good an idea as it seemed, except for unemployed people. However if the cost of insurance goes up as much as it will have to under this bill, it will soon be far more that 8% of my salary. Incidentally, congress is still stupid to vote for the bill for many, many other reasons. For one, it would encourage non-monetary and delayed compensation to employees (to reduce this salary tax) and is just another example of why you cannot get around the laws of economics. Those laws are based upon human behavior, which seeks to satisfy the individuals most pressing need. As the Taoist masters say, it flows like water around any obstacles. Government imposed obstacles seldom route the flow where they had indented. Only a free unencumbered market will satisfy the most urgent needs of individuals in an efficient manner. (See the "Invisible Hand")

Health Care Law - Another Crisis, Immediate Action Needed

Regarding health care and pending legislation, there is so much to say and so little time. The current Democrat proposed legislation is over 1,000 pages and references other legislation by page and line number so it is not easy to read. I estimate it would take a person working 10 hours a day about a month to understand the basics of the bill.

Two provisions seem to be included that require insurers to take all applicants and to cover existing conditions. Therefore, I plan to ask my employer to cancel my coverage. I will apply if I get sick. I have a $2,000 deductible anyway and my ulcer medication is now available over the counter. I also go the the local Chinese herbal practitioner. (Mao was laughted at for "The Barefoot Doctor." It sounds like a good idea now.) This would save my $200 a month premium. With the onerous mandates to private insurers included in the bill, my premium would probable double or more. What I am curious about is: Could our elected representatives really be so stupid?

Speaking of stupidity, our usually far left local news paper, The Seattle Times, today asks the same question about the Democrat Party for proposing the current foreign trade bill. The bill would amount to high tariffs based upon various politically incorrect behavior of trading partners. Maybe the liberals are coming around. It took them eight years to wake up with FDR. The current administration is moving much faster that FDR. I hope the stupidity will be stopped. One fear I have is that BHO has promised the Democrats cushy jobs if they are not reelected because they supported him. He has plenty of money for pay-offs: The Stimulus fund, it's golden.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Judge Sotamyer Love Fest in Senate

I had hoped that the confirmation hearing of Judge Sotamyer for the United States Supreme Court would address some interesting and important constitutional issues. Unfortunately, if radio talk show host Bill Cunningham is correct, the senate confirmation of Judge Sotamyer is fairly certain to go through smoothly. He says that this is because she is Hispanic, a woman, and a liberal. Her questioning, especially by the Democrats, will be more of a love fest and her confirmation is virtually a fait accompli.
Apparently, he believes that the intimidation campaign by the press and the Democrats will effectively silence the Republicans. The theory, according to some Democrats who offer helpful advice to the Senate Judicial Committee Republicans, is that by opposing the confirmation of a Porto Rican, they will incur the wrath of voters of Spanish descent. In my opinion, the only way that national origin should enter into the debate is via the issue raised by the recently reversed "Fireman's case" ruling of Judge Sotamyer. In her decision she ignored the claims of unlawful discrimination in promoting firemen due to favoritism of African Americans over those of non-African descent.
Actually, the racial thing is all a smoke screen anyway to get an extremely liberal appointment. A radicalized Supreme Court could help with the socialization of the United States in areas that are too extreme for even congressional Democrats. Since the Democrat majority in the Senate could get whomever they want anyway at this point, I conclude it is their own electoral chances they are concerned about. Some Democrats know that their constituency is not as radical as this nominee. They want as little as possible about what she believes and her past writings and associations to see the light of day.
The talking point of the liberals will be: she is a liberal who will replace a liberal so there will be no change in the balance. Of course that is not the way to look at a life-time appointment. Eventually we will need a court that can help can bring government back to sanity.

I would like her views to see the light of day. Especially, I would like to know about her views of the Commerce Clause and what she feels is the legitimate role of government in economic matters. I would question her as to her response to those who believe that the New Deal Legislation overreached the federal authority. She could be questioned about several specific laws that are still in force, Bacon Davis for example. I would also ask her views regarding constitutional challenges to specific recent economic proposals and executive orders, Cap-and-Trade for example.
I would vote against her because of her socialist leanings. Why not? The Democrats raked Alito and Roberts over the coals because of their conservative leanings. Furthermore, under President Bush, conservative nominees to the Federal Courts of Appeals were not acceptable to the Democrats in the senate. They were able to block by Senate filibuster rules attempts to appoint conservatives. [I am a little unclear of the history of this or how it was done. For example, when the Democrats in the Senate blocked the nomination of Judge Michael Estrada, the Republicans wanted to change the filibuster rule. Democratic leader Tom Daschle, noting that the Senate had approved 124 of Bush's 126 judicial nominations that have reached the Senate floor, said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." www.committeeforjustice.org/innews/articles/old/news050903_ap.aspx
I think, because of 70 vacancies in the circuit court at the time, Republicans could not find any conservatives to nominate who would be acceptable to the Democrats; or maybe they were not turned down by the full senate because they could not get them out of committee.]
Incidentally, Mark Levin says that what was really happening with Judge Michael Estrada is that the Democrats were afraid that, because of his qualifications, he would eventually be nominated to the Supreme Court. They did not want the first Hispanic justice to be conservative.
My view is that there is no reason why Judge Sotamyer should not be borked. (Robert Bork was conservative and favored constitutional originalism and economic laissez faire. Therefore, he didn’t stand a chance when he was nominated by Reagan. He was attacked unfairly and dishonestly, especially by then Senator Biden.) “(Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. She said, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?" Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation fights in Supreme Court history.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork Of course, opposition to Judge Sotamayor should not sink to the level of Joe Biden. The plain facts about her should be fully and transparently exposed before she is granted a life-time appointment. That would also mean not rushing this through.
In any case, the Democrat racial intimidation is the same chicken shit they used to prevent regulation of Fannie May and Freddie Mac when President Bush and Senator McCain called for it to avoid the mortgage problems that we all know about. If Republicans fall for it again, that’s even more chicken shit .

Thursday, July 9, 2009

The Drive-Bys Always Move On

Rush Limbaugh calls the large television and print news outlets the Drive-By Media. By this, he is describing one of their methods of influencing opinion and even of creating our world view regardless of the facts. Reporters in these major outlets address a story or issue by tossing out a factoid (something resembling a fact, the truth of which is irrelevant), then moving on to the next story. They do not back up what they say. They don't want the "facts to get into the way." If they are questioned, they change the subject by throwing out another factoid. By diverting our attention, they avoid having to prove what they say or address contrary facts. To reinforce the opinions they want to implant in the public, they repeat the same or similar factoids later then move on again. Everyone is susceptible to this not so subtle mind control, so it is best to avoid the drive-bys altogether. If you are under their spell long enough, you will eventually "drink the Cool-Aid."

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Free Market Arguments - Matter of Definition

IN order to have meaningful discussion, definitions of terms must be agreed upon. "Free Market" is used primarily in two different ways.
Definition#1: The free market is a mode of exchanging goods and services without the intervention of government.
Example #1: Johnny trades his peanut butter and jelly sandwich for Sally's Coca-Cola.
Definition #2: The free market is a mode of exchanging goods and services in which all parties take part freely using all known market data, including any government intervention data.
Example #2: Their school bans Coca-Cola because it contains too much sugar. Because Sally is the only one reckless enough to defy the school rules, she has the only Coca-Cola. Therefore the price of her Coke is bid up and Johnny must offer two peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for the Coke.
Thus, some would argue that in #2, since Johnny was free to keep his sandwiches if he wanted, the market was free. Economists use definition #1 only: A Free Market is exchange without government intervention. Under definition #1, it is clear that trading carbon credits under cap-and trade laws is not a "free market" transaction. In fact, the credits have no economic value without the government. Of course industry will play the game only because they have no choice, except prosecution, fines, and prison. To call that free is REALLY chicken shit.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

The Constitution Saves the Republic

Not here but in Honduras. The presidentof Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, attempted to get around the constitutionally imposed term limit by staging a phony unconstitutional election to get himself made dictator for life. It didn't work. Hard experience had taught the far-sighted people of Honduras that crafty would-be dictators would try this sort of thing so it was specifically outlawed in their constitution. The high court judges said the president was breaking the law. The members of their legislature agreed. Therefore, the president of the legislature, the next in line under the constitution, became the new president. Although preventing a Latin American dictatorship seems to most observers to be a great achievement for rule of law, there were some dissenters. The governments of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and the United States objected to the outster of the want-to-be dictator.

In a similar vein, elections in Panama and Argentina recently resulted in defeats for communists and other progressives. The winners in those elections favor democratic and free scocieties and economies.

Rush Readies the Masses for Dependence Day

In keeping with my policy of: All the News that is Appropriate to Print, I report:
On his radio program today (July 3, 2009) Rush Limbaugh reported that tomorrow may be the last Independence Day in these United States and the Banana Republic for which it stands. (Some national print newsperson wrote that The Stars Spangle Banner no longer expresses the real American spirit and should be replaced.) In that spirit, Rush purposed “Day-O” The Banana Boat Song as a replacement. This would be just great since Harry Belafonte, who popularized the song, pals around with Hugo Chavez, the fascist dictator of Nicaragua. Rush then played the song for Dependence Day. This seemed very appropriate to me.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Letter to New York Times

They are not accepting further emails regarding the Monday editorial in which Paul Krugman states that global warming deniers are traitors to the planet. I tried to send this:

Believe it or not there is a larger issue here that the global warming debate. The issue is whether we will have a free press. Mr. Krugman called for scientific debate on global warming. Unfortunately, he thought that the debate should have taken place last Friday in the House of Representatives in the few hours before the bill was rammed through. He has had a column in the NY Times for years yet I do not believe he has ever called for debate in that forum. I suggest a series of dueling full pages: an explanation of the CO2 manmade global warming connection and scientific arguments against it. Mr. Krugman might discover that the theory of Al Gore has been thoroughly refuted. But then, the theory of Karl Marx has also been thoroughly refuted and Mr. Krugman has not heard that either.