Recently in Socialism Category

Massive journalistic failure? Yep. Just like the 1992 Boston Fed Study showing widespread racism in home mortgage lending. That was a crock, too.

One doesn't have to look far to find academics with a distorted view of America and its people. A local example: Prof. Leo R. Sandy a professor of Counselor Education and School Psychology at Plymouth State University.

The professor spouts the liberal/socialist line at every opportunity, in a weekly newspaper column and regular letters to the local papers. One of his latest pronouncements came in a letter to the editor (Laconia Daily Sun, Tuesday February 2, 2010), commenting upon Republican reactions to Obama's State of the Union address. (No direct link available.)

The Republicans had an oppositional air to them that causes me to question their commitment to the progress of this country. As regressives, they have been very effective in moving the Democrats so far to the right that nothing can be accomplished.

Excuse me? They've been moving the Democrats to the right? Not from what I and most of the rest of America have seen. With cap-and-trade, health care reform, stimulus, and a $1.6 trillion+ (and growing) budget deficit, I don't see how any of that can be considered moving the leftist Dems to the right.

Professor Sandy has never been shy about his political beliefs, espousing the leftist point of view for some time. Never mind that socialism in all its forms has failed miserably and done nothing but cause misery, poverty, and widespread diminishment or destruction of economic systems, supposedly 'for the good of the people'. He chooses to be blind to the downside of his political beliefs.

But then, he doesn't have to compete in the real world, worrying about meeting a payroll, filling out endless state and federal government reporting forms, ensuring compliance with US and foreign regulations, paying state and federal business taxes, and paying insurance premiums for a host of business policies (workman's comp, health insurance, liability insurance, etc). He doesn't have to worry about being laid off (if he has tenure), or paying for his health insurance (he's a state employee), so he's insulated from the effects of all the socialist policies and laws he supports. Then again, that's true of most academics in the soft sciences and liberal arts. They rarely have to deal with the real world. That's their biggest problem. With little or no connection to the real world, it is easy for them to support socialist ideals and policies abhorrent to average Americans.

UPDATE: Bird Dog asks the question "Why are Liberals so condescending?"

I have to say the opening statements of the President's State of the Union address were on target, talking about the problems that we, as a nation and as individuals, are facing. But once he started addressing the main issue we face - the economy - he lost me.

He talked about tax cuts, but only the temporary tax cuts. The somewhat more long term cuts, the Bush tax cuts, expire next year, meaning everyone will see a tax increase once they're gone.

On the stimulus bill - blah blah blah blah blah blah. (At least that's what I heard.)

As much as I agree that jobs are an issue, I have to disagree with the president that somehow it's up to the government to stimulate them with our money. Better that government get the heck out of the way. We don't need it to take $30 billion of the repaid TARP funds and spend it again.

I agree with Obama that we need to upgrade our infrastructure to help American businesses compete in the global marketplace. But what do high-speed trains have to do with that? Better that electrical systems and broadband communications networks be built, which will do far more to support American businesses than trains.

And while the president says he "won't accept second place for America", he's been doing what he can to make sure that's where we'll end up, if not third or fourth place.

After that I started nodding off as he started mouthing the same old platitudes but in different wrappers. (Make energy less expensive by taxing the hell out of it. Punish all the banks for the actions of a few. Spend billions more on education even though study after study after study shows more money doesn't equate to better education. Destroy our health care system in order to save it. And so on and so on.)

I. GOT. BORED.

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz........

UPDATE 1/28/10: Going back and watching the address again, I saw that as time passed he shifted more and more blame for all our troubles on to others. He laid all the blame for the failure of health care reform and cap-and-tax squarely on the Republicans, saying they now owned the blame. Senator John Kyl rebutted that allegation today on NPR, stating the Senate Republicans were following the will of their constituents, blocking bad legislation that would do little more than cost the American people untold hundreds of billions of dollars with nothing to show for it.

Unbelievable video. I guess these marxists didn't get the memo to dress themselves in the green of environmentalism. They are straight up commies. I actually respect that more than the watermelons: green on the outside, red inside.

HT: Matt Drudge

First, it was the bogus "nuclear winter" the KGB came up with that was successful beyond their wildest dreams according to Comrade J, about the highest defector ever from that outfit--Sergei Tretyakov. I remember how controversial was the proposal to install nuclear bombs in Europe. So the KGB came up with a scheme to thwart its implementation that was nearly successful, except for the wonderful intransigence of Ronald Reagan.

The parallels are simply eerie:

"The KGB was responsible for creating the entire nuclear winter story to stop the Pershing missiles."^[1] Tretyakov says that from 1979 the KGB wanted to prevent the United States from deploying the missiles in Western Europe and that, directed by Yuri Andropov, they used the Soviet Peace Committee, a government organization, to organize and finance demonstrations in Europe against US bases.^[1][12][13] Misinformation based on a faked "doomsday report" by the Soviet Academy of Sciences about the effect of nuclear war on climate was distributed to peace groups, the environmental movement and the journal Ambio

,^[1] which carried a key article on the topic in 1982.^[14]

Sound familiar? Now we have these present-day greenies, whom I consider socialists, trying to thwart capitalism and economic growth. It's not fair, after all, to have the poor parts of the world in comparison with the rich parts. Equality, doncha know. These watermelons are green on the outside and red on the inside.

We have the left-ward drift of organizations like the UN. When the IPCC, charged by the United Nations to monitor global warming, acts more like the KGB than a disinterested overseeing body, one is left incredulous.

I must admit I've missed Steven Den Beste since he pulled the plug on USS Clueless a few years ago. When he resurfaces from time to time his postings are poignant and to the point, just as they have always been. His latest is no different.

In his new screed he ties together ancient Greek philosophies, modern Western society, and our Teleologist-In-Chief.

It does not bode well for the U.S. at all.

I know Nancy Pelosi doesn't think much of the Constitution, seeing it as an obstruction to creating a truly socialist state much like that of the old Soviet Union, but even she must realize that certain portions of the ObamaCare/PelosiCare bill she rammed down the throats of the House are unconstitutional. Not that she'll let that stop her. After all "the people" must be coerced into doing things she and her fellow socialists have decided is for the good of all, even if it will have just the opposite effect.

Democrats' health bills depend on forcing individuals to buy insurance or face severe fines or imprisonment. In 1994, the Congressional Budget Office said forcing individuals to buy insurance would be "an unprecedented form of federal action," adding: "The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States."

This year, the Congressional Research Service delicately said "it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the (Commerce) Clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service." Congress has the constitutional power to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." But a Federalist Society study by Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis Smith judges it perverse to exercise coercion under the Commerce Clause "on an individual who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction." As Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says, there is "a fundamental difference between regulating activities in which individuals choose to engage" -- e.g, drivers can be required to buy auto insurance -- "and requiring such activities" just because an individual exists.

When asked whether any compulsory insurance purchases are constitutional, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was genuinely astonished: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" In 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written." He was serious.

Nancy's reaction to the question illustrates either her ignorance of what the Constitution actually says or her willful choice to ignore it in favor of her own agenda and the American people's rights be damned.

Should the awful and onerous ObamaCare/PelosiCare bill become law I hope it will be challenged on constitutional grounds and struck down for being overreaching and in violation of the Constitution. But we can't count on such a thing happening. Therefore we must strive to let our Senators know how displeased we are with this legislation because we know its a disingenuous attempt to do an end run around the people's wishes, a flagrant attempt to violate the Constitution, and a blueprint for medical and financial disaster.

While I'm at it, I might as well add insult to injury in regards to the the recently passed Pelosi Health Care Destruction bill.

While she has crowed her success into forcing the passage of an onerous and deceptive bill the American people don't want, at least one liberal has the courage to state exactly what Pelosi's health care reform legislation is really all about: making the American people more dependent on the US Government against their will...and not for their own good.

[John] Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

"Making the United States a more equitable country?" Who decides what is 'equitable'? And is equality as Obama and his minions define it really a good thing?

The answer to this last question is 'no', for Obama's equality has nothing to do with equality of opportunity and everything to do with outcome. We've seen such equality many times, both in the past and present, and it's nothing anyone should aspire to because all it really means is equality of misery.

Everyone will be equal...except of course the ruling elite. Nothing will be denied to them because, after all, they are more equal than the rest of us.

In making health care reform a misplaced priority, he and Pelosi and Reid have shown us what it is they really want to do is to make sure we are all good little proles on the hook to the 'benevolent' dictatorship that is The State. They have come to believe they know what's good for the masses better than we do, therefore they must control every aspect of our lives. Such is their arrogance. But like all statists their beliefs have one major flaw: they are no better at running our lives than they are their own. In fact, they are totally incapable of making our lives better by the means they have been pushing for all these decades. [/rant]

As more than one commenter to the Cassidy piece noted, the last thing we want to do is to be like everyone else.

We are the EXCEPTION. Who cares if the rest of the world has universal health care? The United States of America has been the exception since it was first created. What is sad is that we have idiots in our government who do not believe in American exceptionalism and think that we need to be just like the rest of the world. Did the founding fathers believe that we needed to be like Europe when we declared independence? NOOOOOOO!!! Why should we become like them now?

Look, we don't want a government run system that will give us mediocre care and only give the best care to the rich, famous, and the Washington elites. We want to be able to have choice. The healthcare legislation that the Democrats are trying to pass will not give us choice. It is designed to make private insurance obsolete and eventually put everyone on a government run system.

We already know how well such a system will run. Examples abound, both here and in other countries, showing us that they work well...if you aren't sick or hurt. Otherwise all bets are off. Do we really want a system like that?

Things are not going well in the socialist paradise of Venezuela. Apparently Hugo Chávez and his minions are having trouble keeping the lights on and the water running. Is it really any surprise?

Venezuelans in the capital are bracing themselves for drastic rationing as public services in the oil-rich nation sink ever deeper into crisis, threatening to undermine President Hugo Chávez's support.

Water is to be cut off in Caracas for up to 48 hours a week from Monday, possibly lasting until next May or June. Power rationing is also starting this week, aiming to reduce national useage by 20 per cent.

Venezuela's populist leader says the water shortages are a result of the driest weather in 40 years, which has also intensified the problem of blackouts. The country relies on hydroelectricity for about three-quarters of its power and reservoirs are at record lows. Increased consumption due to high economic growth has exacerbated the problem, he says.

"High economic growth"? Really? In Venezuela?

Hmm. Somehow I find it difficult to believe there is economic growth of any kind in Venezuela, particularly when price controls for various commodities (like food) have made them very scarce. Graft, corruption, and incompetence have severely limited or destroyed various segments of the economy. Even Venezuela's oil reserves, claimed by Chávez to be greater than that even of Saudi Arabia, have been unable to support the government's growing social and economic engineering programs. Of course it doesn't help that their petroleum infrastructure has been decaying since Chávez took power and nationalized the oil companies. Most of the personnel that used to run and maintain the infrastructure have either quit, been fired, or fled Venezuela. The missing workers have been replaced by many of Chávez's political cronies, few of which know anything about running or maintaining the wells and equipment needed to keep the oil flowing.

I wonder how long it will take their wells, pipelines, oil terminals, and other equipment to deteriorate to the point where it doesn't work? All one need do is look at how Iran's once profitable oil infrastructure has crumbled to the point where they can't even refine enough of their own oil to meet their domestic needs.

His fellow Venezuelans haven't been buying his line about the causes of the various shortages, knowing many of the problems they are suffering are due entirely to his actions.

Government critics say that, despite Venezuela being flooded by oil wealth in recent years as energy prices rose, persistent under-investment in maintaining and expanding water and electricity networks lies at the root of the problem. They also point to chronic mismanagement, poor planning and even corruption. Furthermore, frozen tariffs have provided no incentive to conserve water or electricity.

Many remain unconvinced by Mr Chávez's attempts to brush off responsibility for the shortages by attributing problems to the climatic phenomenon known as El Niño .

"It's not the root of the problem," says Norberto Bausson, director of the Municipal Institute for Water and Aqueducts of Sucre, an opposition-controlled municipality in eastern Caracas. He says the rationing is caused by rising demand due to population growth and increased consumption per capita, while an absence of infrastructure investment has caused supply to be lower now than a decade ago.

Eventually Chávez will run out of excuses. He won't be able to blame the rich because there won't be any left, except for his cronies (he'll have made sure of that). He won't be able to blame a drought if the electrical and water systems finally break down and provide neither to the populace even though there's plenty of water available to drink and generate electricity. He won't be able to blame the farmers for the shortage of food if he's driven them all out of business due to his fixing prices at such a low level that the farmers go bankrupt.

The time will come (if it hasn't already) when the only one left to blame will be Chávez himself. But he won't (or can't) admit he's been the cause of Venezuela's economic ills because when it comes to economics he's a total moron. But then most dictators are when it comes to understanding how economies work.