We’ve been discussing the prevalence and effects of steroids in football a lot here the last few weeks.
(The great Thomas Sowell)
It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a “socialist.”
He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.
What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots, but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.
Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, so that he no longer has to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.
Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous — something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.
Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be
blamed on the “greed” of the insurance companies.The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.
One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.
Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely — and correctly — regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg’s great book Liberal Fascism cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists’ consistent pursuit of the goals of the Left, and of the Left’s embrace of the fascists during the 1920s.
Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the Left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W. E. B. Du Bois, as a man of the Left.
It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the Left distanced itself from fascism and its Nazi offshoot — and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the Right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.
What socialism, fascism, and other ideologies of the Left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people — like themselves — need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, i.e., the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.
The vision of those of the Left is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, “We, the People . . . ”
That is why the Left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution’s limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges’ new interpretations, based on notions of “a living Constitution” that will take decisions out of the hands of “We, the People,” and transfer those decisions to our betters.
The self-flattery of the vision of the Left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider — regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the Left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.
Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2012 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
It was only a matter of time before someone in government called for the banning of high school football.
And it was inevitable that it would be a woman or an effeminate man.
“Comparing high school football to the gladiator fights of ancient times, Council Rock school board member Patty Sexton has called for banning the sport at the high school level.
Sexton, also a Philadelphia public school teacher, made her comments late at Thursday night’s Council Rock board meeting.
She said continuing the sport at schools funded by the general taxpayer base is inappropriate. It has become too dangerous and carries too much of a risk of lasting effects from injuries, especially concussions, Sexton said.
“It’s no longer appropriate for public institutions to fund gladiators,” she said. “I am very, very concerned about putting these student-athletes in the position of getting a concussion. Football has gotten faster, harder and more dangerous with each passing year. I’m extremely scared we will eventually be sued over injuries suffered in sports.”
It doesn’t make sense for publicly funded educational institutions to continue offering a sport that by its very nature includes physical and often violent contact on every play, Sexton said.”
Not surprising at all that we would get this kind of hysterical response, but it’s another signal to the NFL that it’s time to seriously address the causes of concussions. Shrinking the players by seriously going after PED users would be the best place to start.
Obama supporters like to dismiss anyone who suggests that President Obama is a socialist as a kook or a racist or both.
I don’t know where other people got their impression that the guy has serious socialist tendencies but I came to that realization by reading about his past.
If the media had spent 1/10th the time on Obama’s past that they spent trying to investigate Sarah Palin’s church, the guy wouldn’t have come close to getting the nomination.
People who dismiss the notion that he is a radical leftist like to base that opinion on what he has said since he became a presidential candidate.
He would have never been taken seriously as a national candidate if he had shown his true colors.
Stanley Kurtz did extensive research on Obama’s past and couldn’t get anyone in the mainstream media to pay attention to him four years ago.
Obama’s supporters will dismiss this as ancient history and say it’s no longer relevant, but it’s so much more than that.
It’s proof that the guy harbors dangerous anti-capitalist if not anti-American feelings and it’s a great argument for not letting him fool the American people again and preventing him from getting a second term.
Of all the people writing about politics in America, no one makes more sense (to me) more often than Walter Williams.
Over the next five months, we’re going to be hearing and having discussions about what’s “fair” and what’s not “fair” when it comes to how much you and I should be taxed.
How much would money would be a “fair” amount of money for the government to take from you or me to give to someone else?
Lots of smart people will make convincing arguments for both sides.
And they’ll all be wrong.
“…does an act that’s clearly immoral and illegal when done privately become moral when it is done legally and collectively? Put another way, does legality establish morality? Before you answer, keep in mind that slavery was legal; apartheid was legal; the Nazi’s Nuremberg Laws were legal; and the Stalinist and Maoist purges were legal. Legality alone cannot be the guide for moral people. The moral question is whether it’s right to take what belongs to one person to give to another to whom it does not belong.
Don’t get me wrong. I personally believe that assisting one’s fellow man in need by reaching into one’s own pockets is praiseworthy and laudable. Doing the same by reaching into another’s pockets is despicable, dishonest and worthy of condemnation. Some people call governmental handouts charity, but charity and legalized theft are entirely two different things. But as far as charity is concerned, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
Understanding and adhering to the sentiments of those two paragraphs would eliminate about 90% of our country’s problems.