Categories
media and media people Popular Second Amendment rights

MSNBC Goes Caracas?

Expressing the surprise in some quarters that Venezuelan despot “Maduro is hanging on,” MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell went to reporter Kerry Sanders to make sense of the tense situation in Caracas, that nation’s capital.

“Not only hanging on, but he appears to still control the military,” Sanders replied, explaining: “You have to understand, in Venezuela gun ownership is not something that’s open to everybody. So, if the military have the guns, they have the power, and as long as Nicolás Maduro controls the military, he controls the country.”

Oh, I certainly understand. In fact, I’ve never heard a more clear, concise and irrefutable argument for the importance of our Second Amendment right to bear arms. 

And this was on MSNBC … in broad daylight!

What wasn’t reported on the progressive network, but rather by the Free Beacon, is that Venezuela “banned private gun ownership in 2012 under Maduro’s authoritarian predecessor, Hugo Chavez.” 

“Under the new law,” the BBC noted at the time, “only the army, police and certain groups like security companies will be able to buy arms from the state-​owned weapons manufacturer and importer.”

That gun ban was described by the BBC as “the latest attempt by the government to improve security.” Indeed, by disarming the public, the security of the socialist dictatorship has obviously been greatly enhanced.

Later in the day, the Spanish-​language La Noche NTN24 tweeted a video of a government armored vehicle running over protesters — or, as MSNBC might remind us: unarmed protesters.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Venezuela, guns, 2nd Amendment, self defense. socialism, rights,

Photo credit: Diariocritico de Venezuela

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Just Like That!

“We will do that,” he said.

Do what?

“We will look at the average costs of prescription drugs in Canada, the UK, Germany, Japan and France,” says Sen. Bernie Sanders (I/​D‑Vt.), “which are 50 percent lower than they are in the United States,” he told Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation

And Sanders promises: “if I am elected president I’m going to cut prescription drug costs in this country by 50 percent so that we are not paying any more than other major countries are paying. Maybe we can do better than that.” 

When Ms. Brennan asked how, he replied as above — looking at “average costs” as directly priced to consumers (patients) —  and then … “we will do that.”

Socialism is so easy!

Why have we waited so long for utopia?

Well, saying is not the same as doing. We must think “beyond Stage One,” as Thomas Sowell advises. For if “Medicare for All” tells a company it will pay only so much for a drug, that company cannot just sell that drug and all others below cost. No wonder that in socialized medicine schemes around the world, not all drugs are even available.

The world prescription drug market is set up … peculiarly. Americans in effect pay more (because of patents and trade agreements) thereby covering development costs. If we pay less, others may have to pay more (which would be an odd thing for a “socialist” to want) and we would all come to get even less.

Bernie is no wizard, and socialism has no magic wand with which to wave away scarcity.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

socialism, magic wand, economics, healthcare, prescription drugs, drugs,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability meme national politics & policies Popular

Awful Aspirations

A funny thing happened on the way to voting on the Democrats’ Green New Deal (GND). With ‘earth in the balance,’ the proposal for fixing climate change — and so much more! — was granted its first procedural vote in the GOP-​controlled U.S. Senate.

It failed, 0 – 57.

Sen. Edward Markey (D‑Mass.), the Senate sponsor, along with 41 other Democrats* and independent Bernie Sanders, voted “present” to protest what he called “sabotage,” claiming Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R‑Ky.) “wants to silence your voice.” 

Au contraire! McConnell longed to hear Democrats sing the bill’s praises — loud, proud, and on the record.

After the vote, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-​Cortez (D‑N.Y.) absurdly made the opposite accusation: Republicans were “climate delaying … costing us lives + destroying communities.” 

Meanwhile, “If the Green New Deal came up for a vote in the Democrat-​controlled House,” USA Today reports, “it would have trouble passing.”

“It’s a list of aspirations,” says Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who does not plan to bring it to a vote. Though Democrats want to address climate change, the speaker points out that the “bill has many things that have nothing to do with climate.”

Rep. Elaine Luria, (D‑Va.) echoes Pelosi: “[T]he Green New Deal is aspirational.” Rep. Sean Casten, (D‑Ill.) adds, “The aspirations of the Green New Deal are great.”**

But is the GND something “great” to which Americans should aspire? 

Only if they yearn for government-​monopolized healthcare, free college tuition, micro-​management of the economy, and government providing everyone a job, except those who don’t want one … who would get a guaranteed income, regardless. 

I aspire to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


 * In the Senate, three Democrats — Sens. Doug Jones (Ala.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) — and independent Sen. Angus King (Maine) joined all 53 Republicans in voting No.

** All four House co-​chairs of the New Democrat Coalition’s Climate Change Task Force — Casten and Luria as well as Don Beyer, (D‑Va.) and Susan Wild, (D‑Pa.) — have come out in opposition to the GND. 

PDF for printing

Nancy Pelosi, New Green Deal, aspirations,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture too much government

Finns Fail at Fix

Finland’s government-​run health care system is a mess. 

This normally wouldn’t faze me much. I have to navigate our American mess, er, system. But Finland’s medical service delivery system is relevant to Americans — as is Denmark’s and Norway’s and Sweden’s — because the current crop of Democratic presidential hopefuls tout these “Scandinavian socialist” programs as models to follow.

Yet Finland’s program is in crisis.

How bad is it?

Bad enough for Finland’s government to fold early, before an election, with Prime Minister Juha Sipilä throwing in the towel earlier this month. He had been struggling “to get social and health-​care reforms that he made the cornerstone of his government’s four-​year term through parliament,” The Wall Street Journal informs us. Finland’s health care system is somewhat decentralized, and that quality of service varies district by district. Silipä had been trying to centralize administration while also allowing for some privatization.

Left-​leaning parties have balked at this, hence the impasse.

So, what is the lesson? A medical delivery system should be anti-fragile, capable of functioning despite incompetents or corrupt officials in government, despite voting blocs at loggerheads. A vast segment of the service industry should not be held in hock to the political machinations of special-​interest groups.

Behind all of it, though, is the looming demographic crisis: the population of Finland, like here in America and throughout the First World, is aging. This puts heavy stressors on welfare-​state systems run on a Ponzi-​like re-​distributive basis.* Of course costs will increase and service levels will fall, given how it’s all set up.

But once in place, government-​run medical systems do not heal themselves.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* An endemic problem for socialists, which they try to ignore. See “Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs, #Bernie2020 Hardest Hit.”

PDF for printing

Bernie Sanders, Finland, health care, socialism, single payer, costs, spending

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture Popular

The Ominous Linkages

What does a 16-​year-​old Swedish girl have in common with a popular 29-​year-​old U.S. Representative?

Environmentalism and socialism.

The young woman is Greta Thunberg, who spear-​headed a “global movement of schoolchildren striking to demand climate change action.” The Representative is AOC, er, Alexandria Ocasio-​Cortez (D‑N.Y.), who last month launched her “Green New Deal.”

Sixteen-​year-​old Thunberg has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Rep. AOC hasn’t been nominated yet, but if Barack Obama could be awarded a Nobel merely for being elected.…

But back to that linkage: the Swedish youngster was nominated by three adult members of the Socialist Left Party; AOC calls herself a socialist.*

But what’s the deeper link? 

The solution, apparently: socialists want to destroy capitalism, or at least commandeer it; and environmentalists obsessed about anthropogenic global warming believe it’s caused by burning fossil fuels and by bovine flatulence — both made worse by capitalism, which has allowed the masses (not just the elites) to harness petroleum for power as well as raise gigantic herds of cattle for eating and milk-​production. The direct control that socialism entails serves, say its advocates, as the only way to curtail carbon emissions.

A more likely story? Socialism would make us so much poorer that it is inconceivable that most of us would be able to afford to drive cars or eat steaks or drink milk.

Regardless of their so-​called “green” policy obsessions, Ms.Thunberg and Rep. AOC are green in a more profound sense, of lack of experience — the latter because she’s young, the former because she’s a miseducated ideologue.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* It is also worth noting that the much of AOC’s much-​ballyhooed Green New Deal has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with typical leftist social engineering.

New Green Deal, FAQ, socialism, environmentalism, global warming, climate change,

PDF for printing

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Green New Deal, socialism, Greta Thunberg,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture Popular too much government

The Hilarity of a Serious Threat

Is today’s politics tragic or comic?

Take the current Democratic Party obsession with socialism. There is nothing more tragic than full-​blown socialism: mind-​control and the snitch society; purges and mass starvation, with millions upon millions dead. But give them credit: the trendy new Democrats say they’re only for the Nordic Model of … well, the European term for it is social democracy.*

But they sure seem to push for evermore government.

Worse yet, they too often defend actual Communist countries — as Bernie Sanders (BS) has done.

This suggests an unfunny ending to their mad rush to power.

So the proud proclamations of the s‑label from BS and Alexandria Ocasio-​Cortez (AOC) should concern us, as should the eagerness with which the majority of Democratic presidential candidates have signed onto AOC’s over-​the-​top proposed takeover of the economy in her “Green New Deal.”

And yet … these politicians are absurd, on the face of it as well as when we drill down.

It’s hard not to regard absurdity as comic. 

The b.s. doesn’t end with BS.

Sure, our current president is a comic figure, too. And the pathetic nature of most GOP movers and shakers on Capitol Hill make them worthy of satire.

But it is also the case that Trump is funny in a way no one else is: he is playing a role and making many chortle. On purpose.

Too bad we couldn’t move him from the Presidency to a new Constitutional role, like Troll-​in-​Chief. There he could ensure, through mockery alone, what he promised in his State of the Union Address: America will never become a socialist country.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* Denmark, Sweden, etc., support extensive markets and a surprisingly hands-​off approach to business — comparable to that of the U.S., and in some ways more lax — combined with extremely high taxes and vast transfers of wealth. You could call this “democratic socialism,” but … why?

PDF for printing

socialism, comedy, tragedy, Bernie Sanders, democratic socialism

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts