If you want to know why Hillary Rodham Clinton will be our next president (and an unmitigated disaster), look no further than the above ad:

Here are the gifts that she promises us:

* Universal Health Care

* Alternative Energy

* Middle Class Tax Breaks

* Bring Troops home
* Universal Pre-K

Of the above 'gifts' the only one that makes sense (as a laudable goal) is "Bring Troops Home", Who could possibly not want our troops to return home? But knowing that Hillary's ideas are based on defeatism, I can't get behind her on that either!

Alternative Energy - sure, who could be against such a thing? It would be like being against Mom and Apple Pie. But, does Govt's role involve higher taxes that are levied on us to fund lofty (but essentially uneconomical) projects? Is Nuclear Energy considered an example of Alternative Energy? Is drilling in ANWR an alternative? Or, would those alternatives alienate the enviro-wing of the Democrats?

Regarding the new entitlements that she lovingly wraps as Christmas gifts for us, all I can say is that once again, we Americans are being bribed with our own money. The criminal aspect of it all is that it will actually convince 45% of our electorate to vote in favor of any entitlement-increasing candidate.

As a result, we can expect more entitlements in our future. And, these entitlements will come from both political parties (observe the Bush Prescription Drug Plan which is responsible for nearly 25% of the projected Medicare deficit).

Elections have become a contest in which the candidate who promises to give away the most Govt largesse has the best chance of winning. The fact that we let them get away with it when there are failed entitlements all around us (e.g. almost any Public School) - is nothing short of criminal.

After November 2008, we Americans can no longer claim to live in a Capitalist country. There are those on the Left for whom that would be a cause for celebration. But our grandchildren will pay dearly for it - hey, maybe there is another 'greatest' generation in our future.

In an article titled "In a Funk, Italy Sings an Aria of Disappointment " that was recently published in the NYTimes, Ian Fisher writes "The word here is “malessere,” or “malaise”; it implies a collective funk — economic, political and social — summed up in a recent poll: Italians, despite their claim to have mastered the art of living, say they are the least happy people in Western Europe.

“It’s a country that has lost a little of its will for the future,” said Walter Veltroni, the mayor of Rome and a possible future center-left prime minister

Other excerpts from the NYTimes article:
* Internet use and commerce here are among the lowest in Europe, as are wages, foreign investment and growth.
* Pensions, public debt and the cost of government are among the highest.
* Bureaucracy and unclear rules kept United States investment in Italy in 2004 to $16.9 billion. The figure for Spain was $49.3 billion. 
* Only 36 percent of Italians trust their government
* Statistics now show that 11 percent of Italian families live under the poverty line, and that 15 percent have trouble spreading their salary over the month.
* Italy has one of Europe’s lowest birth rates, the fewest children under 15 and the greatest number of people over 85, apart from Sweden.
* Unemployment is low, at 6 percent. But 21 percent of the population between 15 and 24 did not work in 2006.

The article also paints an interesting picture in the following:

But the government has fallen once and threatens to fall again at every difficult vote. Small proposals bring protesters to the streets, one hurdle to making changes as protected interests seek to preserve themselves. Pharmacists shut their doors this year when the government threatened to allow supermarkets to sell aspirin. The cost for just 20 aspirin tablets at a pharmacy is $5.75.

The measure passed, but the government is largely paralyzed. Voters are fed up, and Mr. Prodi’s foes know it.

“I understand the bad humor, the malaise,” said Gianfranco Fini, leader of National Alliance, the second-largest opposition party. “People are starting to get strongly angry because you have a government that doesn’t do anything.”

Hmm .. could it be that the Italian Government does too much, and actually erodes the economic freedom of its citizens?

Unfortunately, the NYTimes writers do not delve into the root cause behind this malaise. Either due to ignorance or philosophical bias, the writers seem to miss the correlation between affluence and economic freedom. Or, did they chose their interview subjects in a way to deliberately obscure the lack of economic freedom in Italy?

The 2007 Index of Economic Freedom  that is publshed by Heritage.org measures and ranks 161 countries across 10 specific freedoms, things like tax rates and property rights. Italy is ranked 60th, neatly sandwiched between Uganda (59th) and Nicaragua (61st). Other countries of note that rank higher than Italy are: Spain - 27th, France - 45th, Mexico - 49th, Jordan - 53rd.

Incidentally, Heritage.org has an excellent book that is available as a free download from this link. In it, you will find excerpts such as the following from chapter2:

For several weeks during the autumn of 2005, riots raged in the streets of Paris. Every night, hundreds of cars were burned, shops were vandalized, and violence ruled. French President Jacques Chirac concluded that his nation was suffering from a profound "malaise," a word that indeed captures the reality of economic and social problems in many European countries. After centuries of economic leadership, Europe must now face the truth that its governing institutions—especially its labor markets—are deeply flawed. Those who finally took to the streets, native and immigrant citizens alike, were severely affected by unemployment.
:    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :     :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :     
Imagine that your neighbor, having broken a leg, wants your son's help to mow his lawn. He is prepared to pay 20 euros, and your son is willing to do the work for as little as 15 euros. But imagine the state demanding a 50 percent tax. The deal (and work) are taxed out of existence. Or suppose the government demands that the service be performed by a public monopoly, which perhaps charges above 20 euros. Again, your son is without work. Or a labor market regulation demands a minimum wage of 50 euros, and the neighbor is not willing to pay that much. Again, nothing happens. Or a trade union is allowed to deny your son access to your neighbor's lawn because he is not a member of their organization. The result: no job.

My question to the NYTimes writers is: if an armchair blogger can find such information in a few minutes, how could you possibly not explore the cause-and-effect that is clearly responsible for the malaise in Italy? Perhaps they were too busy enjoying Italian culture .. on the NYTimes expense account.

In his famous speech on January 25, 1974, Ronald Reagan said "Standing on the tiny deck of the Arabella in 1630 off the Massachusetts coast, John Winthrop said, “We will be as a city upon a hill..."

Well, in 2007 there is a different kind of "city upon a hill" that is taking shape. Could Venezuela's Hugo Chavez be taking a page out of Ronald Reagan's book?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venezuela's Chavez Attempts New City
An NPR story by Juan Ferero

Morning Edition, November 12, 2007 · Awash in oil profits, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is attempting to build a city from scratch. The plan is to erect a municipality in a national park just outside Caracas and away from the pollution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are so many things wrong with this picture, one doesn't know where to begin!

* Chavez's "new Socialism" depends upon Capitalism - without the world-wide demand for oil that comes from Capitalist endeavor, there would be no engine to drive his programs. Even if his new cities are successful (which is extremely doubtful), they would owe their existence to Capitalism.

* The new cities will contain all the bare necessities in the form of supermarkets, pharmacies, shopping malls, parking lots etc. An estimated 100,000 people will be relocated from the poorer sections of Caracas to live in this new paradise.

* The new city, called Caribbean, is carved out of a mountaintop near Caracas. I wonder what Chavez's enviro-crazy friends think about that!

* The new cities would require the expropriation of land from several people who happen to live in that area. Oh well, that's never been a problem in a socialist country ..

* As usual, central planners forget how how their grandiose plans will be sustained. It might be worth asking a few questions:

        - What miracle will make merchandise appear in those shopping malls?
        - How will the poor citizens of this new paradise be able to afford all this?

* My prediction is that 
        (1) this city (and many like it) will be built 
        (2) poor people will be relocated to these cities with much fanfare
        (3) in 3-5 years, these cities will become un-inhabitable slums
        (4) a few cities will be kept functional - every socialist regime needs its Potemkin villages.

Oil Discovery Rocks Brazil

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) -- A huge offshore oil discovery could raise Brazil's petroleum reserves by a whopping 40 percent and boost this country into the ranks of the world's major exporters, officials said.

The government-run oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA, or Petrobras, said the new "ultra-deep" Tupi field could hold as much as 8 billion barrels of recoverable light crude, sending Petrobras shares soaring and prompting predictions that Brazil could join the world's "top 10" oil producers.

Petrobras President Sergio Gabrielli said Thursday the oil from ultradeep areas, including the Tupi field, would give Brazil the world's eighth-largest oil and gas reserves. Petrobras' American depository shares jumped $24.03 to $116.77 on the New York Stock Exchange to close at a 52-week high. In Brazil, Petrobras shares ended 14.1 percent higher Thursday at 80.17 reals ($45.94) in Sao Paulo.

"If this is confirmed, we will no longer be a 'medium' country, pursuing self-sufficiency and exporting a little. It will transform the nation to another level, with exporting properties like Venezuela, Arab nations and others," said Dilma Rousseff, presidential chief of staff.

For a country that went deeply into debt buying foreign oil in the 1970s and '80s, "this has changed our reality," she said.

Felipe Cunha, an oil analyst with the Sao Paulo-based brokerage Brascan, said the Tupi field guarantees Brazil's oil output will continue to grow.

"If the best-case scenario happens, this discovery would make Petrobras' reserves overcome those of Shell and Chevron and put Petrobras behind only Exxon and British Petroleum," Cunha said.
--------------------------end of excerpts---------------read the article by clicking on this link ------------------------

VoR: this is great news!  I will personally celebrate by purchasing Brazilian wine this weekend and toasting their success.

Note: most Americans are not aware that Italian immigrants launched a wine growing industry in Brazil in the 1880's. The best Brazilian wines come from Rio Grande do Sul, the Brazilian state that is furthest south. If any readers of this blog are wine aficionados, I would suggest a Merlot from wineries such as Miolo or Casa Valduga. Saúde (to your health) as they say in Brazil.

Some additional points to ponder:

* Remember that Brazil has been touted by environmentalists as a role model, due to its Govt-mandated efforts to switch a significant percentage of Brazilian automobiles from gasoline to ethanol or flex (dual-use)?

* As a result of this discovery, the price of gas will eventually drop in Brazil. How will Brazilians feel about the Govt-mandated switch from gasoline to ethanol or dual use? Will they continue to be enthusiastic supporters of ethanol because of their deeply held feelings about Go-Ba-Wa-Ma as a religious cult? (that's global warming, to you un-enlightened, capitalist, gas guzzlers).

* It would be interesting to see how environmentalists react to the fact that their enviro-champion is soon to become a major exporter of oil. No doubt they will find that this drilling disturbs the mating rituals of the dwindling numbers of endangered undersea Brazilian caribou.

* For Americans, it means the addition of an additional source of oil that is not affiliated with the Middle East. This news should also have a positive effect on the price of oil, which has hovered near the $100/barrel mark in recent days.

* This news from Brazil also begs the question - WHY AREN'T WE DRILLING IN THE ANWR COASTAL PLAIN? Heck, the mere opening of debate on this subject in our Congress wil cause oil prices to drop!

* One hopes that Brazil will use its resources wisely and not go the way of Venezuela. However, the fact that Petrobras is Govt-run doesn't bode well for long-term prospects. It would be a lot more beneficial to the Brazilian economy if Petrobras were privatized.

* Since Brazil had become a net importer of corn (to produce ethanol), perhaps this will help reduce the demand for corn -- bringing corn prices back to normal. Hey, maybe our Mexican comrades can afford to eat Tortillas again!

Read "Of Tortillas .. and men"

Is Christianity The Problem? Hitchens vs. D'Souza

The above debate took place on October 22, 2007. It was hosted by The New York Society for Ethical Culture, and sponsored by several organizations including: The King’s College, The Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and tothesource.org.

The debate may be viewed via Youtube, thanks to 'aLifelessMagical'; each of the following segments is approximately 9:30 minutes long. The format of the debate is as follows: ten minutes for each speaker, followed by five minutes of rebuttal per speaker, then questions back-and-forth between the speakers. The debate concluded with questions from the audience, with the first three questions reserved for students of King’s College.

Part 1 of 10
Part 2 of 10
Part 3 of 10
Part 4 of 10
Part 5 of 10
Part 6 of 10
Part 7 of 10
Part 8 of 10
Part 9 of 10
Part 10 of 10

Selected excerpts, edited for clarity:

DD: Atheism has become a militant phenomenon. If you are an unbeliever, why be militant? I don't believe in unicorns, but I haven't written any books on the subject.

DD: Western values came into the world because of Christianity. Concepts such as freedom and democracy derive from the belief that all men are equal in the eyes of God.

DD: Scientists from Kepler to Newton were Christians. Some (e.g. Mendel) were priests and monks!

DD: Modern science is based on three Christian assumptions that are, at root, metaphysical.
1. That the universe as a whole is rational
2. That the universe obeys laws that are comprehensible in the language of mathematics.
3. That the laws of nature our understandable within our own minds (evidence of God).

DD: religion hasn’t killed nearly as many people as atheism. Even during the Spanish Inquisition, which lasted 300 years, only 2,000 people were killed. In comparison, 20th century atheist regimes (including Hitler, the Soviets, Pol Pot), resulted in over a 100 million casualties.

CH: Christianity is a loose plagiarism of Judaism.

CH: The three major monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) are based on faith that a man-made religion can be the key to salvation in this life and beyond. Although some 'social amelioration' can be attributed to the liberal stances taken by some adherents of Christianity, there is a higher standard of proof that is required before one can say that Christianity is the source of virtue.
 
CH: another assumption that is made by believers is that faith is itself a virtue, transcending reason and dispensing with the need for evidence

CH: human morality/ethics come from human solidarity that pre-dates all forms of monotheism. If not, are we to assume that our ancestors believed that perjury, murder and theft were OK, only to find out after the 'encounter in Sinai' that they weren't.

CH: Christianity is masochistic as well as partly sadistic. It assumes that we wouldn't know a right action or be able to have a right thought without the permission of a Celestial dictatorship that guards us while we sleep, that can convict us of thought crimes, that supervises our every waking moment and that is the origin of totalitarianism in the obeisance that it demands of us and continues to persecute and supervise us after death.

CH: How horrible would it be if we were forced to live in a posture of permanent gratitude to an unalterable 'benign' dictatorship in whose installation we had had no say

CH:  The story of Christianity is untrue, and made up by fallible and opportunistic human beings.
 
CH: The premise of Christianity is not only untrue, it is also immoral because:
* It offers 'vicarious redemption' - by applauding a particularly revolting human sacrifice that took place before you were born, it condemns you to punishment if you don't accept it. Or, if you accept it you are offered the chance that your own sins can be forgiven.

* It requires compulsory love and compulsory fear - simultaneously. If those conditions are met, it is not that you get a 2nd chance - or that your debts can be paid, but you receive an absolution of your sins. The desire to be washed free of sins (responsibilities) itself is immoral and should be rejected

CH: laws of nature can be suspended in your favor if you make the right propitiation. Einstein said that the laws of nature are not ever suspended. Christianity says that they CAN be suspended. A virgin can conceive, leprosy can be cured, the blind can see. It is immoral to lie to children.

CH's moral challenge to those in the audience who believe that morality comes from the supernatural: “Name a moral action or ethical statement made by a believer that could not also be done or held by an unbeliever.” However, if asked to 'name a wicked action or vile statement attributable ONLY to their religious faith' believers in the audience would find it very easy.

CH: the human species has existed for at least 100,000 years. Here is what you have to believe. Heaven watched that implacably for 98,000 years as humans lived and died in ignorance and then decided to intervene - in the form of a filthy human sacrifice in a remote part of the Palestine -  the news of which hasn't penetrated to the rest of the world and will not be believed when it does!

'Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything--except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the "welfare" of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only "to serve." . . . I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind--yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands?'

The above words were spoken by Dr. Thomas Hendricks, a fictional surgeon in Atlas Shrugged. This novel was was written by Ayn Rand 50 years ago, during an era in which the medical profession was free - at least relative to modern times.

These words are worth reading (or re-reading) in the current political context, in which Universal Health Care appears to be a foregone conclusion. What would happen to our society, if our brightest minds abandoned the medical profession due to the enslavement that results from the Govt takeover of this field?

Interestingly, the above words also apply to other professions - including those that have become traditionally associated with Governmental institutions, e.g. education.

A symptom of the academic rot on our college campuses may be found in the seemingly innocuous area of 'progressive volunteerism'. Enter the oxymoronic world of mandatory volunteerism.

Admissions committees at most of our colleges place a disproportionately heavy emphasis on an applicant's record of progressive volunteerism. On the surface, this doesn't seem like such a bad thing - after all, it does show that the applicant 'gave something back to the commmunity', and perhaps learned about compassion during their high school years. Who could be against that?

Unfortunately, what should've been an interesting footnote to a student's application has now become an almost mandatory requirement. High school students are advised to pick from a 'menu of community service' choices. We are now witnessing the specter of mandatory volunteerism.

Under the guise of seeking well-rounded students and promoting diversity on campus, admissions committees are making their process more subjective and political. For example, a politically biased committee member may turn down a student with JROTC qualifications in favor of a student with a demonstrated progressive background, often based on the applicant's record as a community volunteer.

At some high schools in my area, administrators boast of their students who do as many as 125 hrs of community service during their sophomore and senior years. This is done to 'prepare them for the college admissions process'. In some cases, even academically gifted students are advised to forgo an additional AP course in favor of volunteer work.

The reality is that students are shown a path to college that does not demand academic rigor. Many of the incoming freshmen are well-rounded, well-meaning & diverse - but they lack academic preparation, having wasted precious time on fluffing up their resumes with progressive volunteerism.

Ideology is no longer a significant part of the discussion, except among political junkies (and most of TH-types are political junkies).

In fact, the word 'ideologue' has become a pejorative - as in 'he is an ideologue, incapable of compromise'. So, the touchstone of a 'good' politician is his/her ability to compromise, not his/her ability to stand fast on principle.

BTW, most of those who post frequently at TH (including yours truly) would be considered ideologues by 'pragmatic' politicians. 

What we are seeing is the non-ideological branding of candidates, parties and issues.

Wiki definition: A brand includes a name, logo, slogan, and/or design scheme associated with a product or service. Brand recognition and other reactions are created by the use of the product or service and through the influence of advertising, design, and media commentary. A brand is a symbolic embodiment of all the information connected to the product and serves to create associations and expectations around it.

When branding of politicians is non-ideological, primaries become a search for an electable standard-bearer. The RNC and DNC machinery are well tuned to this fact, and both sides will field 'compromisers'. The angst that (R) ideologues feel about Rudy, is not that different from the angst of (D) ideologues about Hillary.

There are some conservatives that are aggressively seeking a return to conservative ideology. I support that effort (with a focus on laissez-faire economics and American self-interest) , but fear that it is doomed.

So why has "ideology" become a dirty word? Why do politicians get away with damning "ideologues" as the proverbial black sheep?

I think that it is because America has become personality/celebrity driven. Celebrity has taken the place of ideology. And not just in politics .. think of the following 'associations' that more-or-less supplant the underlying concept or entity.

* the anti-war (D) party - Hillary
* Microsoft - Bill Gates
* Global warming - Al Gore the Nobel
* Altruism - Mother Theresa
* 9/11 - Rudy

LOS ANGELES — As the director of high schools in the gang-infested neighborhoods of the East Side of Los Angeles, Guadalupe Paramo struggles every day with educational dysfunction.

For the past half-dozen years, not even one in five students at her district’s teeming high schools has been able to do grade-level math or English. At Abraham Lincoln High School this year, only 7 in 100 students could. At Woodrow Wilson High, only 4 in 100 could.

For chronically failing schools like these, the No Child Left Behind law, now up for renewal in Congress, prescribes drastic measures: firing teachers and principals, shutting schools and turning them over to a private firm, a charter operator or the state itself, or a major overhaul in governance.

But more than 1,000 of California’s 9,500 schools are branded chronic failures, and the numbers are growing. Barring revisions in the law, state officials predict that all 6,063 public schools serving poor students will be declared in need of restructuring by 2014, when the law requires universal proficiency in math and reading.

“What are we supposed to do?” Ms. Paramo asked. “Shut down every school?” 

                            --------------end of excerpt------------

Yes, that is exactly what we must do, Ms. Paramo. Shut 'em down!

Then, re-open them under new (Private) management and let the magic of competition and accountability work - as it does in every other field in which it exists!

The above NY Times article should be read in its entirety by anyone who is concerned about K-12 education in America. The numbers are staggering - in California alone, more than 1000 of 9500 schools are "chronic failures", and 6043 schools that serve poor students need restructuring by 2014 unless the law is changed.

Not surprisingly, the NYTimes article is a thinly disguised screed against George Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. If the schools are failing, it must be the law that is causing their failure. Note: I'm not a huge fan of the NCLB law - at best, I consider it a bad compromise that was brought on by the need to mollify various political groups.

It is interesting to note that there is very little mention of Free Enterprise solutions to this problem. Although one of the provisions of NCLB is that failing schools could be turned over to a private firm or a charter operator, that solution isn't considered very favorably by the entrenched (and unionized) education Mafia.

The takeover of a failed school by the State is another provision under NCLB. Although I don't believe that this will make much difference, it is interesting that "so far, education experts say they are unaware of a single state that has taken over a failing school in response to the law. Instead, most allow school districts to seek other ways to improve."

What we need is a 10yr phased privatization of K-12 education.

PHASE1 (1st five yrs)
* school choice - vouchers that are redeemable at any accredited private or public school for every eligible kid
* tax deductibility of tuition to any accredited private school

PHASE2 (next five yrs)
* school choice - vouchers ONLY for the poor, redeemable at accredited private and public schools
* tax relief for everyone else
* end tax deductibility of tuition

PHASE3 (the future)
* no more public schools
* vouchers ONLY for the poor, redeemable at accredited private schools (now a flourishing, self-sustaining part of the economy)

What would the effect be on all the players: teachers, administrators, students and parents?

Teachers & administrators: more pay for competence
Students & parents: higher quality, more choice, lower cost

Suggested links:

Free Enterprise Education

Education & economics

Imagine .. a pro-education presidential candidate

Johnny can't read .. it's time to think outside the box

Inspired by religious doctrine - or by feel-good liberal atheists - selflessness occupies a great deal of our attention.

Somewhere in America:

- A moist-eyed politician with a quivering lip (but impeccably coiffed hair) conjures up visions of starving or homeless people somewhere in the world

- a charismatic and telegenic preacher speaks with great conviction of our duty to help our less affluent fellow men

- presidential candidates speak of 'public service' in altruistic terms while indulging in shameless self-promotion

- admission committees at major universities consider the spirit of 'progressive volunteerism' as an important attribute in their applicants; in some cases, this can be as important as the applicant's academic record

- our political process is tilting Leftward, with each new entitlement as a stepping stone towards others. Failure of past entitlement programs is not an obstacle - as long as our intentions are 'selfless'.

- inefficient 'non-profit' ventures are placed on a pedestal, while it has become common to impugn the motives of 'for-profit' ventures; e.g Public Schools vs Private Schools

- there is a disproportionate sense of upliftment in the fake smarminess of 'donations', 'volunteerism' and 'not-for-profit'. Not that those actions are bad, but they certainly don't accomplish as much as 'for-profit' ventures. Observe that non-profit ventures would fail but for the contributions of people whose incomes are tied to for-profit ventures.

Instead of relying upon (and demanding) professionalism and competence, we are becoming a nation of parasites and willing victims.

What is killing us (softly), is the "S" word ..

S E L F L E S S N E S S 

Conversely, it is true that the word 'selfish' can be mis-construed.

But there appears to be no other way to describe it. Also, think of the way in which 'selflessness' is mis-construed on a regular basis:

* it has become perverted into the ideological basis of Leftist rationale for Welfare, Public Education

I'm familiar with the point-of-view that personal selflessness is 'good' while the enforcement of 'public' selflessness is 'evil'.

But that distinction is just not enough. We have become predisposed to accept all forms of selflessness (real or imaginary) as a political and economic trump card.

As a result:
* non-profit proposals get more public support than profit-oriented proposals
* selfless-sounding (but unworkable) policies become the law of the land; e.g. Public Education, Welfare, Universal Health Care
* foreign policy based on American self-interest becomes watered down into 'saving' other nations

And, in the end ..
* socialism will replace capitalism in America

If you think that is a stretch, wait until Nov '08 

A comment that is often heard relates to parenting: "How can you speak ill of selflessness? After all, think of parents, who toil selflessly to provide for their kids."

Personal anecdote (perhaps other parents can relate to this): when I held my newborn son for the first time, I was conscious of an emotional surge that was more powerful than any other I have previously experienced. As I looked at him I felt a sense of self - he was my son, and I would do anything for him. I felt the same surge when my 2nd son was born.

I cannot feel that bond with anyone else's child. At that moment, there were, perhaps, 50 other kids in the hospital nursery - but they didn't exist for me. It was (and remains) a selfish emotion that binds me to my children.

A parent who abandons their child clearly doesn't feel that bond with their child. Such a parent has no sense of 'self' - s/he is selfless in the purest sense of the word.
----
Selfish (def): one for whom the self is the sole purpose in life
----
A personal adaptation of the above definition: I include my children (I have two), my wife, my parents and my siblings within the bubble that I call my 'self'. To varying degrees I accept responsibilities towards those in my 'selfish' bubble. Since I voluntarily chose to get married and have kids, I accept a higher level of responsibility towards my wife and kids.

I believe that others feel similarly selfish - but are conditioned to feel guilty about such emotions by our culture's fascination with altruism. We therefore fall prey to anyone else (a politician, for example) who professes to actually adhere to those 'finer feelings' that we know we lack.

And that is the double-fraud of selflessness. It is inconsistent with human beings, but we are 'supposed' to feel guilty if we lack that quality.

Because, in order to believe in selflessness, we have to defraud ourselves into believing that:

1) Selflessness is a virtue
2) Humans are selfless creatures

If the above statements were true, then Communism would've succeeded. It didn't!

Religious people (and socialists) preach one form or another of selflessness as a panacea. It is worth thinking, however, could it be that we just aren't 'selfish' enough?

I realize that it is the prevailing fashion for people to put selflessness on a pedestal. Most of the teachings of organized religion also praise selflessness - in fact, without that concept, there wouldn't be much organization in organized religion.

But, is it possible that we are actually drowning in an orgy of selflessness? Consider that selflessness is the 'enabling agent', the gateway to:

* the welfare state
* multiculturism
* socialism
* affirmative action

Consider some of the most selfish actions that a human being can commit (and I'm guilty of them all):

* getting an education
* working to improve one's own life
* creating one's own biological children
* putting one's family first

By my definition, a male (or female) who abandons his/her biological children is truly selfless! It is an inversion of our morality (and language) that defines such actions as selfish.

This isn't just a linguistic or semantic interpretation. The 'selfless' mindset is what gives moral permission for people to abdicate their own responsibilities.

For example, if a person volunteers precious, productive years in 'selfless' efforts to help the 3rd World - surely their 'nobility' entitles them to have others pay for their medical care, if they happen to contract some disease in the process?

Imagine if everyone indulged in their 'selfless' fantasies. Can anyone seriously expect utopian results from such a worldview?

We are obsessed with 'lifeboats' such as SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program), Universal Health Care, Welfare, Medicare and Public Education. Usually, Leftists begin their arguments with "if America is a compassionate nation, how can we not take care of ____ !"

Leftist solutions almost always rely on higher taxation, which inevitably ensures that more people will need such lifeboats.

Observe how much of our discussion is centered around the few Americans who 'have not'. A visitor from Mars would think that there must be some kind of ongoing calamity in America that causes so much attention to be directed towards relief efforts. The same Martian visitor would simultaneously be confounded by the reality that America is actually quite an affluent, prosperous place. While success in America is by no means guaranteed, a minimal standard of living is reasonably easy to achieve. However, that minimal standard of living does not necessarily include the highest level of Health Care - or filet mignon every night for that matter!

The truth is that whining about compassion makes for great political rhetoric - and not much else. The (D) party has figured out that we Americans are suckers for sanctimonious do-goodery.

The (R) party is also powerless to resist that 'lure of easy money', as exemplified by the fact we are witnessing competing proposals from both parties - both of which expand SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program).

Soon, we will see competing proposals for Universal Health Care. Republican candidates will bleat that they are fighting vigorously to stem the Leftist tide, while offering proposals that are only slightly less obscene than those from the Democrats.

In the end, we will become a nation of lifeboat-dependants, while the main ship falls into decay due to the neglect caused by false incentives. It is also very likely that the ship sinks under the weight of the gold plated lifeboats that we have constructed.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/getaways/09/11/cuba.forbidden.ap/index.html
HAVANA, Cuba (AP) -- Barack Obama would lift restrictions on visits by Cuban Americans to the hemisphere's only communist country if elected president. A growing chorus of Democratic and Republican lawmakers would go even farther, loosening the U.S. embargo enough to allow all Americans to travel to Cuba.

* Thousands flout ban to see 'forbidden treasure' of Cuba

* Cuba said about 37,000 Americans not of Cuban origin came in 2006

* 19 Americans have paid fines for sneaking to Cuba since January 2006

Since January 2006, 19 Americans have paid fines for sneaking to Cuba, including four people involved in making Oliver Stone's documentary about Castro, "Comandante." Fellow filmmaker Michael Moore is now being investigated for filming "Sicko" without permission in Cuba.

Traveling to Cuba is not as easy as punching dates into an Internet site, however. Travelocity recently agreed to pay $182,750 in fines for booking nearly 1,500 flights between the United States and Cuba from 1998 to 2004. The company says it fixed technical glitches and no longer lets such trips go through.

Doesn't it seem inconsistent that we have a trade embargo against Cuba while encouraging trade with China? Both are Communist countries that pose a threat to the United States.

It would seem that a case could be made for both points of view:

1) Embargo countries that espouse Communism
Let them watch their standards of living spiral downwards every decade, until they hit rock bottom. Even with that eventuality, Communist regimes can keep going at the expense of their people - by building walls, or other barriers to keep those darn Capitalists from sneaking in. Has our embargo against Cuba really helped defeat Fidel Castro?

The question is "what would replace Communism under those circumstances?". Unfortunately, the alternatives that often appear in such countries are military rule, or religious fundamentalism.

2) Trade with them.
Do to them that for which we greedy capitalists are often accused - the 'exploitation' of their cheap labor & raw materials. You know, that which Leftists call the Rape and Plunder of predatory Capitalism, but which actually raises standards of living on both sides? Their Govts will resist, but the people will demand some relaxation of their draconian policies, so that they can earn a living! Over time, they will become entrenched in a kind of Capitalism (a la China).

Of course, the Communist leaders will claim that it is their policies that are succeeding. And, for a while, it will prop up those regimes. But, when Communism reaches its eventual demise, it is more likely to be replaced with a semi-Capitalist system.

Hmm, plan #2 is starting to look better ..

Two years ago, I offered the employees at my company a choice in Health Insurance plans:

* traditional (70/50 PPO) 
   -OR-
* 100/70 High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP, with Health Savings Account (HSA), and a $50/mo employer contribution).

For those who are unfamiliar with HSAs, here are some interesting features:

* contrary to popular belief: HSAs do NOT have an annual use-it-or-lose it policy, unlike the FSAs of old!
* HSAs are owned by the individual, so they are completely portable - not tied to the employer or to the insurance provider.
* In our case, each individual gets a debit card (M/c or Visa) that can be swiped while buying prescriptions, eyeglasses, or even vitamins at a grocery store. Remember, these are tax-exempt dollars that are being used!
* Visits to doctors' offices can be paid for via a checkbook that draws on the individual's account. Once again, these are tax-exempt dollars that are being used to pay for visits to doctors' offices!

From an employer's perspective: The total expenditure per employee is roughly the same for my company irrespective of the choices made by employees. However, as an employer, I prefer HSAs because the premium costs for PPOs rise much faster than those for HSAs. And, I'd rather put $50/mo in my employees' accounts than pay it to the insurance company.

Initially, there was a 'fear of the unknown'. In the first year, about 50% of the employees opted for the HSA. As an employee/owner I opted for the HSA for myself (and family).

Now in the second year, 66% of the employees opted for the HSA. Mainly this occured because more employees realized that it left more money in their pocket. The 'fear of the unknown' also subsided when employees figured out that their colleagues with HSAs didn't appear to be dying horrible deaths - in fact, most seemed quite happy with their choice.

Some think of it as a 401(k) for healthcare! And that is not a bad analogy. The Govt permits Employees to contribute pretax dollars on a voluntary basis (up to the annual deductible).

It would be nicer if the annual limit was higher - it could actually become a tax sheltered investment vehicle for more people. Having more investment choices would also make it more attractive. 

Critics charge that those with serious health problems wouldn't benefit from HSAs. The reality is that HSAs benefit those with either:

* infrequent usage (folks who are generally healthy) - because they get to accumulate dollars in their accounts
* high usage (folks who routinely hit their annual deductibles) - because many HDHPs offer 100% coverage, once the deductible is reached.

However, HSAs (in their current form) result in more out-of-pocket expense than traditional PPOs for those who are on regular, expensive medication. But that would change if more people opted for HSAs.

Conclusion: HSAs work! While the rules can (and should) be improved (e.g. increase the voluntary, pretax contribution limit to be similar to that of a 401(k)), they are a step in the right direction.

Suggested links:

A 10 year plan to fix Healthcare

http://www.treas.gov/offices/public-affairs/hsa/pdf/all-about-HSAs_051807.pdf

http://www.treas.gov/offices/public-affairs/hsa/

The following is from an Iranian blog, translated by the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center from the Persian - excerpted from a NYTimes article titled "Blogging Ahmadinejad in Teheran".

"Most Western news agencies like CNN and Fox News, which are branded by the regime as the agents of a Western cultural war, broadcast the speech of President Ahmadinejad live. It is interesting that none of the channels inside our country did that. What does this mean? Does it mean we don’t trust ourselves? Does it mean that we worry we might let something slip? Does it mean that we fear that our president might let something slip?

It means that knowing is not a right our people have! It means that other countries abide by democracy more than we do. It means that even we don’t believe ourselves, even that we fear ourselves. We fear that we might say something by mistake and that our lies would be revealed to the people. Really, why are the state officials against open access to information? Why don’t the people even have the right to hear the speech of their elected president? Why can’t they hear his reasoning for issues like nuclear power, democracy in Iran, and so on?

What is interesting is that we claim the Americans want to prevent our voice from being heard, so why do we censor ourselves? "

— Poor Iran, yaghiha.blogfa.ir, Sept. 24

VoR: It is interesting that the blogger refers to the branding of CNN and Fox News as 'agents of a Western cultural war' by the Iranian regime. This tends to support a propagandist image of Western media which is decried in the Middle East as a means to export depravity. Islamic regimes paint a picture of a depraved Western media and culture to attact support from traditionalists to their own anachronistic ways. By focusing their attention to our excesses (which come from the freedom to make fools of ourselves), they miss the main point - that economic and political freedom are requirements for affluence and stability.

But, as indicated by the Iranian blogger, the openness of Western media and the sharp contrast to their own restricted media is not missed by segments of the Iranian public.

Another article worth reading is "An Act of War" from TH's own Crawfish! Here is an excerpt:

SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq — An Iranian officer accused of smuggling powerful roadside bombs into Iraq was arrested Thursday in northern Iraq, the U.S. military said.

The arrest could add to tensions between Washington and Tehran already strained by the detention of each other's citizens as well as U.S. accusations of Iranian involvement in Iraq's violence and Iran's disputed nuclear program.

The military said the suspect was a member of the Quds force — an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards — and was seized from a hotel in the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah.

The Iranian officer was allegedly involved in transporting roadside bombs, including armor-piercing explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, into Iraq, according to a military statement. It said intelligence reports also indicated he was involved in the infiltration and training of foreign fighters in Iraq.

VoR: The greatest danger  that we face (from external sources) is a nuclear-armed, terrorism-supporting Iran.

The capture of an Iranian agent with munitions that are used every day against our soldiers should warrant a Declaration of War. It should begin as a two pronged strategy - with covert ops and a focused PR campaign that links up with their political dissidents (and there are many). These would yield good results and will also unearth other irrefutable evidence of Iran's misdeeds - laying the support for a full attack on the regime.

The Iraq operation should have been presented to the American people as Round#1 of a strategy of bringing the Middle East into the modern age; 9/11 gave us the motivation to deal ourselves into this. Instead, we got a watered down set of UN-approved reasons to go to war, that made our case weaker for Round#2 (Iran).

In our currently muddled way of thinking, political calculations seem to dominate. Also, Leftists have gained enough traction in our country to emasculate our political will.

Frankly, I am not optimistic that there will be a suitable response. The political games in our own country have weakened us. Can you imagine what would happen if some information was leaked (by the obliging MSM) about our covert ops in Iran?

Despite having our special ops teams in harms way, these mainstream media maggots would expose our tactics in order to win ratings and the approval of their Leftist supporters.

It wouldn't surprise me if a few unprincipled (D) legislators (who must be consulted, as a result of their committee positions) would deliberately leak such information for their own political advantage.

Our covert ops have to face two threats - one of which is the threat of exposure (for political advantage) by the American Left. So, it makes it that much harder for a C-in-C to authorize such measures.

I have just finished reading Dinesh D'Souza's new book "The Enemy at Home - The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11"

In "The Enemy at Home", D' Souza illustrates the following paradox:

* the Islamic world despises the West for the values (or lack thereof) of the cultural left
* it is the American Right that has the guts to defend the West against Islamic extremists
* Leftists (both cultural and foreign policy types) oppose the American Right for political reasons

So, strangely, the Left - that is largely the object of Islamic hatred - is politically aligned with Islamic extremists. 

In addition to exposing the above paradox, he points out some of the inconsistencies in our approach to foreign policy. He skewers the Left AND the Right, while simultaneously showing the true nature of America's external enemies - who make very little distinction between Left and Right in their mission to destroy America.

D'Souza also makes some interesting points:

* Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida have never attacked Israel, despite the fact that Al Qaida appears to sympathize with the Palestinians. He makes this point to prove that Al Qaida is not the enemy of 'traditional' people. It is difficult to argue against the fact that Al Qaida hasn't attacked Israel - but the analysis that he derives from that fact seems to be a bit of a stretch.
* Conservative Americans face two enemies - as manifested by the GWOT and a war against the cultural left. Clearly, Islamic terrorists are the larger threat. The Left, however, is a significant impediment that has to be overcome politically and socially
* The American Left sees conservatism as a disproportionately larger threat (in relative terms) when compared with the threat from Islamic extremism.

He suggests the following:
* we should encourage traditional Muslims to drop their support for radical Muslims. In D'Souza's view, this can only be done if we also drop our support for the cultural left - showing traditional Muslims that there is a 'mainstream' conservative, religious America that doesn't believe in the values of the cultural left.

In my opinion, D'Souza exaggerates the cultural gap between the cultural left and conservatives in America. Although there is a gap, and conservatives publicly abhor the excesses of the cultural left, they are not 'traditional' in the manner of traditional Muslims. This may be a result of the cultural left's control of the media (and Hollywood), or due to a slow drift in what is considered 'mainstream'.

D'Souza is not afraid to 'name names' - his rogues gallery of the cultural left include many of the usual suspects, for example  Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy,  Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark & Ward Churchill. For this alone, the book will find an interested audience among conservatives.

Personally, I thought that the book was well written and recommend it highly. While it will no doubt be criticized by most liberals (and some conservatives), it should be seen for what it is - an appeal to traditionalists (some of whom may be liberals) - to distance themselves from the excesses of the cultural left.