|
|
 |
|
 |
Member since: January 19, 2009
|
|
|
|
I'd like to respond to a letter that appeared in the October 31st edition of UTW, written by Matthew Ryan, which borrows heavily on a critique by Gore Vidal of Ayn Rand to bolster his accusation Rand was an "immoral lunatic". Mr. Ryan launches a guilt-by-association critique of politician Paul D. Ryan, with whom Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" has obviously resonated, and wonders why - since Paul Ryan is a Catholic - he isn't motivated primarily by Jesus.
There are numerous problems with this argument, starting with Gore Vidal. Vidal was an avowed atheist who saw people who leaned on religion as "weak" because they feared death. He especially detested Roman Catholics. The sexually ambidextrous Mr. Vidal - who drifted in and out of trysts with numerous men and women in his life - is a strange source to quote when passing judgment on someone else's morality.
It's also an odd and incongruent argument for a liberal to assert - in this day and age - that a conservative should be "motivated by Jesus Christ", i.e., I thought the liberal party line was politicians were supposed to divorce religion from their decision making. Besides, in the case of Rand and Vidal religion doesn't figure into it much anyway; they were both atheists, although Rand obviously scored no points with Vidal because of this commonality.
To be sure, Ayn Rand was an "odd little woman", but one blessed with an enormous intellect. Writing off "Atlas Shrugged" as an exultation of greed and self-interest is facile. Moreover, there is nothing inherently immoral about pursuing what is in one's own self-interest. If it were we could safely say about 99.9 percent of us are immoral.
Rand held in high esteem the virtues of morality and integrity. "Atlas Shrugged" is an illustration of how moral men who follow the law and - even if motivated solely by self-interest - build the engines of society that move it in a positive direction. Because they are the thinkers, the innovators, the inventors, the creators of technology who even though they might build great personal wealth, also create wealth for others and benefit society as a whole. How is this "lunacy" or "immorality"? You only see it as such if you've been swayed by redistribution theology and have come to believe capitalism itself is an evil and getting rich is, in and of itself, a sin.
Therefore the premise of Mr. Ryan's argument - that politician Paul Ryan has been heavily influenced by the writings of an immoral lunatic - doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
This column is a nice example of why Rall is a cartoonist and not a political analyst. Unless he thinks up-to-the-minute analysis means writing columns two months in advance of publication, he should know Romney has already released his tax records (why is it with Democrats, requiring them to release private information not required by law is a "witch hunt", whereas with Republicans it's "mandatory"?)
Romney correctly read the political landscape, and it's generally seen as a boost to his candidacy to pick Ryan as his veep. This is the age of the Tea Party, the powerful grassroots organization that evolved basically out of frustration with RINOs who got elected then kept drifting leftward. The "centrist" thing might be time-honored, but it's not going to work anymore (remember John McCain?). If Romney loses, it's not going to be because of Paul D. Ryan.
Ryan was chosen primarily because of his analytical skills pertaining to budgets. He has already put forth a solid plan to address the problem of the deficit long-term. That stands in sharp contrast to an administration that thinks the best solution to running out of money is to just print up more and a Democrat-controlled Senate that refuses to even pass a budget. Romney/Ryan know the gravity of the fiscal debt bomb that's about to explode. If it does it's not just granny who'll be headed over the cliff. It will be her kids and their kids (and all of us) along with her.
Romney/Ryan would like to defuse the debt bomb. That necessarily involves things along the lines of cuts and consolidations. Unfortunately, for those whose sustenance comes primarily from government, that's a tough sell.
So it might well be that the Romney/Ryan ticket loses the election. That would not be a surprise to me. If it does, though, the reason won't be because they're inept, bumbling politicians that can't inspire their base. It will be because too many clueless voters want to think the federal goody trough doesn't have a bottom.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to Hamliton's usual twaddle about corporate welfare and the need to fund what he considers "essential state services", he manages to say something completely contradictory.
At one point he states, " ..preposterous is the assertion that tax cuts will stimulate even more economic activity. Voodoo economics lives!"
OK. Maybe I'll rat-hole the extra money. Of course I could just sink it in my small retirement fund too. But that would be selfish and wouldn't stimulate the economy either. The fact with most people is that we are hard-wired to spend money. The more you make, the more you will spend (I'm sure you have seen this principle at work in your own life). And if you spend more you stimulate the economy. Therefore his assertion this does not work is much in doubt.
The kicker is a few paragraphs later, when he says, " ..they [states] can maintain their spending on the salary of workers, who then go out and spend their paychecks on the local economy".
Let me get this straight. A tax cut that allows me to keep more of my money, i.e., in effect giving me a larger paycheck to spend does not stimulate the economy. However, the state "spending on the salary of workers" (we can only assume he means public sector employees since those are the only kind that get a paycheck from the state) will stimulate the economy. Because those workers go out and spend their paychecks. What? Their money works differently than mine?
Makes no sense. No surprise though, since most of what Hamilton writes seldom does.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Governor Mary Fallin was completely correct in blasting the federal government for its refusal to provide disaster relief following the recent wildfires. The governor is also within her right to refuse strings-attached distributions from the same source. Also, I'd like a line-item accounting for the federal money spent in Oklahoma. Oklahomans (and Oklahoma corporations) paid $24.4 billion in federal taxes last year. I wonder what percentage of the $37+ billion Oklahoma received went for the most sorely needed upgrades: Roads? Bridges? Prisons? Education?
You know what I expect from government? (hint: it ain't money). I expect incompetence. The IRS sent me a bill for $3,500 a couple months ago, supposedly because I took a cash distribution from an investment. Except I didn't. All I did was roll it over from one fund to another. I sent them the documentation (at my considerable time and expense). They sent me a revised statement. They said they now owe me $72. The statement came with a form for me to fill out and a return envelope. No check. (Yes, shocking).
Last year the Department of The Census failed to mail me a census form. I went online and requested one on my own initiative. Mailed it to them, again at my own expense. A month later they sent - you guessed it - a census taker to my house. Is our government not breath-taking in its efficiency?
Here's my point: sheer volume of intake in terms of dollars and cents is irrelevant. What really matters is how efficiently the money is spent. You'd think we'd be astounded at the improvements all around, given that much moola flowed in. Tell me, what big differences have you noticed?
Hamilton should consider moving to New York (or Connecticut, or Massachusetts, or California). They really love their taxes there. Perhaps the reason that h-i-g-h-e-r t-a-x-e-s is DOA in so many other places is because people are getting tired of the concept of paying more and getting less. Or nothing at all, in the case of our recompense for the recent state-wide natural disasters.
Something else to consider: if Oklahoma were a swing state in an election year where the incumbent President needs every single vote - that federal check would have been cut and sent. Without delay.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
As is not uncommon with Rall's columns, he never seems quite coherent in making an argument. This one manages to completely contradict itself in the process of going from start to finish. Yes, Rall is pro-gun (really!). Gun control people are foolish, dishonest, and weak. Which is why we should repeal the Second Amendment.
In all its rambling, his column does manage to stumble across the truth occasionally: he acknowledges guns might be necessary to stop the "authoritarian march toward neofascism". Funny, Rall just agreed with those hoary old fossils, the Founding Fathers. They said exactly the same thing.
But that's about all he gets right. The rest of it is cheer-leading for the authoritarian march of the neofascists. Like to hunt? Live out in the country? Too bad! Rall isn't in either group so he's happy to throw us under the bus along with the Second Amendment. There's other niggling crap, like not being able to differentiate between a clip and a magazine and classifying a semi-auto as an assault weapon. If you know better, then you are used to these misnomers and chalk them up to someone who's too misinformed to know the difference and too lazy to find out.
There is a reason why public support of gun bans continues to erode. Gun bans don't work. There is also the sad historical fact that societies which give up the right to bear arms lose their freedom within 40 years.
We haven't "outgrown the right to bear arms", as Rall suggests. We never will. The only thing we can lose over time is the sense to acknowledge the real problem - societal breakdown - and the impetus to do anything about it. We're already well on our way to that. And when the breakdown is complete gun crime will be the least of our worries.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
Read All 60 Comments »
|
|
|
|
