Blogging was enjoyable but, in the end, too time consuming.
I thank all those who have read and commented.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Who's Next?
If life was a reality show, President Obama would be a serious candidate, along with former Presidents Johnson and Carter, for the 'Most Unpopular After Two Years' award. Neither of those unfortunates (for our country) served a second term and your correspondent would be pleased were Mr. Obama to join the pantheon of one term Presidents.
It is worth noting that Mr. Obama, prior to - indeed even after - becoming a public figure had never run anything. Nor does he appear to have spent much time contemplating, or developing, policy or a political philosophy of greater sophistication than 'big government knows best and will fix everything for you'.
His sole successes - while not quite equivalent to being famous for being famous - involve two bestselling books of little distinction and the ability to get himself elected to the United States Senate and, subsequently, the Presidency. That the USA now lacks a leader of substance offers a major opportunity for Republicans in 2012. It is critical, however, that they consider the previous jobs held by the candidate that the party puts forward in 2012.
Forget charisma and the ability to attract adulatory crowds: just concentrate on substance.
Mitch Daniels, currently Governor of Indiana and formerly Director of the Office of Management and Budget might be a choice worthy of serious consideration.
It is worth noting that Mr. Obama, prior to - indeed even after - becoming a public figure had never run anything. Nor does he appear to have spent much time contemplating, or developing, policy or a political philosophy of greater sophistication than 'big government knows best and will fix everything for you'.
His sole successes - while not quite equivalent to being famous for being famous - involve two bestselling books of little distinction and the ability to get himself elected to the United States Senate and, subsequently, the Presidency. That the USA now lacks a leader of substance offers a major opportunity for Republicans in 2012. It is critical, however, that they consider the previous jobs held by the candidate that the party puts forward in 2012.
Forget charisma and the ability to attract adulatory crowds: just concentrate on substance.
Mitch Daniels, currently Governor of Indiana and formerly Director of the Office of Management and Budget might be a choice worthy of serious consideration.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
American Socialism (7)
That the means of production and distribution should be owned by the State was an essential part of Karl Marx's socialist/communist vision.
Why then, in the United States - supposedly the land of capitalism and free enterprise, do nine States, including the Commonwealth of Virginia, have a monopoly on the sale of wine and liquor within their borders? While Virginia Governor McDonnell is considering privatizing the state owned liquor stores, there is serious doubt that the necessary legislation can actually be passed. The reason being that the business, even though it is state run, is so profitable that the politicians are reluctant to let go of the revenue.
While the situation is a hangover from the profoundly illiberal, but mercifully brief, era of prohibition, we do not live in those times now. The hypocrisy of political opposition to socialism, while the Commonwealth of Virginia simultaneously benefits from a state owned business that generates nearly $250 million in profits, would be hilarious if it did not say so much about the intellectual honesty - or lack thereof - exhibited by politicians.
The United States Constitution both celebrates, and requires, limited government. The intent of the founders was that government should only do what individuals, business, and the free market can not. Running liquor stores for profit scarcely falls into that category.
Better that Virginia's liquor stores are sold sooner rather than later. If there is an imbalance between spending and revenue, then the politicians should first look to spending cuts and, only if absolutely necessary, additional taxes.
Enough said!
Why then, in the United States - supposedly the land of capitalism and free enterprise, do nine States, including the Commonwealth of Virginia, have a monopoly on the sale of wine and liquor within their borders? While Virginia Governor McDonnell is considering privatizing the state owned liquor stores, there is serious doubt that the necessary legislation can actually be passed. The reason being that the business, even though it is state run, is so profitable that the politicians are reluctant to let go of the revenue.
While the situation is a hangover from the profoundly illiberal, but mercifully brief, era of prohibition, we do not live in those times now. The hypocrisy of political opposition to socialism, while the Commonwealth of Virginia simultaneously benefits from a state owned business that generates nearly $250 million in profits, would be hilarious if it did not say so much about the intellectual honesty - or lack thereof - exhibited by politicians.
The United States Constitution both celebrates, and requires, limited government. The intent of the founders was that government should only do what individuals, business, and the free market can not. Running liquor stores for profit scarcely falls into that category.
Better that Virginia's liquor stores are sold sooner rather than later. If there is an imbalance between spending and revenue, then the politicians should first look to spending cuts and, only if absolutely necessary, additional taxes.
Enough said!
Return
Your correspondent's right arm has recovered enough so that typing - at least with three fingers - is now possible. Getting through the day is still hard and very time consuming, so posts will not perhaps be as frequent as before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
