Why is it, I wonder, that when one speaks of the mass-man, one is always taken to mean the poor man or the workingman? I am glad to see that Ortega y Gasset goes out of his way to puncture this error. If one wished to cite a perfect specimen of the mass-man, one would cite Henry Ford, Hoover, John D. Rockefeller.
Democrats and their many shills in the major media decry Republican intransigence and “absolutism” on the “settled matter” (un)popularly known as Obamacare. Yesterday, rather than give an inch to the House Republicans they accuse of intransigence, Senate Democrats voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, including their own special exemption from it.
The House majority had been demanding the defunding of Obamacare as the price for keeping the government funded overall, but dropped that demand when Senate Democrats shook their heads No. Perhaps Republicans backpedalled because they surmised that they, not Democrats, would likely be blamed for the shut-down . . . Sen. Ted Cruz’s valiant efforts to re-define the debate notwithstanding.
Then Republicans downshifted, demanding a one-year delay in the implementation of Obamacare — granting to regular citizens, as Cruz puts it, the same solicitude Democrats have shown to big corporations — plus the deletion of a widely unpopular tax on medical devices and the repossession of Congress’s “Get-Out-of-Obamacare-Free” card.
Senate Democrats took less than half an hour to thumb their noses at the House, nixing all three provisions and leaving the federal government liable to partial shut-down. Obamacare, at least for the un-politically-connected, starts in earnest today!
Comedian Bill Maher is not alone in chiding Republicans for “refusing to admit” they “lost.”
Republicans, for their part, predict utter devastation from the reform bill’s implementation, and don’t see why the country should suffer from the Democrats’ intransigence.
If Tea Party-inclined Republicans do lose this battle and Obamacare’s bad results do pile up — increasing unemployment and depression, skyrocketing insurance rates, diminished private medical insurance rolls — would the Democrats concede that they’ve lost?
Or would they continue to think they’ve won?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
The New York City Opera — the one that just produced an opera about Anna Nicole Smith — may close its doors soon unless it comes up with seven million dollars. That’s the gist of a New York Times story that doubles as an appeal to philanthropic opera buffs.
From comments at the site we learn that some readers feel that the opera house has been mismanaged. Others issue instructions to various deep-pocketed luminaries, telling them that here’s their chance do something for the city and their own legacy. Others heatedly defend the “Anna Nicole” opera against detractors.
Then we have this remark, from someone who calls himself BullMoose: “Tell me again how private charity works better than government subsidies.” That’s it. No argument, just a hit-and-run exclamation of ideological discontent with private enterprises, which don’t invariably succeed. Government-subsidized enterprises don’t necessarily succeed either; but the dole can keep them in operation regardless of whether they are doing something worth doing and doing it well enough to please customers willing to pay.
Private charity works better than funds forcibly extracted from me and other taxpayers because private charity is voluntary. When our contributions are voluntary, it means we don’t have to support artistic or other projects that we have no interest in and may even oppose. We are free to use our own judgment, devoting our limited resources to the things we care about . . . instead of the things BullMoose cares about.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Price-regulation by State authority (through State purchase, like our Farm Board) was tried in China about 350 B.c. It did not work. It was tried again, with State distribution, in the first century A.D., and did not work. Private trading was suppressed in the second century B.C., and regional planning was tried a little later. They did not work; the costs were too high. In the eleventh century A.D., a plan like the R.F.C. was tried, but again cost too much. State monopolies are very old; there were two in China in the seventh century B.C. I suppose there is not a single item on the modern politician’s agenda that was not tried and found wanting ages ago
This weekend on Townhall, your Common Sense columnist reacts to a polite rebuff. From a very busy incumbent. Click on over, then back here to read the original correspondence.
Here is the original correspondence sent to Virginia pols: http://www.citizensincharge.org/blog/neal/citizens-in-charge-launches-ir-pledge-in-virginia
Here is the letter I received, but with the delegate’s name and particulars elided:
Want to see who this delegate is? I’ll place the original letter I received up on my Facebook page.
A famous astronomer is perhaps most famous for his soundbites. As he sees it, he’s doing his part for education.
Neil deGrasse Tyson on the art of the soundbite from Maria Popova on Vimeo.
In a world where people often complain about politicians “talking in soundbites,” it’s worth keeping Neil deGrasse Tyson’s acceptance of the form in mind.
Dear Reader: This “BEST of Common Sense” comment originally aired on August 8, 2003, and has been repeated at least once. Dr. Seuss’s “Green Eggs and Ham” is in the news again, and I thought I’d jump message and divert your attention away from inane fun-poking to the important issue of “getting used to” what’s good for us. —PJ
“Do you like green eggs and ham? . . . Try them! Try them! And you may. Try them and you may, I say.”
Same goes for politicians and term limits. When state legislators ever-so-reluctantly try term limits, turns out that they actually like green eggs and ham, that is, term limits, better than state legislators who aren’t term-limited.
I read an endless stream of stories about how politicians, about to be term-limited, say the limits aren’t working. News flash: Politicians have always hated term limits. But now a survey commissioned by the National Conference of State Legislatures finds something surprising: there is more support for term limits among legislators in term-limited states than there is among politicians who have no actual experience with term limits.
Think about that. When asked whether term limits “promote healthy change” or “don’t work,” legislators serving under term limits in their state were 50 percent more likely to see term limits in positive terms than their unlimited colleagues.
“Say! I like green eggs and ham! I do! I like them, Sam-I-am!”
Well, I guess we shouldn’t get carried away. Even in term-limited states, legislators oppose the limits by a margin of nearly four to one. Term limits were designed to please voters, not legislators.
Still, good to know that for legislators under term limits, the idea is starting to grow on them.
Ever so slowly.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
When a man is treated like a beast, he says, ‘After all, I’m human.’ When he behaves like a beast, he says ‘After all, I’m only human.’
Republican Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe each closed their arguments in last night’s Virginia gubernatorial debate with passion, gusto, and verve — but not for why voters should trust them to run state government for the next four years. Instead, each made the case why voters ought not trust the other guy.
“My opponent talks a lot about experience,” McAuliffe argued, “but his experience has been in dividing people by pursuing his own ideological agenda, introducing legislation that would outlaw most common forms of birth control. . . . Frankly, I think Virginia women have had just about enough of Ken Cuccinelli’s experience.”
Cuccinelli attacked his opponent’s business record, charging that McAuliffe had “driven jobs from the state,” adding, “Terry sold more visas to Chinese citizens as part of GreenTech than his failed company has sold [electric] cars. Terry will fight for Terry. . . .”
Those same messages are carpet-bombing across the commonwealth in 30-second spots. We’re told by each man that the other is unfit.
Both gents are on to something. And, not surprisingly, polls show more voters have a negative view of Cuccinelli than positive, with McAuliffe faring only slightly better.
Too bad Virginians are stuck with just these two unpopular choices!
Wait . . . what? Who? Well, yes, there is the Libertarian Party nominee Robert Sarvis.
I guess he didn’t have the 5 or 10 percent in the polls to be invited, but with voters so disgusted with the Elephant and Donkey Party nominees, why not give him a chance?
Wait, the latest Washington Post/Abt SRBI poll shows Sarvis with 10 percent support. Oh, maybe that’s why he wasn’t invited.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
I have done nothing more than show that there is a distinction between an urn and a chamber pot and that it is this distinction above all that provides culture with elbow room. The others, those who fail to make this distinction, are divided into those who use the urn as chamber pot and those who use the chamber pot as urn.