tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post3226617428756366645..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Quick Roundup 267Gus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-71948069301178309612007-11-01T23:36:00.000-06:002007-11-01T23:36:00.000-06:00Thanks for the info on Gingrich.. I think much les...Thanks for the info on Gingrich.. I think much less of him for having read this.Clayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01355381643953755204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-81793979919634242942007-10-31T19:31:00.000-06:002007-10-31T19:31:00.000-06:00I thought that was a loud "Thump!" I heard a while...I thought that was a loud "Thump!" I heard a while ago coming from a general northeasterly direction!Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-17332350357478077962007-10-31T19:16:00.000-06:002007-10-31T19:16:00.000-06:00“AND Gingrich uses the term "stewardship" -- the B...“AND Gingrich uses the term "stewardship" -- the Biblical idea that man owns nothing on earth, but is only a caretaker -- to describe his justification for adopting the latest color in socialism.”<BR/><BR/>Doesn’t the bible also say something about man having dominion over the earth and all things on it? Here, here! Who said the Bible is all fiction?Joseph Kellardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05792444138935346026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-43848085518490690312007-10-31T18:08:00.000-06:002007-10-31T18:08:00.000-06:00Indeed, although I did not emphasize it much becau...Indeed, although I did not emphasize it much because it was really a non-essential detail, the Gingrich story was titled "An Inconvenient Newt" and mentioned the book you bring up.<BR/><BR/>AND Gingrich uses the term "stewardship" -- the Biblical idea that man owns nothing on earth, but is only a caretaker -- to describe his justification for adopting the latest color in socialism.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-76287528940009559532007-10-31T17:35:00.000-06:002007-10-31T17:35:00.000-06:00I remember back when Gingrich and his Contract Wit...I remember back when Gingrich and his Contract With America Republicans were at the center of Washington, after Hillary Care was successfully under attack during the mid-1990s. I recall that Leonard Peikoff noted on his radio show then that Gingrich said he admired FDR’s politics, or listed him as a favorite president—something along those lines. So Gingrich’s championing of the New Deal is no surprise to me. I’ve grown to completely distrust the man, as he comes off as a pure opportunist on a par with the Clintons—and he’s not even running for a political office. <BR/><BR/>My distrust was only deepened when I learned that Gingrich now has a new book out, called, I believe, Contract With The Earth. I saw him talk briefly about it on Fox News, or some such cable news channel, the other night, but I was half-asleep and don’t remember much—other than it sounded like he was conceding environmentalist BS but that he had “free market” solutions for our “problems,” such as “climate change.” I came across the book at a Barnes & Noble a day or two later, but didn’t bother to pick it up. Maybe now I’ll do so, just to see to what extent he’s spreading his opportunism. <BR/><BR/>Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: also saw Gingrich on Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Combs a couple of weeks ago. Again, I caught him briefly debating with the leftist Combs about the separation of church and state, and, typical conservative that he is, Gingrich felt that all he needed to do was point out that the Declaration of Independence mentions “A Creator”—and thus our Founding Fathers were raving Christians who wanted church to mix with government. End of debate. Well, it was for me; I changed channels.Joseph Kellardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05792444138935346026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-34783859655523516722007-10-31T14:09:00.000-06:002007-10-31T14:09:00.000-06:00JCW,"I sigh whenever I read about the Pork Busters...JCW,<BR/><BR/>"I sigh whenever I read about the Pork Busters campaign championed by Glenn Reynolds and others. 'How quaint' I think, 'and how hopeless'. I wish I could say I could not be more cynical about politicians and politics, but I am afraid it will get worse before it gets better."<BR/><BR/>It will, and it will require at least a decent number of intellectuals in Glenn Reynolds' position to notice that trimming away small attempts at vote-buying like Pork Busters will fail so long as the state can attempt electoral grand larceny trough Social Security, etc.<BR/><BR/>GB,<BR/><BR/>I think the reurgence of the Democrats is the direct result of the convergence between the two parties while the republicans were in power, yet ineffective (and pretending they were capitalists). I think that perhaps some people are already saying that "capitalism" (and "war") have failed and see the Democrats as an alternative to failure.<BR/><BR/>You may well get your wish come next November. If so, those of us who know that capitalism and self-defense were never actually tried must redouble our efforts to get the word out about the REAL alternative.<BR/><BR/>GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-76292327596359703252007-10-31T12:06:00.000-06:002007-10-31T12:06:00.000-06:00Gingrich's incentives idea isn't the first time I'...Gingrich's incentives idea isn't the first time I've heard it. New York City's Mayor Bloomberg has started a program to pay poor people for sending their kids to dentists, getting semi-decent grades, etc.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if some think tank has just cooked up this idea and now politicians of various stripes are beginning to sign on to it.<BR/><BR/>For the record, Bloomberg's idea at least has the virtue, for now, that it is funded solely (I believe) by private contributions. I am sure that will change fast once it has been allegedly "proven" that it works.<BR/><BR/>***<BR/><BR/>The way Gingrich says the New Deal was just an "incentives" program is really creepy. Since the Republicans are completely incapable of defending or even properly identifying a government based on individual rights, they think that by calling forms of statism freedom will actually make it so.<BR/><BR/>Thus, we get the "market-based" program to "trade" pollution credits, "incentives" paid out from stolen tax money, and subsidies to ethanol and wind energy producers that are couched in terms of national defense.<BR/><BR/>When I hear this kind of language, I yearn for a traditional left-winger to assume the political reins. At least the leftist (more or less) properly identifies what he stands for. When he says he wants to soak the rich to give money to the poor, his words are consistent with his actions. When those policies fail, those ideas are discredited.<BR/><BR/>In contrast, people still perceive Gingrich, et al., as somehow advocates for a free market. So when their thoroughly statist policies fail, as they must, capitalism gets blamed once again.<BR/><BR/>Are people beginning to see through this Republican charade just a little bit now? Does that, in part, explain the recent rise of the Democrats and disarray of the Republicans?Galileo Blogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592692929747610846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-90960217740880671722007-10-31T11:56:00.000-06:002007-10-31T11:56:00.000-06:00Regarding your comment on the Sowell article. I co...Regarding your comment on the Sowell article. I completely agree that voters could stop it, but not easily. We live in an echo chamber of collectivism and government intervention - it's everywhere. CNN reports daily on some government program or law or bureaucrat that wasn't doing enough to regulate some human activity. Another news item will trot out some poor situation that demands some government intervention and if a child is involved, how can we resist?<BR/><BR/>John Stossel, and of course a few columnists like Thomas Sowell, are the only exceptions who actually explore the effectiveness and logic of these government interventions. They will talk about the unintended consequences of laws and regulations when no others will. This may be a sign of the death of MSM, but these ideas are still too strong to defeat so far. I am an optimist, but its amazing how strong philosophical ideas are even in the face of amoral pragmatism. Ayn Rand was so right and I have to admit there was a time I was sympathetic to libertarianism - not any more. Politicians are all at the back of the parade and have been for decades.<BR/><BR/>I sigh whenever I read about the Pork Busters campaign championed by Glenn Reynolds and others. "How quaint" I think, "and how hopeless". I wish I could say I could not be more cynical about politicians and politics, but I am afraid it will get worse before it gets better.<BR/><BR/>The article is good, however, and I think it is essential that information and analysis such as this gets out there. People have to be told and reminded that the status quo is not working and the solution can only be found in bold new thinking.johnnycwesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10746767404567772212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-72500169206881907502007-10-31T10:02:00.000-06:002007-10-31T10:02:00.000-06:00Basically, since the Republicans generally do not ...Basically, since the Republicans generally do not espouse the principle that government exists to protect individual rights, anything they do right will, in the short term, be almost entirely by accident (and thus likely to be implemented inconsistently and temporarily).Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-14995284832088550202007-10-31T09:16:00.000-06:002007-10-31T09:16:00.000-06:00Right on about Gingrich. Almost the only good econ...Right on about Gingrich. Almost the only good economic thing about Republicans lately has been their support for tax cuts but as I pointed out <A HREF="http://armchairintellectual.blogspot.com/2007/10/supply-side-economics-as-substitute-for.html" REL="nofollow">recently</A>, apparently they consider the primary use and benefit of such tax cuts to be an increase in the government revenues. Sadly, there seems to be no one interested in actually shrinking the size of government at all.Gideonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02806423185226885594noreply@blogger.com