Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement.
Nothing can be done without hope and confidence.
Helen Keller
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
 |
| Via Statism is Slavery on FB |
Sunday Talk Soup: The Crush is Over
From MTP:
[TAPE: HILLARY CLINTON:
Now, recently in Washington, unfortunately, we have seen examples of the wrong kind of leadership. When politicians choose scorched earth over common ground.]...
MARIA BARTIROMO:I used to watch CNBC a few years back and like millions of other viewers had a bit of a crush on her, but as the Stones sing, "It's all over now." (not that she minds having one less creepy viewer...) I've never quite gotten the love-hate thing; it guess it works for James Carville and Mary Matalin, but for me, a woman with a toxic personality doesn't interest me; she could be cute, smart or sexy, but it doesn't matter.
Look, I think she's definitely running. I think business likes Hillary a lot. I think they know Bill's record, and they know that he balanced, you know, four budgets and produced the ability to bring two sides together, as well as welfare reform. I think it's definitely something to come.
I do not have Clinton derangement syndrome, either Bill or Hillary, but I don't like either of them as people, and I despise both their federal record and their toxic "progressive" beliefs. I firmly believe that this country would have been better off if they had stayed put in Arkansas. There is no doubt that Bill has charm and charisma, admirable traits for a professional politician, but he's all hat and no cattle. (I'm not even going to go into the Lewinsky scandal. Everybody knew that he slept around before he ever got elected President--remember Hillary's disingenuous Tammy Wynette shot? There were a couple of things that bothered me--(1) Clinton's violation of sexual harassment policy (it doesn't matter whether Lewinsky was a willing participant--it had to do with favorable treatment or access for non-job related reasons) and (2) she had not been granted security clearance for her access. She could have also used the infamous blue dress to extort the President of the United States! He also deceived a sitting judge with misleading testimony; there's no excuse for that. If he had instead visited a Nevada brothel, I would not have approved of his personal ethics, but it would not have been an impeachable offense.
First, let's deal with Clinton's little shot here, which could be interpreted as a shot at Obama's inept handling of the shutdown kerfuffle. Since the Senate and White House are controlled by Dems, it's hard to see how this can be aimed at the House GOP. It's very clear that the Dems refused to negotiate, despite the fact they knew they needed a House vote--they didn't even give Boehner a face-saving concession, figuring that adverse public opinion would result in GOP capitulation, not unlike the Bush tax capitulation last December. Hillary Clinton had to know that John Boehner and the House GOP will not soon forget this--and it was, make no mistake, a scorched earth policy. Totally unnecessary; it did not help Obama one bit with another cherished policy goal--immigration reform. Whatever limited diplomatic experience Hillary Clinton has, she has to know that Obama played it penny-wise, pound-foolish; international agreements require flexibility and a quid pro quo.
But seriously, Hillary Clinton lecturing anybody on leadership? To this day, she has not been forthcoming on the Benghazi scandal--and if she does run in 2016, it will come back to bite her. The shifting of blame to subordinates, 101 excuses about how busy her schedule is (I have no quarrel with Clinton's work ethic, but even I know that Benghazi was not stable, that the British had withdrawn their ambassador; Libya was a major focus over the prior year-plus; there is no way any competent Secretary of State would not have known what was going on, ensuring if the decision was to stay there, at least ensuring security was buffed up, even if you had to transfer personnel from more stable locations. I don't see any proactive leadership in any of this.
And then there was the outright fabrication of the Youtube video to "explain" the motivation for the terrorist attack, even though the British had been attacked long before there was a video and several intelligent reports of Al Qaeda elements in the area. Hillary Clinton also has to share responsibility for misleading the American people along with Susan Rice and Barack Obama.
I think in part I'm also ranting about Pelosi's ludicrous promotion of Hillary's potential candidacy on another Sunday talk show. But anyone who thinks that convoluted foreign policy during Obama's first term had much to show off Clinton's diplomacy and handling of international crises. It's true that Obama was the decider, and Clinton can't really disclose what, if any differences she had with him, but clearly if they had any significant differences, she did not resign over them. I would submit that Obama's foreign policy has few accomplishments of substance, and she had the opportunity to make something happen.
But Maria irritates me by reciting the same old same old partisan political spin of Clinton's alleged accomplishments. The idea that Clinton deserved any credit for balancing the budget is not credible from the outset. Clinton inherited an economy already in recovery, he got a peace dividend of defense cuts after the end of the Cold War; he experienced the windfall of a Fed-juiced up economy and an Internet revolution which did not come about through his own policies but which laid down roots during prior years. The prior shutdown was not over Clinton's wanting to spend less and the GOP wanting to spend more. In fact, the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress, Clinton did not veto spending bills over being too high, and Clinton wanted to spend more money, and the Congress wouldn't let him. In fact, before the GOP captured the House in 1994, deficits had been projected over the balanced budget years. Not to mention the GOP was largely responsible for HillaryCare's defeat; HillaryCare would have exacerbated budget issues.
So, STOP, Maria. Hillary's record is much more "progressive" than Bill's, and Obama already tapped into Clinton's stable of Keynesian economists, Summers, Romer, etc. So the idea that Hillary's going to bring back the boom of the 1990's is pure fantasy. For all practical purposes, Obama and she have virtually the same positions on all policy matters. I have no doubt crony business leaders did/do like the Clinton's, but the idea others like policy uncertainty, noncompetitive business taxes, a $1.8T regulatory burden, etc., is simply out of touch with reality.
As for my crush on Maria, B.W. Stevenson said it best:
Choose Life
The Myth of the Robber Barons
Facebook Corner
Picking up on a thread that closed yesterday's post for one follow-up exchange, I was asked to explain:
This is an anarchist critique ridiculing minarchists, arguing limited government is a slippery slope..
So I wrote:
Most minarchists (I include myself) argue for limited government (principally justice and common defense). Government is monopoly. Why socialist? My guess is they (probably left-libertarian) really mean 'intrinsically crony' they are anti big everything, including corporations. Note the fact they aren't saying 'libertarian';they are qualifying the term. So this probably reflects a difference between left- and right (limited government) libertarianism. Obviously I disagree.
Resulting in this exchange with obviously a left-libertarian:
The, 'government sucks so we should only put it in charge of the most important things" argument.
No. I and other right-libertarians like Ron Paul certainly do not favor an unrestricted common defense (including foreign entanglements) or the judiciary that surrendered economic liberty in Carolene Products or gave indefensible decisions in Filburn, Kelo, ObamaCare, etc. I like to compare what's happened to the US to what's happened in Roman Catholicism (my faith). Jesus expressed frustration with legalistic, hair-splitting Pharisees and specifically disavowed a political aspect to His mission. So what we ended up with was a convoluted canon law and Jesuit casuistry, the Holy Roman Emperor, crusades, and European religious wars .
Just to expand on that comparison, I have been critical of the Church in several respects (for example, I think they have been too accommodative of a morally corrupt culture). Take, for instance, the marriage of Ted and Joan Kennedy with 3 children, only one still in his teens at the end; yet the Church issued an annulment (which in theory should not be awarded once a marriage has been consummated). Jesus, of course, taught the indissolubility of marriage, except for adultery (Matthew 19:7-9). I have not studied this annulment (canon law has a list of exceptions), but one source I've seen read suggests that Kennedy told Joan that he had never intended to abide by his vow of fidelity in the marriage. (I'm nor suggesting that a woman should be sentenced to life with an abusive husband, whose true character, or lack thereof, was hidden during courtship. As a lifelong bachelor (not by conviction), I would not judge people for ending a relationship--but I would rather see the Church award an honest divorce (perhaps with speed bumps in the process if a spouse's safety is not at risk), than pretend a 20-odd year marriage never really existed..
 |
| Via Statism is Slavery on FB |
(Via Bastiat Institute) The black market is not going to be the path to liberty, and libertarian theoreticians and activists have no function in that market." Was [Murray Rothbard] right?
Who arbitrates when you contract in the black market?
 |
| Via LFC |
 |
| Via Statism is Slavery |
 |
| Via Bastiat Institute |
I don't know where to start here with specific criticisms. First, the idea that monopolies are the inevitable result of the free market is just false. Take a small successful bed-and-breakfast or restaurant. The owners may not want the risk or quality of life changes of expanding their enterprise. A "big box" store like WalMart may require vendors which can scale up or a certain consumer base to make expansion feasible. If WalMart can sell everyday items at lower prices, the consumer has the right to make that choice. What I don't understand how people in this thread can think otherwise, having seen AOL, Nokia, Blackberry, and Microsoft lose market power over the last few years--without gobbling up their competitors or engaging in predatory practices...
Political Humor
Here’s my favorite part: The president said yesterday that if it’s taking too long you can bypass the website and enroll by mail. Only the federal government could come up with a website that’s slower than sending something by mail. - Jay Leno
[The mail-in version comes with preattached red tape for your convenience and a warning to fill in all your answers completely and legibly so an operator can enter your data into the same system...]
A woman in California gave birth to a baby boy last Friday while she was in a Barnes & Noble bookstore. They made her do it on the “New Arrivals” table. - Jimmy Fallon
[She did it by the book.]
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Glenn Foden and Townhall |
Just an explanation, I recently covered multiple Motown group acts during my favorite groups theme, so in this retrospective I chose to cover mostly artists/songs I didn't feature recently, although I may have featured a few duplicate hits (e.g., the Supremes), hopefully with alternative videos/performances. This was an abridged listing of favorites, but of course Motown arts charted many more hits than I chose.
This Smokey performance marks the last performance in the series. I indicated several weeks back I might next launch series of solo artists, but at this point, the next theme will focus on hit songs (mostly hits from the 1960's-2010) that I load into my Ipod Shuffle, particularly for listening during exercise sessions. Obviously, there are selections included from prior themes, like groups and Motowns, but I also include performances from solo acts or groups with only a few hit songs which I like. For newer readers, I often start a holiday music theme between mid-November through the beginning of the new year. So I'll probably suspend my Shuffle theme in 3 weeks or so, to kick off the next holiday sequence.
Smokey Robinson, "Cruisin'"
